Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2011 Dec 19;18(2):223–233. doi: 10.1017/S135561771100155X

Table 4.

Contextual Analysis Results

Variable Reference constructs

Memory Gp Gc Gv Educ Age
English speakers (n = 296)
Source recognition (n = 293) .22* −.16 .18 −.08 −.10 0.16
CTT1 (n = 290) −.14 .28* −.31* −.03 .06 0.08
CTT2 (n = 287) −.07 .33* −.35* −.14 .04 0.07
CTT difference (n = 287) .01 .25* −.24* −.17 .00 0.42
Letter fluency (n = 292) .30* .01 .33* .02 .13 0.02
Category fluency (n = 293) .22* −.05 .31* .01 .09 −0.16*
VMI (n = 290) −.01 −.21* .12 .25* .05 0.07
Spanish speakers (n = 328)
Source recognition (n = 325) .24* .11 −.02 −.11 −.01 −0.12
CTT1 (n = 326) −.07 .40* −.21 −.08 −.05 −0.01
CTT2 (n = 315) −.10 .35* −.19 −.19 −.05 0.10
CTT difference (n = 315) −.04 .20* −.08 −.23 −.04 0.13
Letter fluency (n = 317) .15 −.10 .36* .13 .15 0.08
Category fluency (n = 327) .22* −.03 .32* .04 .09 −0.05
VMI (n = 328) −.04 −.17 .37* .17 .08 0.02

Note. Values are standardized regression coefficients predicting the target variable from the reference constructs. In the models with the English speaking sample, the error variance associated with the PPVT was negative and was therefore set to .02.

*

p < .01