Psychometric study demonstrates score comparability and demographic predictors of verbal memory in Turkish adults, providing normative reference standards for memory assessment.
Objective: The Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test uses controlled learning to assess hippocampal-type memory impairment. This study culturally and linguistically adapted three Turkish verbal forms of the 16-item test (FCSRT-16TR) and characterized their psychometric properties, score-level comparability, and demographic reference estimates. Method: The complete-case reference sample comprised 285 cognitively unimpaired native Turkish-speaking adults aged 18–87 years. A pilot study (N = 45) refined the stimulus sets. Item response theory (IRT) analyses were conducted in a broader dataset with complete item-level responses (N = 387). Score-level comparability was examined using omnibus and two one-sided equivalence tests. Demographic models included age, education, and sex. Results: Score-level performance was broadly comparable across forms, although one total-free-recall contrast was borderline under the prespecified equivalence criterion. Continuous demographic models were developed for total free recall (TFR) and delayed free recall (DFR). Age showed significant nonlinear associations with both outcomes, whereas higher education and female sex predicted better performance. The models explained 35.2% and 25.2% of TFR and DFR variance, respectively. Under 10-fold cross-validation, predictive R2 values were .320 and .233, with root mean square error (RMSE) values of 4.39 and 1.68, respectively. Conclusions: The FCSRT-16TR provides three adapted Turkish verbal forms with broadly comparable score-level performance and demographically adjusted reference estimates for the principal free-recall outcomes. These estimates provide a language-specific reference framework for cognitively unimpaired Turkish-speaking adults but should not be interpreted as diagnostic cutoffs or evidence of within-person form interchangeability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Uncu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: