Assessing learning and memory among patients with pediatric brain tumor (PBT): a comparison of measures

ABSTRACT

Patients with pediatric brain tumor (PBT) can have memory deficits due to tumor location, medical complications, and treatment. The main objective of this study was to investigate whether the California Verbal Learning Test-Children’s Version (CVLT-C; 1994) and briefer Child and Adolescent Memory Profile (ChAMP; 2015) similarly identify such deficits. Seventy-five patients with PBT ages 8–16 ($\bar{\mathrm{x}}$ = 13.1 years, SD = 2.1) were administered the ChAMP or CVLT-C. Rote verbal learning, long-term retrieval, and recognition were analyzed using standardized z-scores. Analyses of differences between measures did not reach statistical significance. Both measures indicated significant downward shifts across free retrieval trials from normative means, with scores approximately 1/3 (ChAMP) to 1/2 (CVLT-C) SD below means across learning and long-term retrieval trials. Scores on recognition trials did not differ significantly from the normative mean. Post-hoc analyses using a subset of the sample who received cranial irradiation (n = 45) similarly found no significant differences between memory measures. Additional post-hoc examination of proportion of participants falling within or below the “below average” range (≤8th percentile) revealed comparable performance between the two measures, whereas the proportion of participants falling at or below 1.5 SDs below the mean on retrieval trials was lower using ChAMP Lists as compared to the CVLT-C. Given the ChAMP is less demanding in terms of time and effort and utilizes more updated and representative normative data, this study supports the ChAMP as a useful tool to evaluate learning and memory within this population.

KEYWORDS:

• Cancer
• pediatric neuropsychology
• verbal learning
• memory assessment

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the patients who participated in this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Author contribution statement

AMW designed the study. KH and AMW completed data collection. ZBW and AMW performedstatistical analyses. AMW, KH, and ZBW interpreted findings. All authors prepared, read, and approved the final manuscript.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported that there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.