Skip to main content
. 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 8.

Differentiating Between ILMTB and MDITB Participants.

Composite subtest Composite domains Learning and retention
AUC 0.70 [0.67, 0.74]a,b 0.62 [0.58, 0.67]b 0.51 [0.46, 0.55]
Cutoff −0.15 −0.23 −0.08
Sensitivity 0.62 [0.57, 0.67]b 0.53 [0.48, 0.58] 0.51 [0.46, 0.56]
Specificity 0.69 [0.63, 0.74]b 0.67 [0.61, 0.72]b 0.54 [0.47, 0.60]
PPV 0.75 [0.70, 0.79]b 0.70 [0.65, 0.75]b 0.62 [0.56, 0.67]
NPV 0.55 [0.49, 0.60]b 0.49 [0.44, 0.54]b 0.42 [0.37, 0.48]
Test accuracy 0.65 [0.61, 0.68]b 0.59 [0.55, 0.62]b 0.52 [0.48, 0.56]

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

a

Significant difference compared with composite domains summary score.

b

Significant difference compared with learning and retention summary score.