Handout

The University of British Columbia
OLDER ADULTS’ LEARNING, MEMORY, AND COPY PERFORMANCE ON THE
REY-OSTERRIETH AND MODIFIED TAYLOR COMPLEX FIGURES
Anita M. Hubley
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Neuropsychology,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, October 13-16, 2010
Funding: This study has been supported by research funds from the University of British
Columbia.
Correspondence: Dr. Anita M. Hubley, Dept. of ECPS, 2125 Main Mall, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4; E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The Rey-Osterrieth (ROCF) and Modified Taylor (MTCF) complex figures
generally produce comparable accuracy scores on learning, memory, and copy in
adults, although Hubley (2010) raises questions about the comparability of copy scores
in older adults. Hubley also found no gender differences in accuracy scores on either
figure, small and nonsignificant correlations between figure performance and age on
both figures, small and positive correlations between figure performance and education
that were generally nonsignificant on both figures, and no statistically significant
differences between the ROCF and the MTCF among each set of correlations. The
purposes of this study were to examine, in older adults, whether the two figures show
comparable (a) accuracy scores on learning, memory, and copy, and (b) correlations
between accuracy scores and demographic variables (gender, age, and education)
using a between-groups design and an intentional learning procedure.
INTRODUCTION
The Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure (ROCF; Rey, 1941 – see left side of Figure
1) is one of the most commonly used measures of visuospatial abilities in
neuropsychological practice. Most commonly, the clinician or researcher wants to
evaluate visuospatial functioning more than once, although some may simply wish to
use an alternate figure to which a patient or subject has not been exposed. To minimize
practice effects associated with using the same complex figure twice, it is recommended
practice to use a different, but equally difficult, complex figure. The Modified Taylor
Page 1 of 6
Complex Figure (MTCF; Hubley, 1998; Hubley & Tremblay, 2002 – see right side of
Figure 1) was developed to serve as a comparable alternate figure to the ROCF.
Several studies (Hubley & Jassal, 2006; Hubley & Tremblay, 2002; Yamashita, 2006)
have reported comparable accuracy score performance on the ROCF and the MTCF
when a between-groups design with either an incidental or intentional learning paradigm
or a within-subjects design with an intentional learning paradigm have been used.
Hubley and Tombaugh (2003) noted that surprisingly little research comparing
alternate forms of complex figures has been conducted with older adults. To date, it
appears that only one study comparing the ROCF and MTCF has focused solely on this
age group. Using a between-groups design with an incidental learning procedure in a
group of community-dwelling older adults ages 55-78 years, Hubley (2010) found
comparable accuracy score performance on immediate and delayed recall, but
significantly better performance (by 1.6 out of 36 points) on the MTCF than ROCF at
copy. She also reported no gender differences in accuracy scores on either figure, small
nonsignificant correlations between accuracy scores and age on both figures, small
positive and (with one exception) nonsignificant correlations between figure
performance and education on both figures, and similar patterns of correlations with
both figures.
The aims of the present study were to examine, in older adults, whether the
ROCF and MTCF showed (a) comparable accuracy scores on learning, memory, and
copy, and (b) similar correlations between accuracy scores and demographic variables
(i.e., gender, age, and education) using a between-groups design and an intentional
learning procedure.
METHOD
Participants
The sample consisted of 86 adults (18 men, 68 women), ages 55-78 (M = 66.3;
SD = 5.99) with 8-21 (M = 14.9, SD = 2.70) years of education, recruited from the
general community. Individuals who scored lower than 24 on the Mini-Mental State
Examination (MMSE) or higher than 12 on the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) were
excluded from the study.
Procedure
A between-groups design was used wherein participants received either the
ROCF (n = 43) or the MTCF (n = 43). An intentional learning procedure, with four
learning trials followed by 20-minute delayed recall and then copy, was employed.
Figures were scored using the standard 36-point accuracy scoring systems (see Lezak
et al., 2004).
Page 2 of 6
RESULTS
Table 1 shows accuracy score performance on the four learning trials, total
acquisition, delayed recall trial, and copy trial for the ROCF and MTCF. Statistical
analyses (i.e., independent samples t-tests, Mann-Whitney U nonparametric tests, and
two-way Figure x Trials mixed model ANOVA, as appropriate) indicated that there were
no significant score differences between the figures on any of the trials.
Table 2 shows the correlations between accuracy scores and the demographic
variables on learning, memory, and copy trials for each figure. Correlations between
accuracy scores and (a) gender were low (rpb = -.17 to .10), (b) age were low to
moderate (r = -.43 to .16) and (c) education were low to moderate (r = .27 to .50).
Importantly, the results of the Fisher Z-test showed that there were no significant
differences between the figures in these correlations.
CONCLUSION
The results of this study indicate that learning, memory, and copy accuracy
scores on the ROCF and MTCF are comparable in older adults when an intentional
learning procedure is used. These results are consistent with previous research
indicating that the ROCF and the MTCF produce comparable accuracy scores in
samples of younger adults (Hubley & Tremblay, 2002; Yamashita, 2006) and in a mixed
age adult sample (Hubley & Jassal, 2006) using incidental and intentional learning
procedures. These results are also generally consistent with Hubley’s (2010) study with
older adults but, unlike that study, the current study found no significant score
differences between the figures on the copy trial.
Accuracy scores on both figures showed low nonsignificant point-biserial
correlations with gender. This finding is consistent with the majority of research on
gender differences in complex figures (see Hubley & Tombaugh, 2003; Hubley, 2010).
Correlations between accuracy scores on both figures and age tended to be negative
and small to moderate in magnitude. This finding is consistent with Hubley (2010), with
the relatively lower correlations than seen in other research likely reflecting the
restricted age range present in samples of older adults. Correlations between accuracy
scores on both figures and education were positive and small to moderate in magnitude.
These findings are consistent with those of Hubley’s (2010) study of older adults and
larger in magnitude than other studies (e.g., Hubley & Jassal, 2006), suggesting the
importance of education in this age group.
More importantly, none of the correlations between complex figure performance
and each of the demographic variables was statistically significantly different between
the ROCF and the MTCF in the present study. Only four studies appear to have
conducted comparability studies by examining the respective patterns of correlations
between performance on different complex figures and demographic variables (Frazier
et al., 2001; Hubley, 2010; Hubley & Jassal, 2006; Vingerhoets et al., 1998). In the only
previous studies comparing the ROCF and the MTCF, Hubley (2010) and Hubley and
Page 3 of 6
Jassal (2006) also found similar patterns of correlations between the ROCF and the
MTCF.
REFERENCES
Frazier, T. W., Adams, N. L., Strauss, M. E., & Redline, S. (2001). Comparability of the Rey and
Mack forms of the Complex Figure Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 15, 337–344.
Hubley, A.M. (1998). Scoring system for the Modified Taylor Complex Figure (MTCF).
Unpublished research. University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC.
Hubley, A. M. (2010). Using the Rey-Osterrieth and Modified Taylor Complex Figures with older
adults: A preliminary examination of accuracy score comparability. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 25, 197-203.
Hubley, A. M., & Jassal, S. (2006). Comparability of the Rey-Osterrieth and Modified Taylor
Complex Figures using total scores, completion times, and construct validation. Journal of
the International Neuropsychological Society, 28, 1482-1497.
Hubley, A. M., & Tombaugh, T. N. (2003). Comparability of the Rey-Osterrieth and Taylor
Complex Figures. In J. A. Knight and E. F. Kaplan (Eds.), The handbook of Rey-Osterrieth
Complex Figure usage:Clinical and research applications (pp. 265-278). Lutz, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Hubley, A.M., & Tremblay, D. (2002). Comparability of total score performance on the ReyOsterrieth Complex Figure and a Modified Taylor Complex Figure. Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology, 24, 370-382.
Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., and Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rey, A. (1941). L’examen psychologie dan les cas d’encephalopathie traumatique (Les
problemes) Archives de Psychologie, 28, 286-340.
Vingerhoets, G., Lannoo, E., & Wolters, M. (1998). Comparing the Rey–Osterrieth and Taylor
Complex Figures: Empirical data and meta-analysis. Psychologica Belgica, 38, 109–119.
Yamashita, H. (2006). Comparability of the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure, the Taylor Complex
Figure, and the Modified Taylor Complex Figure in a normal sample of Japanese
speakers. Psychological Reports, 99, 531–534.
Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest: Dr. Hubley is the developer of the Modified Taylor
Complex Figure (MTCF). She holds the copyright on this figure, although she has made the
figure freely available for use in research and clinical practice.
Page 4 of 6
Figure 1: Left: Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure; Right: Modified Taylor Complex Figure
Table 1
Accuracy Score Performance (M, SD) on the Rey-Osterrieth and Modified Taylor
Complex Figures
Trials
Figure
n
ROCF
M
SD
43
MTCF
M
SD
43
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Trial 4
Tot.
Acq.
20-min.
Delayed
Recall
14.5
(4.70)
20.6
(5.72)
24.0
(5.42)
26.0
(5.63)
84.6
(19.50)
25.3
(5.40)
31.2
(3.67)
14.9
(4.66)
19.7
(5.52)
23.4
(5.63)
25.8
(5.45)
82.0
(21.20)
25.1
(5.26)
31.3
(3.01)
Copy
Note. ROCF = Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure; MTCF = Modified Taylor Complex Figure; Tot.
Acq. = Total Acquisition (summed across Trials 1-4; out of 144).
Page 5 of 6
Table 2
Correlations between Demographic Variables and Performance
on the Rey-Osterrieth and Modified Taylor Complex Figures
Demographic
Variables
ROCF
MTCF
Fisher’s Z-test
Trial 1
Gender
-.03
.10
Z = 0.58, n.s.
Age
-.15
-.43b
Z = 1.38, n.s.
.27
.29
Z = 0.10, n.s.
Education
Total Acquisition
Gender
-.11
-.04
Z = 0.32, n.s.
Age
-.19
-.38a
Z = 0.93, n.s.
.28
Z = 1.17, n.s.
Education
.50b
Delayed Recall Trial
Gender
-.17
-.06
Z = 0.50, n.s.
Age
-.22
-.20
Z = 0.09, n.s.
Education
.42b
.31a
Z = 0.57, n.s.
Copy Trial
Gender
.05
.02
Z = 0.13, n.s.
Age
-.05
.16
Z = 0.95, n.s.
Education
.33a
.45b
Z = 0.63, n.s.
Note: a p < .05; b p < .01; n = 43 per figure; ROCF = Rey-Osterrieth
Complex Figure; MTCF = Modified Taylor Complex Figure; Tot. Acq. =
Total Acquisition (summed across Trials 1-4); Gender: 1 = male, 2 =
female; Education = in years Pearson correlations are reported for age
and education whereas point-biserial correlations are reported for gender.
Page 6 of 6

Download Report