. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Oct 13.

Published in final edited form as: J Aging Health. 2015 Mar 24;27(7):1199–1222. doi: 10.1177/0898264315577590

Table 6.

Differentiating Between ILM_TB and Dementia Participants.

	Composite subtest	Composite domains	Learning and retention
AUC	0.92 [0.84, 1.00]	0.90 [0.80, 1.00]	0.84 [0.74, 0.95]
Cutoff	−0.41	−0.61	−0.34
Sensitivity	0.84 [0.60, 0.97]	0.84 [0.60, 0.97]	0.79 [0.54, 0.94]
Specificity	0.90 [0.86, 0.93]^b	0.92 [0.88, 0.95]^b	0.70 [0.64, 0.75]
PPV	0.37 [0.23, 0.53]	0.43 [0.27, 0.61]	0.16 [0.09, 0.24]
NPV	0.99 [0.96, 1.00]	0.99 [0.97, 1.00]	0.98 [0.95, 0.99]
Test accuracy	0.90 [0.85, 0.93]^b	0.92 [0.88, 0.95]^b	0.70 [0.65, 0.76]

Note. ILM_TB = test-based impaired learning and memory; AUC = area under the curve; PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = negative predictive value.

Significant difference compared with composite domains summary score.

Significant difference compared with learning and retention summary score.