Abstract

A preliminary examination of the relationship between two clinical measures of verbal memory was conducted among healthy older subjects. Correlations between selected scores from the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT) and the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT) revealed that the total number of words learned across trials for both tests were significantly related (r = .74, p < .001), while there was no association between error rates (i.e., perseverations and intrusions). Recognition hits alone were not related, but recognition discriminability indices (accounting for false-positive errors) on the two measures were significantly correlated (r = .46, p = .02). While the HVLT appears to adequately assess basic verbal learning capacity, its utility in assessing some of the more complex and qualitative aspects of verbal learning and memory function may be limited, and interpretations of HVLT performances based on the CVLT literature must be made with caution. A clinical case example is presented to illustrate some of the issues in comparing performance on the HVLT and CVLT.