Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 May 15.
Published in final edited form as: J Neurol Sci. 2019 Mar 19;400:104–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2019.03.016

Table 5.

Comparison of raw score cut-offs in predicting impairment on both measures of verbal learning.

1.5 SD below the mean 2.0 SD below the mean
RAVLT CVLT-II p-value RAVLT CVLT-II p-value
Trial 1 AUC 0.76 (0.57, 0.95) 0.67 (0.48, 0.85) .229 0.84 (0.66, 1.00) 0.75 (0.49, 1.00) .751
Sensitivity 0.63 (0.26, 0.90) 0.38 (0.10, 0.74) .157 0.80 (0.30, 0.99) 0.60 (0.17, 0.93) .317
Specificity 0.64 (0.53, 0.74) 0.76 (0.66, 0.84) .056 0.64 (0.54, 0.74) 0.77 (0.67, 0.85) .040
PPV 0.13 (0.05, 0.29) 0.12 (0.03, 0.32) .798 0.11 (0.03, 0.26) 0.12 (0.03, 0.32) .697
NPV 0.95 (0.86, 0.99) 0.93 (0.84, 0.98) .336 0.98 (0.90, 1.00) 0.97 (0.89, 1.00) .434
Trial 1+ 2 AUC 0.84 (0.70, 0.97) 0.86 (0.75, 0.96) .795 0.88 (0.72, 1.00) 0.84 (0.68, 1.00) .151
Sensitivity 0.75 (0.36, 0.96) 0.88 (0.47, 0.99) .317 0.80 (0.30, 0.99) 0.60 (0.17, 0.93) .317
Specificity 0.76 (0.66, 0.84) 0.77 (0.67, 0.85) .835 0.65 (0.55, 0.75) 0.81 (0.71, 0.88) .009
PPV 0.21 (0.09, 0.41) 0.25 (0.11, 0.45) .460 0.11 (0.04, 0.26) 0.14 (0.04, 0.37) .454
NPV 0.97 (0.89, 1.00) 0.99 (0.91, 1.00) .310 0.98 (0.90, 1.00) 0.97 (0.90, 1.00) .464
Total Learning AUC 0.92 (0.84, 1.00) 0.95 (0.90, 1.00) .576 0.95 (0.86, 1.00) 0.97 (0.94, 1.00) .590
Sensitivity 0.88 (0.47, 0.99) 0.88 (0.47, 0.99) 1 1.00 (0.46, 1.00) 1.00 (0.46, 1.00) 1
Specificity 0.77 (0.67, 0.85) 0.85 (0.75, 0.91) .127 0.76 (0.66, 0.84) 0.93 (0.85, 0.97) .002
PPV 0.25 (0.11, 0.45) 0.33 (0.15, 0.57) .242 0.18 (0.07, 0.38) 0.42 (0.16, 0.71) .020
NPV 0.99 (0.91, 1.00) 0.99 (0.92, 1.00) .947 1.00 (0.93, 1.00) 1.00 (0.95, 1.00) 1

Notes. 95% confidence intervals are presented in parentheses.

Abbreviations: AUC= area under the curve; CVLT-II = California Verbal Learning Test - II; NPV = negative predictive value; PPV: = positive predictive value; RAVLT = Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.