Pergamon

Archivesof ClinicalNeuropsychology,Vol.10, No. 5, pp. 475---487,1995

Copyright 1995NationalAcademyof Neuropsychology
Printedin the USA.All rightsreserved
0887-6177/95 $9.50+ .00

0887-6177(95)00015-1

A Procedure for Assessing

Storage and Retrieval on the
Wechsler Memory Scale Revised
Carlton S. Gass
v. A. Medical Center

A methodology to assist in distinguishing deficient memory storage from comproraised retrieval operations is presented for use with the Logical Memory (LM) and
Visual Reproduction (VR) subtests of the Wechsler Memory Scale - - Revised
(WMS-R; Wechsler, 1987). A 21-item five-option multiple choice recognition test
for LM and a cuing teclmique for VR are presented, followed by descriptive data
based on a sample of 94 psychiatric inpatients (mixed diagnoses) and a sample of
99 brain-injured (BI) patients. The B! sample performed worse than the psychiatric
sample on all of the LM and VR measures, with VR-CUED showing the highest
degree of discrimination. In both groups, many subjects initially acquired much
more information than they reported during the standard free recall format. The
supplemental scoring format and reference data reported herein provide clinically
useful information regarding a person's ability to store and access new information.

The clinical assessment o f memory ideally includes an examination o f verbal and

visual recall on m e a s u r e s o f attention, short-term, and l o n g - t e r m m e m o r y
(Russell, 1981). Another important component is a methodology that provides a
basis for making inferences about the relative integrity of an examinee's encoding
and retrieval processes. Such a distinction is essential for assessing (a) the extent
to which information is acquired and stored in long-term memory, and (b) the
Special thanks is expressed to Sherry Boyette, Charlie Lollis, Jane Ansley, and Vivian
Torre for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. Appreciation is also
expressed to Elbert W. Russell for his comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
Address correspondence to: Carlton S. Gass, V. A. Medical Center (ll6-B), 1201
N.W. 16th Street, Miami, FL 33125.
475

476

C. S. Gass

effectiveness of retrieval processes in accessing stored information. From a diagnostic standpoint, this distinction is important inasmuch as certain neuropathologic disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease and Wemicke-Korsakoff's Syndrome,
are associated with a prominent encoding deficit (Cermak & Butters, 1972),
whereas other disorders that involve subcortical disease (e.g., early Huntington's
disease or multiple sclerosis) or damage localized to the prefrontal area appear to
be associated with a prominent retrieval deficit and relatively spared encoding
capacity (Albert, Butters, & Brandt, 1981; Butters, Wolfe, Martone, Granholm, &
Cermak, 1986; Rao, 1986). Psychiatric disorders, such as depression, have also
been associated with a prominent retrieval deficit. For example, studies have supported the view that depressed individuals sometimes exhibit deficient free recall
performance because of a conservative response bias and/or low motivation
(Calev & Erwin, 1985; Weingartner & Silberman, 1982). Treatment implications
also exist. For example, to the extent that memory problems involve a prominent
retrieval deficit, one is more likely to benefit from cuing and from an environment
in which cues are made available to facilitate the recall of stored information.
When used alone, measures of free recall fail to reveal whether poor performance is due to an encoding defect or to failed retrieval operations. For this
reason, more recently devised clinical measures of memory and new learning,
such as the California Verbal Learning Test (Delis, Kramer, Kaplan, & Ober,
1987) include cuing and recognition testing following a delayed free recall
trial. The joint use of free recall and cuing and/or recognition test formats
assists in assessing the relative efficacy of encoding and retrieval processes.
Although these processes cannot be fully distinguished using behavioral measures (e.g., retrieval success is partly dependent on the quality of encoding), in
general, successful storage of information is indicated by a high recognition
(or cued) score, regardless of free recall performance, and effective encoding
and retrieval operations are indicated by a high score on delayed free recall.
Unfortunately, some widely used measures, such as the Logical Memory (LM)
and Visual Reproduction (VR) subtests of the Wechsler Memory Scale - Revised (WMS-R), provide scores only on free recall and lack a measure that
assesses memory storage in a precise manner (Butters et al., 1988). This problem was addressed in relation to the original WMS by Kaplan and her colleagues (Milberg, Hebben, & Kaplan, 1986). This article presents a method of
recognition testing using the LM subtest of the WMS-R. In addition, a cued
recall format for scoring the VR of the WMS-R is also recommended to assist
in the assessment of encoding and retrieval of visuographic information.

METHOD
Subjects and Procedures

Subjects were 193 patients who were referred for a neuropsychological

examination in the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Miami, Florida. This

Assessment of Memory Storage and Retrieval

477

sample, selected from amongst referrals made during the previous 5 years,
included 94 psychiatric inpatients who were diagnosed with emotional disorders and did not have any history of neurologic disease or positive test findings
on routinely administered CT scan and, in some cases, MRI and EEG. In order
to address the potential relation of emotional disturbance to memory performance without the confound of structural brain damage, patients were excluded if they had a history of head trauma involving loss of consciousness or any
other evidence of cerebral pathology. Diagnoses as established by staff psychiatrists using DSM-III-R criteria included major depression (n = 43), bipolar
(n = 12), generalized anxiety (n = 8), PTSD (n = 17), and other (n = 14). The
remaining 99 patients had neurologic diagnoses of traumatic brain injury
(n = 54) and stroke (n = 45), as concluded by staff neurologists using CT, MRI,
and other procedures deemed necessary. These two neurodiagnostic groups
were selected because of their high incidence in both the V.A. and the general
population. Patients who had other common but severely debilitating conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease, or who were unable to complete the entire
test battery (which included the Halstead-Reitan battery), were excluded from
this study. The psychiatric sample had a mean age of 49 years (SD = 13), education of 12.7 years (SD = 2.4), Full Scale IQ of 99.6 (SD = 13.8), and
Average Impairment Rating within the normal range, 9.82 (SD = .44). 1 The
brain-injured (BI) sample had a mean age of 52 years (SD = 15), education of
12 years (SD = 3.0), Full Scale IQ of 89.6 (SD = 11.8), and Average
Impairment Rating within the borderline impaired range, 9.20 (SD = .71). The
number of BI patients within each impairment range on the AIR was: 8 (moderate), 28 (mild), 35 (borderline), and 28 (minimal or none). 2
Subjects were administered the immediate and delayed (30-min) formats of
the LM and VR subtests of the WMS-R, along with two follow-up measures
described below, as a routine part of a standard neuropsychological battery
administration. Scoring was performed by trained examiners using the criteria
outlined in the manual. In addition, a Percentage Retained score was computed
to examine half-hour retention efficiency relative to performance on immediate recall (Russell, 1975).

Logical Memory Recognition

In order to assess long-term recognition memory for the LM subtest of the
WMS-R, a 21-item multiple choice questionnaire (LM-REC) was designed
1The scaling of the AIR, which originally used 1.0 as the mean, 2.0 as borderline, etc.,
was modified so that higher scores reflect better performance, with 10.0 as the mean,
9.0 as borderline, 8.0 as mildly impaired, etc.
2Analogous to individuals who have an average IQ with one or two specific areas of
intellectual weakness, the 28 patients who were formally classified in the "'minimal to
no impairment" range on the AIR generally showed evidence of neurobehavioral
impairment too circumscribed to significantly lower the global impairment rating.

478

C. S. Gass

based on the two stories (Appendix 1). Items were constructed to include one
correct response option and four alternative (incorrect) options, yielding a
level of random or chance-level responding of 20%. The patients were administered this questionnaire immediately after completing the delayed free recall
administration of the LM subtest (LM 11).3 The instructions, which are provided on the test form, were read aloud to each patient. In order to ensure that the
instructions were understood and could be followed, each patient was further
instructed to read and respond to the first item aloud and to mark the answer
on the questionnaire form. In a small number of cases involving reading difficulties, the examiner read and repeated each item to the patient. The instructions encourage the examinee to guess when uncertain.
Recognition was assessed in order to determine how much information the
examinee effectively stored in memory but may have been unable to retrieve in
the delayed free recall format. The scoring procedure required counting the
number o f correct items (range of 0-21). An estimate of the incremental benefit derived from recognition could subsequently be made by contrasting performance on L M - I I free recall with performance on L M - R E C . Scale scores,
described below, were derived to assist in this task.

Visual Reproduction Cuing

As an assessment procedure, the cued recall format differs from a recognition format in that it provides a cue in isolation rather than the correct response
in its entirety alongside o f other response alternatives. Since scores on VR are
based not only on the examinee's ability to recall, but also on drawing accuracy, a cuing method that preserves both o f these components and can be scored
using the criteria specified in the manual is preferred over recognition as a
technique for measuring stored information. Instead of using verbal cues (e.g.,
"flags"), the examiner provides a visual cue by slowly drawing a small segment of the design to prime recall of a forgotten design(s). This rationale for
this method requires the segment to be drawn in a very slow and systematic
way until the examinee indicates when he or she is able to complete the figure(s). In the current sample, 55% of the patients (n = 109) required cuing in
order to recall one or more of the four designs. In most cases, these patients
needed cuing in order to recall one figure. Following the administration of LM
II, examinees were instructed as follows:
You have left out one (two, three, four) of the designs. Now I will try to
jog your memory by starting the design for you. I will begin drawing very
slowly the design(s) that you were unable to remember. Your task is to
3Zero recall after 30 min normally warrants the use of a verbal cue specified in the
WMS-R manual (p. 36). However, to avoid confounding recognition performance, the
standard references to a robbery (story 1) and to trouble on a highway (story 2) were
omitted. The only cue given was "The story was about a woman (man)."

Assessment of Memory Storage and Retrieval

479

stop me as soon as you think that you may recall the design. At that point
I will let you complete it. The important point is that I want to see how
much you can remember.
The examiner, using a pencil of a different color than that used by the
examinee, then very slowly drew the missing design(s) following the standardized procedures below, b e g i n n i n g with the earliest design in the
sequence. Design one was drawn beginning with the top right-side of the
diagonal and drawing downward. This was followed, if necessary, by the
second diagonal, again starting at the top. Design two was initiated with the
larger of the three circles, followed by the second largest circle. Design
three was started with the upper segment of the large square, drawing left to
right, then completing the square in a clockwise manner if necessary. This
was followed by drawing its two intersecting vertical and horizontal lines.
The last design was initiated in a similar manner, starting with the largest
rectangle, followed by the upper, and finally the lower of the two smaller
rectangles. If the right side of design four was omitted, either on free recall
or after cuing the left side (rectangles), it was cued beginning with the
curved portion of the half circle and followed, if necessary, by the straight
vertical line. No direct cuing was performed on the small triangle attached
to the semicircle.
Scoring of cued VR recall was based on the same criteria that the WMS-R
manual applies to scoring free recall. However, points were not allotted for
any criteria that were reached or otherwise given away by the examiner in
the cuing process. For example, no credit was given to the examinee for
completing a circle, square, or rectangle that was partially drawn by the
examiner. Only the examinee's portion of the cued drawing was scored, and
this was easily observed by noting the color of the examinee's production.
Also, credit was not given to the examinee for symmetrically duplicating
(mirroring) the examiner's drawings of the flags in design 1, or the inner
detail of the quadrants in design 3. The rationale for these criteria is that the
score should only reflect what the examinee can reproduce from memory.
The incremental benefit derived from cuing can be estimated by scoring VR
twice, with and without cuing, and examining the difference. As with LMREC, scale scores are useful in quantifying the difference vis-a-vis a normative sample.

RESULTS

Assessment of Free Recall

Logical Memory performance, as evaluated using the norms reported in the
WMS-R Manual, was within the low average range in the psychiatric sample
on both immediate and delayed recall administrations (34th and 31 st percentile,

480

C. S. Gass

respectively). In contrast, the scores of the brain-injured (BI) sample were

slightly lower (21st and 19th percentile, respectively). Visual Reproduction
scores were average on immediate recall (50th percentile) and below average
on delayed (27th percentile) in the psychiatric sample. For the BI sample,
scores were, again, slightly lower (19th and 12th percentile, respectively), with
substantially greater variability.
Memory test performance was contrasted between the psychiatric and braininjured (BI) samples using a multivariate analysis of covariance (Hotelling's
_T2) with education as a covariate (MANCOVA; see Table 1). Analyses for the
LM and VR subtests were performed separately. In the overall analysis of LM
(immediate, delayed, percent retained, and recognition), performance was poorer on all measures in the BI sample [F(4, 188) = 4.73, p < .001]. Univariate
comparisons revealed that the most discriminative LM measure was the percent
retained over the 30-min period, whereas the comparison of LM immediate
recall showed the least discrimination.
Figural reproduction from memory showed a substantial difference, with
worse performance in the BI group [F(4, 188) = 8.12, p < .00001]. Intergroup
differences were large on both immediate and delayed free recall formats, with
slightly less discriminative power shown by the percent retained over 30 min.
Of the VR indices, cued-enhanced figural recall yielded the greatest discriminative power.

TABLE 1
Mean Differences in Age, Education, and Memory Test Performance Between the
Psychiatric and Brain-Injured Patients
Psychiatric
Mean
Age
Education
WAIS-R FSIQ
AIR
LM (Overall)
LM-I (Immediate)
LM-II (Delayed)
LM Percent Retained
LM Recognition
VR (Overall)
VR-I (Immediate)
VR-II (Delayed)
VR Percent Retained
VR Delayed with Cue

SD

Brain-Injured
Mean

SD

1.271
3.17 a
27.15 a
42.81 a
4.73 b
6.80 a
2.65 a
7.14 a
10.68 a
8.12 b
20.40 a
22.91 a
18.84 a
26.62 c

.26
.08
.000001
.000001
.001
.01
.001
.00005
.001
.00001
.0000 I
.0002
.01
.000001

49.6
12.7
99.6
9.83

13.0
2.4
13.8
0.44

51.9
12.0
89.6
9.20

15.4
3.0
11.9
.71

20.4
16.2
76.4
16.4

6.9
7.8
20.1
2.9

17.4
11.9
61.3
14.7

8.3
8.41
28.91
4.1

30.5
23.9
77.3
26.4

6.2
9.3
19.9
8.3

25.4
16.9
61.2
19.1

8.7
11.2
29.1
10.8

Note. AIR = Average Impairment Rating, LM = WMS-R Logical Memory, VR = WMS-R Visual
Reproduction.
adf= 1,191.
bdf= 4, 188.
cCued patients only, n = 109, df= 1,107.

Assessment of Memory Storage and Retrieval

481

Assessment of Storage and Retrieval

Responses to the multiple choice items on LM-REC were examined and
compared with the response content on LM-II to determine the extent to which
new details were correctly identified via recognition. The psychiatric sample
identified an average of 7.4 narrative details that were not recalled under free
recall conditions (LM-II). The BI sample identified an average of 7.6 additional details. Allowing for a chance-level score of about 20%, the results indicate
that the average patient in both samples stored significantly more information
(about five details) than was retrieved on delayed free recall. Furthermore,
about 20% of the psychiatric and 40% of the BI patients recognized more than
twice as many details on multiple choice as was represented in their scores on
delayed free recall. In regard to figural reproduction, on the cued recall task
the psychiatric and BI groups showed a similar degree of incremental recall.
Members from each sample who required cuing scored about an average of
five additional points (or 34% more detail). In both groups, about 20% of the
patients who received cuing increased their recall score by over 50%.
In addition to the qualitative information derived from these methods, scale
scores were derived for LM-II, LM-REC, VR-II, and VR-CUED based on the
distribution of raw scores in the psychiatric sample. The raw score for LMREC equalled the number of correct items on the 21-item recognition test for
LM (all items scored), yielding a range of 0-21. The raw score for VR-CUED
equalled the total points attained on VR including those recalled through
cuing, but excluding any scorable details that were provided by the examiner
as cues. Regression analyses indicated that raw score adjustments for the influence of age and education were required for LM-II and VR-II. Using the procedure described by Russell (1988), raw-score corrections were devised with a
+ or - value for each age/education interval (Table 2). A small correction was
also required for education on LM-REC and VR-CUED. On these two tasks, a
raw score adjustment of +1 was required for persons with less than 11 years of
education, and -1 for those with more than 14 years of education.
Scale scores were derived (Tables 3 and 4) for adjusted raw scores using
Russell's reference-scale approach (Russell, 1987), which uses the global neuropsychological impairment rating as a predictive criterion in establishing scale

TABLE 2

Raw Score Adjustments For Logical

Memory II and Visual Reproduction II
Age Range
Education

<55

55-65

66-75

<12
12-14
>14

+2
0
-2

+3
+1
-1

+4
+2
0

482

C. S. Gass
TABLE 3
Scale Scores for the LM-II a a d LM-REC
Raw Score
Scale

11.2
11.0

10.7
10.5
10.2
10.0
9.7
9.5
9.2
9.0

LM-H

26
25
23
21
20
18
16
15
13
12

Raw Score
LM-REC

Scale

LM-H

8.7
8.5
8.2
8.0
7.7
7.5
7.2
7.0
6.7

10

13

--

7
5
3
2
--0

12
11
10
-9
8
7

21
20
-19
18
17
-16
15
14

LM-REC

Note. Scale scores have a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 1.

scores. T h e a d v a n t a g e o f this a p p r o a c h is t h a t a n y p a r t i c u l a r scale score h a s t h e

s a m e " i m p a i r m e n t v a l u e " a c r o s s tests t h a t o t h e r w i s e h a v e d i f f e r e n t s c o r e distrib u t i o n s . T h e s c a l e s h a v e a n a r b i t r a r y m e a n o f 10 a n d a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f
one. T h u s , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e B I s a m p l e as a w h o l e o b t a i n e d a n a v e r a g e L M - I I
s c o r e o f 11.9, w h i c h is e q u i v a l e n t to a s c a l e s c o r e o f 9.0, o r o n e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n b e l o w t h e m e a n (Table 3). T h e i r s c o r e o f 14.7 o n L M - R E C is e q u i v a l e n t to
a s c a l e score o f 9.2, o r e i g h t - t e n t h s o f a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n b e l o w the m e a n .

DISCUSSION
T h e a d d i t i o n o f r e c o g n i t i o n a n d c u i n g f o r m a t s for t h e W M S - R L M a n d V R
subtests, respectively, r e q u i r e s v e r y little a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t i m e a n d c a n p r o v i d e

TABLE 4

Scale Scores for VR-II and VR-CUED

Raw Score

Raw Score

Scale

LM-II

LM-REC

Scale

LM-II

LM-REC

11.2

40

I1.0
10.7
10.5
10.2
10.0
9.7
9.5
9.2
9.0

38
35
33
30
28
25
23
20
18

38
36
34
32
30
28
25
24
21
19

8.7
8.5
8.2
8.0
7.7
7.5
7.2
7.0
6.7

15
13
10
8
5
3
1
-0

17
15
13
11
8
7
4
2
0

Note. Scale scores have a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of I.

Assessment of Memory Storage and Retrieval

483

clinically useful information regarding information storage and retrieval processes. In particular, the contrast between the standard free recall scores and
recognition or cued-enhanced scores may be useful in determining whether an
individual's poor performance is due to problems with information storage,
retrieval difficulties, or both. The current findings suggest that many examinees, including emotionally disturbed and neurologically compromised persons,
probably acquire substantially more information than may be implied by measures of free recall. This is consistent with the fact that people commonly recognize or, when prompted by a cue, retrieve, substantially more information from
memory than would be suggested by the use of a free recall methodology.
Performance on memory tests, including the LM and VR subtests of the
WMS-R, is, as a general rule, more adversely affected by brain damage than by
emotional disturbance (Gass & Russell, 1986; Lachner, Satzger, & Engel, 1993).
In this study, the brain-injured sample had relatively mild impairment, yet manifested consistently poorer performance across the memory measures than that
shown by the psychiatric sample. However, on most measures, the magnitude of
the difference averaged about one-half of a standard deviation. The Visual
Reproduction measures showed general superiority over Logical Memory in discriminating between the BI and psychiatric samples, perhaps because VR
requires graphomotor and visuospatial ability in addition to memory. Amongst
the LM measures, the savings score (percent retained) was the best discriminator, whereas amongst the VR indices VR-CUED showed the highest degree of
discrimination between the two groups. Immediate recall of LM was the weakest discriminator of all of the measures. It should be emphasized that these findings, based on the samples described, may not generalize to patient groups that
are comprised of patients who have other diagnoses (e.g., schizophrenia,
Alzheimer's disease) or differing levels of cognitive impairment. In addition,
because the present findings are based on a select population, descriptive data
derived from the application of these procedures to other samples (e.g., normals,
psychiatric outpatients, and other diagnostic groups) would be clinically useful.
Recent decades have witnessed a significant amount of scientific progress
in uncovering some of the neural circuitry involved in the storage of information. An area that requires further study concerns the extent to which emotional, motivational, and physiological factors affect the capacity to store and to
access information. In view of the popularity of the WMS-R, the usefulness of
these supplemental procedures in characterizing various types of neurologic
disease, psychological disturbances, and malingering warrants investigation.
REFERENCES
Albert, M. S., Butters, N., & Brandt, J. (1981). Developmentof remote memory loss in patients
with Huntington'sdisease. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 3, I- 12.
Butters, N., Salmon, D. P., Cullum, C. M., Cairns, P., Troster, A. 1., Jacobs, D., Moss, M., &
Cermak, L. S. (1988). Differentiationof amnesic and demented patients with the Wechsler
MemoryScale-- Revised.Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2, 133-148.

484

C. S. Gass

Butters, N., Wolfe, J., Martone, M., Granholm, E., & Cermak, L. (1986). Memory disorders associated with Huntington's disease: Verbal recall, verbal recognition, and procedural memory.
Neuropsychologia, 23, 729-743.
Calev, A., & Erwin, P. (1985). Recall and recognition in depressives: Use of matched tests. British
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 127-128.
Cermak, L., & Butters, N. (1972). The role of interference and encoding in the short-term memory
deficits of Korsakoff's patients. Neuropsychologia, 10, 89-96.
Dells, D. C., Kramer, J., H., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B. A. (1987). California Verbal Learning Test.
New York: Psychological Corporation.
Gass, C. S., & Russell, E. W. (1986). Differential impact of brain damage and depression on memory test performance. Journal of Consulting & ClinicalPsychology, 54, 261-263.
Lachner, G., Satzger, W., & Engel, R. R. (1993). Verbal memory tests in the differential diagnosis of
depression and dementia: Discriminative power of seven test variations. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 9, 1-13.
Milberg, W. P., Hebben, N., & Kaplan, E. (1986). The Boston process approach to neuropsychological assessment. In I. Grant & K. M. Adams (Eds.), Neuropsychiatric disorders (pp. 65-86).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Rao, S. (1986). Neuropsychology of Multiple Sclerosis: A critical review. Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology, 8, 503-542.
Russell, E. W. (1975). A multiple scoring method for assessment of complex memory functions.
Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 43, 800-809.
Russell, E. W. (1981). The pathology and clinical examination of memory. In S. B. Filskov & T. J.
Boll (Eds.), Handbook of clinical neuropsychology (Vol. 1, pp. 287-319). New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Russell, E. W. (1987). A reference scale method for constructing neuropsychological test batteries.
Journal of Clinical & ExperimentalNeuropsychology, 9, 376-392.
Russell, E. W. (1988). Renorming Russell's version of the Wechsler Memory Scale. Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 10, 235-249.
Wechsler, D. (1987). WMS-R: WechslerMemoryScale -- RevisedManuat New York: Psychological
Corporation.
Weingartner, H., & Siiberman, E. (1982). Models of cognitive impairment: Cognitive changes in
depression. PsychopharmacologyBulletin, 18, 42-47.

APPENDIX 1
WMS-R Logical Memory Recognition Test

LOGICAL MEMORY RECOGNITION

NAME

DATE

AM PM

E a r l i e r y o u h e a r d t w o s t o r i e s t h a t y o u w e r e a s k e d to m e m o r i z e . R e a d e a c h
s t a t e m e n t b e l o w a n d c h e c k t h e a n s w e r t h a t b e s t fits t h e s t o r i e s y o u h e a r d .
M a k e sure to r e a d all t h e o p t i o n s b e f o r e y o u g i v e y o u r answer. I f y o u a r e n o t
sure, take a g u e s s a n y w a y .

Assessment of Memory Storage and Retrieval

STORY 1
1. The main character in this story was a woman. What was her name?
Nancy Grant
Annie Thomas
__
Mary Jones
__
Anna Thompson
__
Cathy Taylor
2. Where was this woman from?
South Boston
Baltimore
London
New York
__
West Los Angeles
3. What kind o f work did she do?
house cleaner
out-of-work (unemployed)
cook in a cafeteria
__
secretary
waitress
4. W h a t was the main event in this story?
she went shopping
she was hospitalized
she got robbed
she got married
she had an accident
5. She told the details o f this event
to a friend
to a doctor
__
at the City Hall station
in Nashville
to a newspaper reporter
6. W h e n did the event take place?
__
Wednesday
__
early afternoon
__
the night before
on the weekend
during the holiday season
7. Her household included
her parents
two little kids
her husband
four children
__
several pets

485

486

C. S. Gass

8. Who else was mentioned in the story?

_ _ the police
neighbors
her parents
the fire department
people at church
9. People in the story
visited her
were touched by her story
became friends
were not able to help her
gave gifts to her
10. What happened at the end of the story?
_ _ she was given a ride
a collection was taken up for her
she got government assistance
she went on a trip
she was given flowers
_

STORY 2
11. The main character in the second story was
Bob Milner
Captain Jack
Robert Miller
Jan Thompson
Rod Mills
12. This person was
driving a taxi
fishing
driving a truck
riding a bus
going to school
13. The story took place in
New Orleans
Mississippi Delta
Rocky mountains
Massachusetts
a small town
14. The main thing that happened was
he left to go on vacation
he lost his money
he won a contest
he fell and hurt himself
he ran off the road

Assessment of Memory Storage and Retrieval

15. The event occurred
at sunset
_ _ the day before
_ _ early in the morning
_ _ at night
during a vacation
16. What else happened?
_ _ friends joined him
his axle broke
_ _ he bought a used car
he was given money
he went to a party
17. He was also
_ _ badly shaken
robbed
_ _ helped by the police
taken to the hospital
rewarded
18. The man was going
to Nashville
home
_ _ to Grasshopper Key
to Louisville
to South Boston
19. One problem he had was
he hadn't eaten in 2 days
there was no traffic around to get help
a flat tire
he had no money
he was out of gas
20. At the end of the story
he was rescued
_ _ he got his money back
his two-way radio buzzed
he returned home
_ _ he found his money
21. What did the man say at the end?
_ _ he said nothing
he said, "Great trip"
_ _ he said, "This is "Grasshopper"
_ _ he said, "I need help"
_ _ he said, "Thanks a lot"
_

487