The classification accuracy of Warrington’s recognition memory test (words) as a performance validity Test in a neurorehabilitation setting

Abstract

This study was designed to evaluate the classification accuracy of the Warrington’s Recognition Memory Test (RMT) in 167 patients (97 or 58.1% men; M_Age = 40.4; M_Education= 13.8) medically referred for neuropsychological evaluation against five psychometrically defined criterion groups. At the optimal cutoff (≤42), the RMT produced an acceptable combination of sensitivity (.36-.60) and specificity (.85-.95), correctly classifying 68.4-83.3% of the sample. Making the cutoff more conservative (≤41) improved specificity (.88-.95) at the expense of sensitivity (.30-.60). Lowering the cutoff to ≤40 achieved uniformly high specificity (.91-.95) but diminished sensitivity (.27-.48). RMT scores were unrelated to lateral dominance, education, or gender. The RMT was sensitive to a three-way classification of performance validity (Pass/Borderline/Fail), further demonstrating its discriminant power. Despite a notable decline in research studies focused on its classification accuracy within the last decade, the RMT remains an effective free-standing PVT that is robust to demographic variables. Relatively low sensitivity is its main liability. Further research is needed on its cross-cultural validity (sensitivity to limited English proficiency).

Keywords:

• Classification accuracy
• performance validity
• Warrington’s recognition memory test

Disclosure statement

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

Author note

Relevant ethical guidelines were followed throughout the project. All data collection, storage and processing was done with the approval of relevant institutional authorities regulating research involving human participants, in compliance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments or comparable ethical standards. This research did not receive any financial support from external sources.

Additional information

Funding

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