3 Stricker Learning Span criterion validity: remote self-administration of a computer adaptive word list memory test shows similar ability to differentiate PET-defined biomarker groups as in-person Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test performance in cognitively unimpaired individuals on the Alzheimer’s continuum

Objective:The Stricker Learning Span (SLS) is a computer-adaptive word list memory test specifically designed for remote assessment and self-administration on a web-based multi-device platform (Mayo Test Drive). Given recent evidence suggesting the prominence of learning impairment in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the SLS places greater emphasis on learning than delayed memory compared to traditional word list memory tests (see Stricker et al., Neuropsychology in press for review and test details). The primary study aim was to establish criterion validity of the SLS by comparing the ability of the remotely-administered SLS and inperson administered Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT) to differentiate biomarkerdefined groups in cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals on the Alzheimer’s continuum.Participants and Methods:Mayo Clinic Study of Aging CU participants (N=319; mean age=71, SD=11; mean education=16, SD=2; 47% female) completed a brief remote cognitive assessment (∼0.5 months from in-person visit). Brain amyloid and brain tau PET scans were available within 3 years. Overlapping groups were formed for 1) those on the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) continuum (A+, n=110) or not (A-, n=209), and for 2) those with biological AD (A+T+, n=43) vs no evidence of AD pathology (A-T-, n=181). Primary neuropsychological outcome variables were sum of trials for both the SLS and AVLT. Secondary outcome variables examined comparability of learning (1-5 total) and delay performances. Linear model ANOVAs were used to investigate biomarker subgroup differences and Hedge’s G effect sizes were derived, with and without adjusting for demographic variables (age, education, sex).Results:Both SLS and AVLT performances were worse in the biomarker positive relative to biomarker negative groups (unadjusted p’s<.05). Because biomarker positive groups were significantly older than biomarker negative groups, group differences were attenuated after adjusting for demographic variables, but SLS remained significant for A+ vs A- and for A+T+ vs A-T- comparisons (adjusted p’s<.05) and AVLT approached significance (p’s .05-.10). The effect sizes for the SLS were slightly better (qualitatively, no statistical comparison) for separating biomarker-defined CU groups in comparison to AVLT. For A+ vs A- and A+T+ vs A-T- comparisons, unadjusted effect sizes for SLS were -0.53 and -0.81 and for AVLT were -0.47 and -0.61, respectively; adjusted effect sizes for SLS were -0.25 and -0.42 and for AVLT were -0.19 and -0.26, respectively. In secondary analyses, learning and delay variables were similar in terms of ability to separate biomarker groups. For example, unadjusted effect sizes for SLS learning (-.80) was similar to SLS delay (.76), and AVLT learning (-.58) was similar to AVLT 30-minute delay (-.55) for the A+T+ vs AT- comparison.Conclusions:Remotely administered SLS performed similarly to the in-person-administered AVLT in its ability to separate biomarker-defined groups in CU individuals, providing evidence of criterion validity. The SLS showed significantly worse performance in A+ and A+T+ groups (relative to A- and A-T-groups) in this CU sample after demographic adjustment, suggesting potential sensitivity to detecting transitional cognitive decline in preclinical AD. Measures emphasizing learning should be given equal consideration as measures of delayed memory in AD-focused studies, particularly in the preclinical phase.