Table 1.

Neuropsychological Test Battery

Domain	Measure	Source
Overall Cognitive Functioning	Mini-Mental Status Exam (MMSE) The MMSE (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975) was used to assess cognitive impairment and tapped the following domains: orientation to time and place, memory, basic arithmetic, language use and comprehension, and basic motor skills. Scores range from 0-30 points with scores lower than 23 (9th grade education or higher) or lower than 18 (less than 9th grade education) indicating impairment. Test-retest reliabilities are acceptable, ranging from .48 - .65 (Tombaugh, 2005), and the MMSE is a valid measure of a breadth of cognitive functioning, particularly verbal learning and memory, in older adults (Mitrushina & Satz, 1991)	Folstein, Folstein, McHugh, 1975
	Vocabulary, Digit Symbol- Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III Vocabulary. The Vocabulary subtest consists of a list of words measuring verbal expression and comprehension. Participants are shown the written form of the word as it is spoken aloud by the examiner. The participant then provides a verbal definition of the word that is recorded by the examiner. The vocabulary subtest has shown good test-retest reliability [(r = .94) (Dikmen, Heaton, Grant, & Temkin, 1999)]	Wechsler, 1997
	Digit Symbol. The Digit Symbol subtest consists of a series of symbols that are paired with numbers. The participant draws each symbol under its corresponding number. There is a 120-second time limit for the task and the total score consists of summing the number of symbols correctly drawn by the participant. The Digit Symbol subtest has a test-retest reliability ranging from .84 to .93 as tested in age groups ranging from age 65 to 89 (Wechsler, 1997b)The Digit Symbol subtest is a valid measure of the constructs of speed processing and working memory within individuals age 65 and older (Joy, Kaplan, & Fein, 2004)
Attention, Processing Speed	Trailmaking Test A In the Trailmaking Test A [TMT part A; (Reitan, 1959)] participants were presented with a white sheet of paper on which numbered circles were distributed. Participants were told to connect the circles in order (i.e., 1 to 2 to 3, etc.) as fast as they could. The primary score was the number of seconds needed to finish but the number of errors was also recorded. The errors were immediately pointed out by the examiner, and the participant was required to correct the error. Thereafter, the subject could continue in the proper sequence. Performance time was unlimited. Good test-retest reliability has been shown for TMT parts A (r = .75) (Giovagnoli et al., 1996). TMT A has been shown to be valid measures of attention and visuoperceptual abilities (O’donnell, Macgregor, Dabrowski, Oestreicher, & Romero, 1994; Sanchez-Cubillo et al., 2009)	Reitan, 1959
Language	Controlled Oral Word Association (COWA)-Semantic Verbal Fluency Measure of an individual’s ability to make associations to specific categories (animals, fruits, vegetables, and names). There is a one minute time limit for each category (Benton, Hamsher, & Sivan, 1989) The COWA has shown acceptable test-retest reliability (Dikmen et al., 1999) and acceptable criterion validity with tests such as digit span, oral spelling, Stroop, and mental calculations (Lezak, Howieson, & Loring, 2004).	Benton, Hamsher & Sivan 1989
	Boston Naming Test (BNT) – Second Edition The BNT (Kaplan, Goodglass, & Weintraub, 2001) was used to assess language. The (BNT) is a wide-ranging confrontation naming test consisting of 60 pictures ordered from easiest to most difficult. The participant has 20 seconds to name the picture once presented. If the participant provides a response that is a misperception of the picture, he or she is provided with a stimulus cue (e.g. “It is something to eat”). If the participant fails to recognize or misnames the picture after the stimulus cue, he or she is provided with a phonemic cue (e.g. “Begins with ‘ph’”). The test is scored by summing all of the items the participant correctly named for a total possible score of 60 points. The BNT has an established concurrent validity with the Visual Naming Test of the Multilingual Aphasia Examination (Axelrod, Ricker, & Cherry, 1994). Acceptable test-retest reliability was observed in a sample of older adults (Flanagan & Jackson, 1997).	Kaplan, Goodglass, Weintraub, 2001
Memory	California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT-II) The CVLT-II is a measure of both the recall and recognition of word lists that is conducted over several trials. Participants are presented with a list of 16 words (four words from each of four sementic categories). Participants must then recall the lists over five trials, recall an interference list of words, recall tlhe original list of words, and deliver a category-cued recall of the first list of words. After a 20 minute delay, free recall, category-cued recall, and recognition of the first list are assessed.	Delis, Kaplan, Kramer, & Ober, 2000
	The CVLT shows adequate criterion validity with good correlations with another word list assessment tool, the HVLT (Brandt, 1991). Correlations between the CVLT and the HVLT for the total number of words learned (.74) were good, while there were more moderate associations for discriminability (.46) and false-positive errors (.60) on the recognition testing portion of these tasks (Lacritz & Cullum, 1998). In terms of reliability, according to the test manual, internal consistency reliability ranges from .70 – .92 (Delis, Kramer, Kaplan, & Ober, 1987). Test-retest reliability with a sample of healthy older adults was .64 (Cellucci, Evans, Cattaruzza, & Carter, 2001).
	Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure Test (Rey-O) The Rey-O (Osterrieth, 1944; Rey, 1941)was used to assess memory. The Rey-O is a measure of short and long-term visuographic memory. This test is administered in three stages: Copy where the participants are asked to copy the Figure, Immediate Recall (IR) where the respondents are asked to reproduce the Figure from memory, and Delay Recall (DR), where the respondent are asked again to reproduce the Figure after a 30-minute delay. The final score, ranging from 0 to 36, is separately scored for each of the three stages (Copy, IR, and DR). The complex visual memory measure was validated with healthy adults, older and/or depressed populations (Elderkin-Thompson et al., 2004). Interrater reliability estimates report correlation coefficient of .98 (Loring, Martin, Meador, & Lee, 1990; Strauss & Spreen, 1990). The Rey-O has been shown to be a valid measure of visuospatial perception and memory in an older adult sample (Berry, Allen, & Schmitt, 1991).	Osterrieth, 1944; Rey, 1941
	Logical Memory from Wechsler Memory Scale 3 (LM-WMS-III) The Logical Memory subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – III (Wechsler, 1997a)was used to assess memory. The scale consists of a number of immediate and delayed auditory recall tasks. The examiner reads two short stories to the participant and then asks the examinee to recall details of the story immediately after each story is read and after a delay. Additionally, a recognition task is given that consists of questions about both stories requiring a yes or no response.	Wechsler, 1997
	The Logical Memory subtest has a test-retest reliability ranging from .76 to .80 as tested in age groups ranging from age 55 to 89 (Wechsler, 1997a). In a sample of individuals age 77 and older, the logical memory total score was found to be significantly correlated with the mini-mental exam score suggesting the logical memory as useful tool for detecting cognitive impairment (Ferrario, Seccia, Massaia, Fonte, & Molaschi, 1998).
Executive Functioning	COWA – Phonemic Fluency Measure of an individual’s ability to make associations to specific letters (F, A, and S). There is a time limit for each letter with one minute allotted for ‘F’ and ‘A’ and two minutes allotted for the ‘S’. (Benton et al., 1989) The COWA has shown acceptable test-retest reliability (Dikmen et al., 1999) and acceptable criterion validity with tests such as digit span, oral spelling, Stroop, and mental calculations (Lezak et al., 2004).	Benton, Hamsher & Sivan 1989
	TMT B In the TMT B (Reitan, 1959) participants were presented with a white sheet of paper on which numbered circles and letters were distributed. Participants were told to connect the circles in order (i.e., 1 to A to 2 to B, etc.) as fast as they could. The primary score was the number of seconds needed to finish but the number of errors was also recorded. The errors were immediately pointed out by the examiner, and the participant was requiredto correct the error. Thereafter, the subject could continue in the proper sequence. Performance time was unlimited. Good test-retest reliability has been shown for TMT Part B (r = .85) (Giovagnoli et al., 1996). TMT B has been shown to be a valid measure of cognitive flexibility, an executive function (Kortte, Horner, & Windham, 2002).	Reitan, 1959