ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº

Brain Injury: (das Nair et al., (n.d.); n = 328 (n = 171 in intervention group and 157 in control group), age range = 18-69; TBI > 3 months prior to recruitment w/reported memory problems assessed at 6 and 12 months; intervention: 10 weekly sessions of memory rehabilitation; control group = usual care only)

• General Memory Index < 69 indicates significant memory impairment 
• General Memory Index between 70 to 84 indicates borderline/moderate memory impairment 
• General Memory Index > 85 indicates average and above average range

Stroke: (Man & Li, 2002; n = 86; Chinese version of RBMT (RBMT-CV))

• Excellent test-retest reliability (t = 23.4; p = 0.002)

Stroke: (Man & Li, 2002)

• Excellent: Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.859

Predictive validity:

Stroke: (Man & Li, 2002)

• Adequate predictive validity of the RMBT was demonstrated through follow-up of stroke patients and correlation of their memory function with their functional status (Spearman¡¯s rho = 0.415; p = 0.012)

Concurrent validity:

Stroke: (Man & Li, 2002)

• Excellent concurrent validity of the RBMT with the Chinese version of the Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE) (rho = 0.86; p = 0.000)

Convergent validity: 

Healthy Elderly Population: (Steibel et al., 2016; n = 233; age > 60; mean age = 70.7 (7.9) years; female = 205) 

• Poor convergent validity between the RBMT and Educational level (r = 0.240)
• Adequate negative convergent validity between the RBMT and Age (r = -0.329)

Discriminant validity:

Healthy Elderly Population: (Steibel et al., 2016) 

• Significant ability of the RBMT to discriminate between younger (< 69 year) and older (combined 70-79 and > 80 age groups), with those < 69 having lower scores (p  < 0.001)
• Significant ability of the RBMT to discriminate between low (< 8 years) and high (> 8 years) education groups, with lower scores for the low education group (p < 0.001)

Healthy Adults: (Wester, 2014; n = 141 healthy adults, age range = 18-77 years; Dutch language version of RBMT-3) 

Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of the performance on the 14 subtests for the two parallel versions of the RBMT-3

IR = Immediate recall; DR = Delayed recall

Healthy Adults: (Wester, 2014) 

• Adequate: Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.68 for the 14 subtests

Convergent Validity: 

Healthy Adults: (Wester, 2014) 

• Adequate convergent validity between the RBMT-3 Memory Index (MI) and Verbal IQ (R² = 0.381, b* = 0.290, t = -3.658, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [0.005, 0.018])
• Adequate convergent validity between MI score and Age (R² = 0.381, b* = -0.542, t = -7.124, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [-0.025, -0.014]), with 38% of the variance in MI predicted by age.

Construct validity:

Healthy Adults: (Wester, 2014) 

• Adequate construct validity of the RBMT from principal components analysis: the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.682 and Bartlett¡¯s test of sphericity was significant, X²(91) = 617.314, p  < 0.001. These figures reflect high sampling adequacy, indicating that the 14 subtests together constitute a one-dimensional scale.

Mild to Moderate Dementia, Mild Cognitive Impairment, & Healthy Controls: (Fong et al., 2019; n = 100 (29 patients w/mild to moderate dementia, 34 persons at risk for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 37 matched older adults as healthy control group); age ¡Ý 60; mean age = 70.39 (7.75) years; female = 66 (66%); Hong Kong version of RBMT-3)

• Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) vs. Healthy Controls (NC) cut-off scaled score: ¡Ü 131.5 (73% sensitivity, 50% specificity)
• MCI vs. Mild Dementia: ¡Ü 102.5 (100% sensitivity, 100% specificity)
• Mild vs. Moderate Dementia: ¡Ü 41.5 (94.1% sensitivity, 50% specificity)

Mild Cognitive Impairment, Alzheimer Disease & Healthy Controls: (Bollo-Gasol et al., 2012; n = 91; age > 60 years; mean age = 74.29 (6.71) years; female = 51 (56%); Patients examined in the dementia diagnostic unit; RBMT)

• Total RBMT Profile Score
  • Control (n  =30) vs. Alzheimer Disease (AD) (n = 34) cut-off score: 9.5 (93.3% sensitivity; 94.1% specificity)
  • Control vs. Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) (n = 27) cut-off score: 11.5 (67.6% sensitivity; 69.5% specificity)
• Total RBMT Screening Score
  • Control vs. AD cut-off screening score: 4.5 (93.3% sensitivity; 94.1% specificity)
  • Control vs. MCI cut-off screening score: 5.5 (69.0% sensitivity; 64.3% specificity)

Korsakoff Syndrome (KS), Cognitively Impaired Chronic Alcoholics (ALC), & Healthy Controls (CON): (Wester et al., 2013a; n = 151 (KS: n = 49, mean age = 55.6 (6.4), male = 76%; ALC: n = 49, mean age = 55.0 (6.7), male = 71%; Healthy Controls (CON): n = 53, mean age = 54.9 (7.2), male = 51%)

• KS vs ALC Global Memory Index (GMI) cut-off score: <67.5 (80% sensitivity; 69% specificity)
• ALC vs CON GMI cut-off score: 87.5 (80% sensitivity; 62% specificity)

Dementia, Stroke, Alcohol-related Disorders, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), & Elderly Controls: (Van Balen et al., 1996; n = 680 patients admitted within a one-year period to 35 health care services in The Netherlands and to six hospitals in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium; n = 214 healthy elderly controls; Dutch translation of RBMT)

Mean (SD) Screening and Standardized Profile Scores on the RBMT for Different RBMT Norm Groups

Mild to Moderate Dementia, Mild Cognitive Impairment, & Healthy Controls: (Fong et al., 2019)

• Excellent: Cronbach¡¯s alpha for Dementia group = 0.832
• Adequate: Cronbach¡¯s alpha for Mild Cognitive Impairment group = 0.734
• Poor: Cronbach¡¯s alpha for healthy controls = 0.643  

Predictive validity:

Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Dementia: (Johansson & Wressle, 2012; n = 105; Population with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n = 32, mean age (range) = 72 (45-91) years, male = 17), mild dementia (MD) (n = 47, mean age (range) = 75 (61-87) years, male = 25), or non-dementia (ND) (n = 26, mean age (range) = 64 (37-77) years, male = 13); RBMT)

• The RBMT has its highest positive predictive validity in the diagnosis of mild dementia at a cut-off of 5/6 (88% for positive predictive validity and 63% for negative predictive validity)

Concurrent validity:

Mild to Moderate Dementia, Mild Cognitive Impairment, & Healthy Controls: (Fong et al., 2019)

• Adequate concurrent validity of the RBMT-3 with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (r = 0.359, p = 0.043) for the MCI group, but the RBMT-3 was not significantly associated with the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) (r = 0.322, p < .072)
• Excellent concurrent validity of the RBMT-3 for the dementia group with both the MMSE (r = 0.724, p < .001) and the MoCA (r = 0.636, p < .006)

Discriminant validity:

Korsakoff Syndrome (KS), Cognitively Impaired Chronic Alcoholics (ALC), and Healthy Controls: (Wester et al., 2013a)

• Adequate discriminant ability of the RBMT-3 to distinguish KS patients from those with chronic alcoholism. 
  • AUC = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.78-0.93; p < 0.0005
• Adequate discriminant ability of the RBMT-3 to distinguish those with chronic alcoholism from healthy controls
  • AUC = 0.83: 95% CI: 0.75-0.91; p < 0.0005

Construct validity:

Mixed Populations: (Wilson, et al., 2008; n = 408 (333 normative controls (female = 172, mean age = 44.3, age range = 16-89) and 75 patients (TBI = 19, Stroke = 24, Encephalitis = 20, Progressive Conditions = 12))  

• Factor analytic results confirmed the construct validity of forming a general memory index; value not given (Wilson et al., 2008)

Alcohol-related Memory Impairment & Healthy Adults: (Wester et al., 2013b; n = 50 (25 patients with alcohol-related memory impairment (including 15 Korsakoff patients): mean age = 56.2 (7.0), male = 17 and 25 healthy adults: mean age = 42.6 (13.0), male = 16); Dutch translation of RBMT-3)

• Excellent: no floor effects for healthy adults on all RBMT-3 subtests
• Excellent: no floor effects for patients on the Pictures, Faces, Route (Immediate), Route (Delayed), Message (Delayed), Orientation, Novel Task (Immediate), and Novel Task (Delayed)
• Adequate floor effects of < 20% for patients on Belonging (4%) and Message (Immediate) (4%) subtests 
• Poor floor effects of ¡Ý 20% for patients on the following subtests: Names (20%) and Appointment (24%)
• Poor ceiling effects of ¡Ý 20% for healthy adults on all RBMT-3 subscales except for Novel Task (Immediate)
• Adequate ceiling effect of < 20% for healthy adults on the Novel Task (Immediate) subscale
• Excellent: no ceiling effects for patients for the Faces, Route (Immediate), Route (Delayed), and Novel Task (Immediate) subscales
• Adequate ceiling effects of < 20% for patients on the Names (8%), Orientation (4%), and Novel Task (Delayed) (8%) subtests
• Poor ceiling effects of ¡Ý 20% for patients on the following subtests: Belonging (32%), Appointment (24%), Pictures (32%), Message (Immediate) (32%), Message (Delayed) (20%)

Korsakoff Syndrome (KS), Cognitively Impaired Chronic Alcoholics (ALC), and Healthy Controls (HC): (Wester et al., 2013a)

• Large Change between Korsakoff patients and healthy controls for all RBMT-3 subtests (d = -0.92 to -4.03)
• Moderate Change between Cognitively Impaired Alcoholics and Healthy Controls on RBMT-3 subtests: Story Recall (Immediate) (d = -0.51), Story Recall (Delayed) (d = -0.45), Messages (Immediate) (d = -0.44), and Orientation and Date (d = -0.59)
• Large Change between Cognitively Impaired Alcoholics and Healthy Controls on RBMT-3 subtests: Names (d = -0.89), Belonging (d = -0.82), Appointment (d = -0.99), Picture Recognition (Delayed) (d = -0.93), Face Recognition (Delayed) (d = -1.64), Route Recall (Immediate) (d = -0.90), Route Recall (Delayed) (d = -1.20), Messages (Delayed) (d = -0.81), Novel Task (Immediate) (d = -0.93), Novel Task (Delayed) (d = -0.81), and Global Memory Index (d = -1.39)