Normative Data For Ten Spanish-Language Neuropsychological Tests in Eleven Latin American Countries

493
NeuroRehabilitation 37 (2015) 493499

DOI:10.3233/NRE-151277
IOS Press
Methodology for the development

of normative data for ten Spanish-language
neuropsychological tests in eleven Latin
American countries
Joan Guàrdia-Olmosa, , Maribel Pero-Cebolleroa , Diego Riverab and Juan Carlos Arango-Lasprillab,c
a Departament
de Metodologia de les Ciències del Comportament, Facultat de Psicologia, Institut de Recerca

en Cervell, Cognicio i Conducta, Universitat de Barcelona, Espana, Spain
b Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain
c IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain
Abstract.
BACKGROUND: Within the field of neuropsychology, there is a significant lack of normative data for individuals in Latin
America.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the methodology utilized to obtain the data and create norms for 10 Spanish-language neuropsychological tests administered in 11 Latin-American countries in a sample of 3,977 healthy individuals between the ages
18 and 90.
METHOD: The same data manipulation process was applied to the data collected (regardless of the scale or country) using a
regression-based procedure that takes into account sex, age, and educational influences on neuropsychological test scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Following this procedure, we were able to generate age, education, and sex (if relevant) based norms for each
test in each of the 11 countries studied. These norms are presented in the 10 articles that comprise this special issue.
Keywords: Psychometric, norms, Latin America, neuropsychological tests
1. Introduction
Most psychological and neuropsychological tests are
built using the Classical Test Theory (CTT), from this
perspective norms are created using simple procedures
like transformation in percentile scales, or T and D
scores (Abad, Olea, Ponsoda, & Garca, 2011; Crawford, 2003). Within the field of neuropsychology, there
Address
for correspondence: Joan Guàrdia-Olmos, Department

of Methodology of Behavioral Sciences, Faculty of Psychology,
University of Barcelona, Passeig de la Vall dHebron, 171, 08035
Barcelona, Spain. Tel.: +34 933125099; Fax: +34 934021359;
E-mail: jguardia@ub.edu.
is a significant lack of norms for Spanish-speakers in

Latin America. This article presents the methodology
employed to standardize various neuropsychological
tests administered in 11 Latin American countries.
There is extensive literature describing which demographic variables (e.g., sex, age, socio-economic status,
and years of education) must be taken into account
to generate appropriate norms for neuropsychological
tests. It is widely accepted that the systematic error generated by both chronological age and education needs
must be controlled for (Salthouse, 2000, 2001, 2009;
Salthouse, Atkinson, & Berish, 2003). Therefore, there
are several ways to control for age and education effects:
1053-8135/15/$35.00 2015 IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
494
J. Guàrdia-Olmos et al. / Methodology for the development of normative data for ten Spanish-language neuropsychological tests
1) A method that involves the adjustment of control

systems for error correction, based on the generation
of normative data for each reference group. In this
procedure, it would be necessary to use the stratum
system to identify normative groups based on classic
standardization. Though this option is easy, it generates
an enormous quantity of normative tables that would
turn the final product into a measureless and useless
contribution from the point of view of applied clinical
research (Brooks, Strauss, Sherman, Iverson, & Slick,
2009; Kim et al., 2014; La Cour & Andersen, 2006;
La Paglia et al., 2014; Mungas, Reed, Crane, Haan, &
Gonzalez, 2004; Peintinger & Klunemann, 2013; Salvadori, Poggesi, Pracucci, Inzitari, & Pantoni, 2015),
2) The score correction obtained from the use of partial regression coefficients from a linear model (Blesa
et al., 2001; Villasenor, Guàrdia, Jimenez, Rizo, & Pero,
2010), and 3) The use of regression coefficients combined with the standard deviation of the residual to
obtain normative data based on a percentile scale (Van
der Elst, Dekker, Hurks, & Jolles, 2012; Van der Elst,
Hurks, Wassenberg, Meijs, & Jolles, 2011; Van der Elst,
Van Boxtel, Van Breukelen, & Jolles, 2006).
We had to choose a statistical approach to standardize the neuropsychological tests given the final resulting
sample. We found an approach that would allow us to
take into account a number of issues. For instance, the
sample was obtained from a large number of countries
and each country had slightly different distributions of
age and educational levels. Furthermore, given that tests
administered to these samples have different response
ranges, as well as individual differences across countries, and well-known floor and ceiling effects made it
more difficult to obtain normal distributions of acceptable symmetry values for our sample (Hartshorner &
Germine, 2015; Schroeder & Salthouse, 2004). Therefore, we used the standardization procedure described
by Van der Elst et al. (2006, 2011, 2012) in which
regression coefficients are combined with the standard
deviation of the residual.
Given the issues pertaining to this very heterogeneous sample of participants from 11 countries across
Latin America, using regression coefficients combined
with the standard deviation of the residual to obtain
normative data based on a percentile scale seems to
be the best procedure. Conventional norms tables will
be generated in a quantity that is easy to handle and
has greater clinical utility. Additionally, this procedure
proposes correction systems that take real observed distributions into account instead of a series of arbitrary
strata. In such a way they solve the ceiling and floor
effect problems. Finally, the procedure allows for a specific adjustment depending on the cohort studied (Van
der Elst et al., 2006, 2011, 2012). Though this procedure does not radically solve the issues of asymmetric
distributions, it does make it possible to take them into
account, as the predictions of scale setting are based on
the establishment of confidence intervals close to the
average values (Russell, Russell, & Hill, 2005).
In light of all of the above, in this paper we will
explain the methodology based on ordered regression
coefficients and statistical models, with the intention to
generate normative data and standardize different neuropsychological test in 11 Spanish-speaking countries
from Latin America.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The present study was conducted with a sample of 5,402 healthy individuals from 20 cities
in 12 Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America
(Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru,
and Puerto Rico). The results obtained from 1,425
Colombians have been published elsewhere (Arango
& Rivera, 2015). Therefore, this article will present the
procedures used to generate normative data from 3,977
healthy individuals from 14 cities for the remaining 11
countries.
The sample was designed taking into account the
literacy level, the percentage of people with primary,
secondary and tertiary studies, and the age distribution
for each country. Thus, an empirical quota sampling
was used, in order to have a statistical precision between
0.063 to 0.049 with a 95% confidence level estimated
under the situation of maximum uncertainty ( = 1
= 0.5) (see Table 1). Due to the low number of participants across the three education levels, years of
education was recoded into two groups (1 to 12 years
and >12 years). These two groups differentiate between
people with low and medium and those with a high level
of education. A description of the sample differentiated
by this codification of years of education and country
of origin is shown in Table 2.
For all the countries, the inclusion and exclusion
criteria were the same. The inclusion criteria were:
a) were between 18 to 95 years of age, b) were
born and currently lived in the country where the
protocol was conducted, c) spoke Spanish as their
495
Table 1
Summary of the sampling designed and final sample obtained
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Age in years
Designed sample
Years of education
<56
56 a 75
>75
<56
56 a 75
>75
<56
56 a 75
>75
<56
56 a 75
>75
<56
56 a 75
>75
<56
56 a 75
>75
<56
56 a 75
>75
<56
56 a 75
>75
<56
56 a 75
>75
<56
56 a 75
>75
<56
56 a 75
>75
Final sample
Years of education
<6
6 to 12
>12
<6
6 to 12
>12
60
60
60
50
50
50
60
60
60
60
60
60
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
225
225
125
50
50
50
60
60
60
40
40
41
50
50
40
35
35
30
50
50
40
50
50
40
35
35
30
35
35
30
35
35
30
225
225
125
35
35
30
50
50
40
35
35
30
30
30
20
20
20
10
30
30
20
30
30
20
20
20
10
20
20
10
20
20
10
100
100
50
20
20
10
30
30
20
20
20
10
0
1
3
43
40
37
33
37
29
0
8
3
34
34
33
15
14
2
30
30
8
170
155
73
13
29
3
4
6
0
4
10
5
83
49
12
37
39
30
64
58
20
109
83
31
37
35
30
48
42
12
39
26
7
262
249
96
71
97
3
46
25
6
65
68
8
128
40
4
21
18
9
50
20
9
39
25
8
22
22
10
41
37
3
29
14
1
154
105
36
35
12
0
117
28
13
85
41
8
Table 2
Sample distribution by age, education and gender
n Total
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
320
274
320
306
257
214
184
1300
263
245
294
Age
Education
Gender
Mean (SD)
1 to 12
n (%)
>12
n (%)
Male
n (%)
Female
n (%)
45.7 (19.5)
55.8 (22.0)
55.1 (19.6)
53.0 (19.7)
56.0 (20.7)
53.2 (17.4)
48.6 (18.8)
52.5 (20.5)
53.0 (14.8)
43.4 (20.6)
50.9 (18.5)
148 (46.3%)
226 (82.5%)
241 (75.3%)
234 (76.5%)
203 (79.0%)
133 (62.1%)
140 (76.1%)
1005 (77.3%)
216 (82.1%)
87 (35.5%)
160 (54.4%)
172 (53.8%)
48 (17.5%)
79 (24.7%)
72 (23.5%)
54 (21.0%)
81 (37.9%)
44 (23.9%)
295 (22.7%)
47 (17.9%)
158 (64.5%)
134 (45.6%)
96 (30.0%)
99 (36.1%)
134 (41.9%)
142 (46.4%)
100 (38.9%)
95 (44.4%)
67 (36.4%)
431 (33.2%)
101 (38.4%)
87 (35.5%)
126 (42.9%)
224 (70.0%)
175 (63.9%)
186 (58.1%)
164 (53.6%)
157 (61.1%)
119 (55.6%)
117 (63.6%)
869 (66.8%)
162 (61.6%)
158 (64.5%)
168 (57.1%)
native language, d) had completed at least one year

of formal education, e) be able to read and write
at the moment of evaluation. f) scored 23 on the
Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE, Folstein,
Folstein, & McHugh, 1975; Ostrosky-Sols, LopezArango, & Ardila, 2000; Villasenor-Cabrera, GuàrdiaOlmos, Jimenez-Maldonado, Rizo-Curiel, & PeroCebollero, 2010), g) scored 4 on the Patient
496
Health Questionnaire9 (PHQ-9, Kroenke, Spitzer, &

Williams, 2001), and h) scored 90 on the Barthel
Index (Mahoney & Barthel, 1965).
The exclusion criteria were: a) having a personal
history of central nervous disease (stroke, epilepsy,
multiple sclerosis, brain tumour, severe head trauma,
etc.); b) having history of alcohol abuse or other psychotropic substances; c) having an active systemic
disease or uncontrolled disease associated with cognitive impairment (diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism,
B12 vitamin deficit); d) having a history of psychiatric
illness (major depression, bipolar disease, psychosis,
etc.); e) having severe sensory deficits (vision and/or
auditory loss) that could affect the administration of
the test or the participants performance in these test;
f) Use of psychiatric or other drugs that could affect
ones cognitive performance; and g) taking medications
for chronic pain (e.g. Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors
MAOI).
2.2. Instruments
A sociodemographic questionnaire was created for
this project in order to collect data on age, years of education, sex, laterality (right, left handed, ambidextrous),
residence zone (rural, urban), race (white, black, mestizo, indigenous), employment status (employed, un
employed, student, retired, housekeeping), and marital
status (single, married, cohabited, separated, divorced,
widower). Then, all of the individuals were administered a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation
that was composed of the 10 neuropsychological tests:
1. Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure test (ROCF; Rey,
2009).
2. Stroop colour and words test (Golden, 2010).
3. Modified Wisconsin card sorting test (M-WCST;
Nelson, 1976; Schretlen, 2010).
4. Trial making test (TMT A-B; Reitan & Wolfson,
1985).
5. Brief test of attention (BTA; Schretlen, 1997).
6. Phonological and semantical verbal fluency test.
7. Boston naming test (Goodglas, Kaplan, & Barresi,
2005).
8. Symbol digit modalities test (SDMT; Smith,
2002).
9. Hopkins verbal learning test - Revised (HVLT-R;
Benedict, Schretlen, Groninger, & Brandt, 1998).
10. Test of memory malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh,
2011).
2.3. Procedure
2.3.1. Training and administration procedure
of the battery
The present study began November 1, 2012 with the
participation of 15 institutions. Subsequently, the proposal that included the methodology and ethics was
drafted and later delivered to the ethics committee of the
University of Deusto (Bilbao, Spain). After approval,
the publishing manuals, answer sheets and materials
(booklets and encouragement cards) for each of the neuropsychological tests were bought. Spanish-language
versions of instructions booklets were available for all
instruments except for M-WCST and BTA. Spanish
administration and instruction manuals for these instruments were created in collaborated with the publishers.
Likewise, tools and visual aids were created to achieve
standard management process of the battery. These tools
consisted of: a) a randomized list to determine the order
of administration of the test for each participant in order
to avoid order bias and cognitive conditioning. To do
so, the function fx = RAND() was used in Microsoft
Excel and was set to take into account the interaction
of the language test and verbal memory test; b) a framework for decision-making in the evaluation process; c)
a template in Microsoft Excel for entering information to limit bias input information. The template was
designed using the configuration options: data validation = Customized (numeric variables), dropdown lists
(categorical variables) and setting formats; d) examples
showing the most frequent errors in the administration
and scoring of each test, and e) a virtual folder with a
securitykeyforeachcity,administeredbythestudycoordinator to track data entry.
Moreover, each coordinator selected a group of 612
undergraduates and/or graduate students, with which
the coordinator reviewed the instructions and application and qualification of the tests. Once the group
was ready, an online virtual training was performed
through telemedicine platform VSee . During the twohour long training, the administration and scoring of the
tests were reviewed and any doubts were resolved.
A pilot test with 40 protocols (these were excluded
from the analysis of normative data) was conducted
by analyzing data from the first two cases collected in
each of the 20 centers in order to determine the adequate functioning for collection of information with the
proposed design.
Data collection began March 2013 and ended August
2014. The protocol was administered in a single day
and lasted about 70 minutes. Before starting the battery
administration, participants had to sign the informed

consent.
Once the database was consolidated, we reviewed the
data distribution of frequencies, comparing the values
of various statistics and graphs, in order to check for
correct processing and characteristics of distributions
for each of the variables analyzed. This certified the
database was generated correctly and the properties of
the observed variables were known.
2.3.2. Normative procedure
An independent t-test by country was run for each
neuropsychological measure to first determine whether
there were any significant differences in test scores
based on participant sex within each country. Since
the sample size is very large, significant differences
for gender in neuropsychological scores were needed
with a medium or high effect size (r > 0.3, Cohen,
1988) in order to consider that differences in the scores
between men and women are relevant. The effect size
was obtained using the following expression:
!
t2
r=
t2 + v
when relevant, country sample sizes were stratified
by sex when significant differences were found with
medium or high effect sizes.
The lineal regression model was built using the raw
(direct/ unconverted) score in the scale being normed as
the criterion variable. Participant age was included as a
predictor variable, and years of education (dichotomized
in two groups: 1 to 12 years coded as 0 and >12 years
coded as 1) was also considered as a predictor variable
for those cases where the differences in the raw scores
between men and women met the above-mentioned criteria. All the regressions were run differentiating by
country. If any predictive variable was not statistically
significant, the linear regression analysis was repeated
eliminating that predictive variable. For all linear regression models, the following were assessed: collinearity
between the predictive variables, value of variance inflation factor (VIF) near to 1, the residuals normality
using the Q-Q plot and the residuals histogram, the
homoscedasticity as in the scatter plot of the standardized residuals and the predicted values, and finally, the
existence of influent values by Cooks distance.
In order to obtain the exact percentile for an exact
score, the procedure used by Van der Elst et al. (2006,
2011, and 2012) was followed. The steps to obtain the
exact percentile were:
497
1. Obtain the predicted value using the regression

equation obtained in the country of origin of the
person where the original y was de score of each
neuropsychological test:
"yi = b0 + b1 Agei + b2 Educationtal leveli + b3 Sex
2. Obtain the residual value:
ei = yi "
yi
3. Standardize the residual obtained (transform to z

score). To do this, it is necessary to divide the
residual value by the standard deviation for the
residual obtained in the fitted regression model.
ei
z=
SDe
4. Search the exact probability associated with the z
value using accumulated probability of the standardized normal distribution.
It is possible that some clinicians consider this procedure slow and expensive in time. For this reason, in
the papers that the different normative data were presented for each scale, we present also tables with the
approximated percentile. To do this, following the procedure used by Van der Elst et al. (2006, 2011, 2012),
we used class mark age value starting with 20 years
2 years until a class mark of 80 years old. For each class
mark age and educational level (1: more than 12 years
or 0:1 to 12 years) we apply the procedure explained
in order to obtain the percentile. In this case we do not
have the percentile for each age in years, we have the
approximation for intervals of 5 years instead.
3. Limitations and future directions
Among the limitations encountered in the present
study, there was an observed low symmetry in sample
sizes between males and females for certain countries
(e.g., Argentina). Additionally, discrepancy between
designed and final sample was observed in certain
countries more so than in others due to issues beyond
researchers control. For instance, in the case of Cuba,
where education is obligatory and accessible to the population, it was extremely difficult to find participants
with fewer than six years of education. Furthermore, the
study used healthy participants. This resulted in floor
and ceiling effects on some of the neuropsychological
measures used. Additional limitations include lack of
clinical sample(s) in the normative data, as well as lack
of adequate representation of indigenous populations
498
from Latin America. Among inclusion criteria for this

study was the requirement that participants must be able
to read. Therefore illiterate individuals were not part of
the final sample of this study. Directions for future work
in this line of research may include creating normative
data for illiterate individuals, as well as individuals with
varying neurological disorders (e.g., dementias, TBI,
multiple sclerosis, etc.) from Latin America.
4. Conclusions
The procedure used by Van der Elst et al. (2006, 2011,
2012) allows us to propose a convenient procedure to
obtain sex, age, and education norms for 10 neuropsychological tests without the necessity to work with large
samples. This procedure is, in fact, a simple procedure
useful in clinical practice. Clinicians have two possibilities to obtain the percentile. The first one is to obtain
the exact percentile using the procedure described and
the information of the regression coefficients and the
residual standard error provided in the different articles
of each test. They also have tables corresponding to the
standardized normal distribution or software that provide the cumulative probability to a z score in order to
complete the process and obtain the exact percentile.
The second one, for those clinicians who do not need to
obtain the exact percentile, is to use the tables obtained
for each test with the approximate percentile. These
tables are very simple to use, and are similar to those
tables that psychologists use in their regular practice.
They only need to know the sex, age and educational
level of the person assessed and, finally, the raw score
in the test administered. With these values, it is necessary to search, in the table of their country, the sex if
it is considered in the model, the educational level (1
to 12 and >12 years), the age group and the raw score,
and then find the approximate percentile provided in
the table. These tables will be including in each of the
10 manuscripts of the special issue.
Acknowledgments
The Grup de Recerca en Tècniques Estadstiques
Avancades Aplicades a la Psicologia (GTEAAP) members of the Generalitat de Catalunyas 2014 SGR
326 Consolidated Research Group (GRC) provided
methodological and statistical support for this study.
They are funded by the PSI2013-41400-P project of
Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad of the Spanish Government.
Conflict of interest
None.
References
Abad, F. J., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V., & Garca, C. (2011). Medicio n en
ciencias sociales y de la salud. Madrid: Editorial Sntesis, S.A.
Arango-Lasprilla, J. C., Rivera, D. (2015). Neuropsicologa en
Colombia: Datos normativos, estado actual y retos a futuro. Manizales, Colombia: Editorial Universidad Autonoma de Manizales.
Benedict, R. B., Schretlen, D., Groninger, L., & Brandt, J. (1998).
Hopkins Verbal Learning TestRevised: Normative data and
analysis of inter-form and testretest reliability. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12(1), 43-55. doi:10.1076/clin.12.1.43.1726.
Blesa, R., Pujol, M., Aguilar, M., Santacruz, P., Bertran, I.,
Hernandez, G., et al. (2001). Clinical Validity of the Mini Mental
State for Spanish speaking communities. Neuropsychologia, 39,
1150-1157.
Brooks, B. L., Strauss, E., Sherman, E., Iverson, G. L., & Slick, D. J.
(2009). Developments in neuropsychological assessment: Refining psychometric and clinical interpretive methods. Canadian
Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 50(3), 196.
Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crawford, J. R. (2003). Psychometric foundations of neuropsychological assessment. In L. H. Goldstein & J. McNeil (Eds.),
Clinical Neuropsychology: A Practical Guide to Assessment and
Management for Clinicians (pp. 220-235). Chichester: Wiley.
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Minimental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of
patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3),
189-198.
Golden, C. J. (2010). Manual de test de colores y palabras. Madrid:
Publicaciones de psicologa aplicada. TEA Ediciones.
Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barresi, B. (2005). Evaluacion de la
Afasia y de Trastornos Relacionados. Madrid: Editorial medica
panamericana.
Hartshorne, J. K., & Germine, L. T. (2015). When does cognitive
functioning peak? The asynchronous rise and fall of different
cognitive abilities across the life span. Psychological Science, 1,
1-11. doi: 10.1177/0956797614567339
Kim, J., Parker, D., Whyte, J., Hart, T., Pluta, J., Ingalhalikar, M., et
al. (2014). Disrupted structural connectome is associated with
both psychometric and real-world neuropsychological impairment in diffuse traumatic brain injury. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society, 20(9), 887-896.
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ9. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606-613.doi:
10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
La Cour, P., & Andersen, R. (2006). Neuropsychological assessment with the Visual Gestalt Test: Psychometric properties and
differential diagnostic probabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47(1), 1-8.
La Paglia, F., La Cascia, C., Cipresso, P., Rizzo, R., Francomano,
A., Riva, G., & La Barbera, D. (2014). Psychometric assessment
using classic neuropsychological and virtual reality based test: A
study in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and schizophrenic
patients. Pervasive Computing Paradigms for Mental Health (pp.
23-32). Springer International Publishing.
Mahoney, F. I., & Barthel, D. (1965). Functional evaluation: The
Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal, 14, 56-61.
Mungas, D., Reed, B. R., Crane, P. K., Haan, M. N., & Gonzalez,
H. (2004). Spanish and English Neuropsychological Assessment
Scales (SENAS): Further development and psychometric characteristics. Psychological assessment, 16(4), 347.
Nelson, H. E. (1976). A modified card sorting test sensitive to frontal
lobe defects. Cortex, 12, 313-324.
Ostrosky-Sols, F., Lopez-Arango, G., & Ardila, A. (2000). Sensitivity and specificity of the Mini-Mental State Examination in
a Spanish-speaking population. Applied Neuropsychology, 7(1),
25-31.
Peintinger, L., & Klunemann, H. H. (2013). Psychometric diagnostic of cognitive functions and motor skills/INS; Findings from
a neuropsychological test/INS; battery on Niemann/INS; Pick
type C-patients. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 333, e634.
Reitan, R. M., & Wolfson, D. (1985). The Halstead-Reitan neuropsychological test battery: Theory and clinical interpretation.
Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychology Press.
Rey, A. (2009). REY: Test de copia y de reproduccion de memoria de
figuras geometricas complejas. Madrid: TEA ediciones.
Russell, E. W., Russell, S. L. K., & Hill, B. D. (2005). The fundamental psychometric status of neuropsychological batteries. Archives
of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 785794.
Salvadori, E., Poggesi, A., Pracucci, G., Inzitari, D., & Pantoni,
L. (2015). Development and psychometric properties of a neuropsychological battery for mild cognitive impairment with small
vessel disease: The VMCI-Tuscany Study. Journal of Alzheimers
Disease, 43(4), 1313-1323. doi: 10.3233/JAD-141449
Salthouse, T. (2000). Aging and measures of processing speed. Biological Psychology, 54, 35-54.
Salthouse, T. (2001). Structural models of the relations between age
and measures of cognitive functioning. Intelligence, 29, 93-115.
Salthouse, T. (2009). When does age-related cognitive decline begin?
Neurobiology of Aging, 30, 507-514.
499
Salthouse, T., Atkinson, T. M., & Berish, D. E. (2003). Executive functioning as a potential mediator of age-related cognitive
decline in normal adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 132(4), 566-594.
Schretlen, D. (1997). Brief Test of Attention Professional Manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Schretlen, D. J. (2010). Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: MWCST; Professional Manual. Lutz: PAR.
Schroeder, D.H., & Salthouse, T. (2004). Age-related effects on cognition between 20 and 50 years of age. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 393-404.
Smith, A. (2002). Manual de test de smbolos y dgitos SDMT.
Madrid: Publicaciones de psicologa aplicada. TEA ediciones.
Tombaugh, T. N. (2011). Test de Simulacio n de Problemas de Memoria. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
Van der Elst, W., Dekker, S., Hurks, P., & Jolles, J. (2012).
The letter digit substitution test: Demographic influences
and regression-based normative data for school-aged children. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27, 433-439.
doi:10.1093/arclin/acs045
Van der Elst, W., Hurks, P., Wassenberg, R., Meijs, C., & Jolles,
J. (2011) Animal verbal fluency and design fluency in schoolaged children: Effects of age, sex, and mean level of parental
education, and regression-based normative data. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 33(9), 1005-1015. doi:
10.1080/13803395.2011.589509
Van der Elst, W., Van Boxtel, M. P. J., Van Breukelen, G. J. P.,
& Jolles, J. (2006). Normative data for the animal, profession
and letter M naming verbal fluency tests for Dutch speaking
participants and the effects of age, education, and sex. Journal
of the International Neuropsychological Society, 12, 80-89. doi:
10.10170S1355617706060115
Villasenor, T., Guàrdia, J., Jimenez, M., Rizo, G., & Pero, M. (2010).
Sensitivity and specificity of the Mini-Mental State Examination
in the Mexican population. Quality & Quantity, 44, 1105-1112.
501

DOI:10.3233/NRE-151278
IOS Press
Standard form of the Boston Naming Test:

Normative data for the Latin American
Spanish speaking adult population
L. Olabarrieta-Landaa , D. Riveraa , A. Morlett-Paredesb , A. Jaimes-Bautistac , M.T. Garzad ,
J. Galarza-del-Angele , W. Rodrguezf , B. Rabagog , S. Schebelah , P.B. Perrinb , M. Lunai ,
M. Longonij , N. Ocampo-Barbak , A. Aliagal , C.P. Sarachom , M.L. Bringasn , L. Esenarroo ,
P. Garca-Eganp and J.C. Arango-Lasprillaq,a,
a Faculty
of Psychology and Education, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain

of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
c Instituto Nacional de Neurologa y Neurociruga MVS, Mexico City, Mexico
d Facultad de Psicologa, Universidad Aut
onoma Nuevo Leon Monterrey, Mexico
e Universidad Aut
onoma de Baja California, Mexicali, Mexico
f Ponce Health Sciences University, Ponce, Puerto Rico
g Instituto Vocacional Enrique Daz de Le
on, Guadalajara, Mexico
h Instituto de Prevenci
on Social. Asuncion, Paraguay
i Universidad Dr. Jos
e Matas Delgado, San Salvador, El Salvador
j Clnica de rehabilitaci
on Las Araucarias, Buenos Aires, Argentina
k Fundaci
on Horizontes, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia
l Servicio M
edico Legal, Ministerio de Justicia, Santiago, Chile
m CETYS University, Mexicali, Mexico
n International center for neurological Restoration CIREN, Habana, Cuba
o Instituto de Neuropsicologa y Demencias, Lima, Peru
p Departamento de Psicologa, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala
q IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain
b Department
Abstract.
Objective: To generate normative data on the Boston Naming Test (BNT) across 10 countries in Latin America, with countryspecific adjustments for gender, age, and education, where appropriate.
Method: The sample consisted of 3,779 healthy adults who were recruited from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and, Puerto Rico. Each subject was administered the BNT as part of a larger neuropsychological battery. A standardized five-step statistical procedure was used to generate the norms.
Results: The final multiple linear regression models explained between 332% of the variance in BNT scores. Although t-tests
showed significant differences between men and women for Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Guatemala, and Bolivia on the BNT,
none of the six countries had an effect size larger than 0.3. As a result, gender-adjusted norms were not generated.
Conclusions: This is the first normative multicenter study conducted in Latin America to generate norms for the BNT; this study
will have substantial repercussions for the practice of neuropsychology throughout the global region.
Keywords: Normative data, Boston Naming Test, Latin America, denomination
Address
for correspondence: Juan Carlos Arango-Lasprilla,

Ph.D., IKERBASQUE Research Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Deusto, IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation
for Science, Bilbao, Spain. Tel.: +804 859 4329;

jcarango@deusto.es.
E-mail:
502
L. Olabarrieta-Landa et al. / Standard form of the Boston Naming Test
1. Introduction
The Boston Naming Test (BNT) is one of the
most widely used neuropsychological instruments to
evaluate language abilities including naming or word
retrieval. It is used to identify individuals with different
clinical pathologies, including communication disorders, aphasia or other language disturbances caused by
stroke, Alzheimers disease, or acquired brain lesions
(Goodglass & Kaplan, 1983). The BNT was developed in 1983 (Kaplan, Goodglass, & Weintraub, 1983).
In its experimental version, the BNT included 85 line
drawings in black and white (Kaplan, Goodglass, &
Weintraub, 1978), and it was later modified to 60 line
drawings (Kaplan et al., 1983). In 2000, a second
version of the test was developed which included a
15-item short form (Kaplan, Goodglass, & Weintraub,
2000). Subsequently, the test was included in the Boston
Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) published by
the Psychological Assessment Resources (Goodglass,
Kaplan, & Barresi, 2001).
Areas involved in the functioning of the BNT are
Brocas (in the frontal lobe) and Wernickes areas (in the
temporal lobe). Other areas activated for language processes are those outside the areas in the left hemisphere,
especially anterior to Brocas area, as well as in the right
hemisphere regions (Mitchell & Crow, 2005). Overall,
research has found that several specific brain regions
that showed greater gray and white matter volume and
integrity were associated with better task performance
on the BNT (Obler et al., 2010). Naming or word
retrieval implies the involvement of several processes
that are usually activated sequentially as the perceptual
recognition of the stimulus, and the participation of the
semantic system and the phonological program containing the driving information to articulate the names
have been previously activated.
Naming or word retrieval tasks are used for typical neuropsychological evaluations, particularly with
older adults (LaBarge, Edwards, & Knesevich, 1986),
individuals with brain injuries (Brooks, Fos Greve,
& Hammond, 1999), and dementia (Katsumata et al.,
2015). BNT performance in populations with brain
injuries can be significantly affected (FernandezBlazquez et al., 2012). Therefore, the BNT is used to
detect problems in word retrieval and assess language
disorders. Among these are patients with aphasic disorders, with a decrease in words used to talk and an
increase in time needed to retrieve them. This deficit
in verbal output, also called anomic aphasia, nominal aphasia, or amnesic aphasia, is one of the most
common disorders associated with normal aging and

Alzheimers disease (Fernandez-Blazquez et al. 2012),
so the BNT may also be applicable in this disease.
The modified version of the BNT published in 1983
is the most widely used version of the test. In the BNT,
the examiner presents a number of black and white line
drawings of different pictures in order from easiest to
most difficult (example: a house, a harp, a compass, and
an abacus), allowing the participant to take twenty seconds to name each of the items. The examiner writes
down the participants responses, but if the participant
fails to give the correct response, stimulus cues are given
which provide the first phonemic cue of the word to
facilitate word retrieval. The total score on the BNT is
the number of correct spontaneous responses (SR) and
with the aid of stimulus cues (SC). The basal rule is eight
consecutive pictures named correctly without any assistance, and the discontinuation rule is six consecutive
failures.
The BNT has been standardized in many countries such as Spain (Rami et al., 2008; Pena-Casanova
et al., 2009), Canada (Graves, Bezeau, Fogarty, & Blair,
2004), Brazil (Miotto, Sato, Lucia, Camargo, & Scaff,
2010), Colombia (Beltran & Solis, 2012), Argentina
(Allegri et al., 1997), Australia (Elkadi et al., 2006),
Sweden (Tallberg, 2005), Holland (Marien, Mampaey,
Vervaet, Saerens & De Deyn, 1998), and the United
States (Zec, Burkett, Markwell, & Larsen, 2007). However, the adaptations that have been made to obtained
normative data for the BNT, in general, do not come
from the first edition but from second or short versions.
Throughout the years, the BNT has been translated to different languages in order to be used in
different countries where English is not the primary
language. For example, the BNT has been translated to
Spanish and Cantonese. Past research using the Modified Boston Naming Test-Spanish (MBNT-S; Ponton
et al., 1996) has shown the test to be less sensitive
to dementia-related naming impairment than a naming
test developed for Spanish-speakers (e.g. Texas Naming Test [TNT]; de la Plata et al., 2008). However, a
study looking at MBNT-S found the internal consistency of the 30-item MBNT-S to be generally adequate
(e.g., USA = 0.854; Colombia = 0.898; Spain = 0.898;
de la Plata et al., 2009). By contrast, past research has
found that the 15-item short form of the BNT demonstrated an alpha of 0.37 to 0.84 in healthy Caucasians
(Fastenau, Denburg, & Mauer, 1998; Graves, Bezeau,
Fogarty, & Blair, 2004). Likewise, other research has
reported an internal consistency of 0.83 in a Cantonese
version of the BNT (Cheung, Cheung, & Chan, 2004).
Other research has shown that most of the coefficients

of reliability (test-retest) in the BNT are above 0.77
in various samples (del Toro et al., 2011; Flanagan &
Jackson, 1997). The internal consistencies for all these
versions are generally adequate, however the validity of
these tests is questionable, given the cultural and language differences of the items, and the test may not
measure the same constructs.
Several studies have shown a relationship between
the total score of the BNT and variables such as age,
gender, and education (Au et al., 1995; Pineda et al.,
1998). In general, in a study administered to individuals
over 65 years of age it has been observed that naming
performance decreases as age increases and years of
education descends (Fernandez-Blazquez et al. 2012).
Past research has found that both verbal fluency and
naming were significantly associated with level of education in a group of Australian women. They found that
women with higher educational levels had better verbal performance when compared to women with lower
educational levels (Elkadi et al., 2006). Other research,
administered in normal elderly subjects between the
ages of 65 and 97 has found that education had a greater
impact than age on the BNT test, however this impact
diminished at older ages (Neils et al., 1995). Nonetheless this relationship between age, education, and the
BNT is not fully established, as some authors have not
found an influence of age and education on the performance of the BNT (Aranciva et al. 2012). Finally, past
research has not found significant differences between
men and women, although some research looking at
a group of young adults has found a slight advantage in men, in which many of the items are more
directly related to traditional male roles (Aranciva et al.,
2012).
Most of the normative data are from participants
with high educational levels, and therefore previous
samples may not be truly representative of the general population and have above-average vocabularies.
A group of researchers published BNT data for normal older adults based on a sample with a mean IQ
of 122 (Van Gorp, Satz, Kiersch, & Henry, 1986). The
authors recognized the IQ bias in the study, however
the data suggest that educational categories may still
be deceptive. One subgroup, aged 5964 obtained a
mean Verbal IQ of 122, which is higher than would be
expected on the basis of their mean education of 13.58
years.
Because the BNT was originally created in a specific population, and English was the primary language,
it is important to collect normative data to adapt this
503
test to other populations and facilitate clinical practice.

Unfortunately, there are very few neuropsychological
instruments developed in Spanish, as the majority of
the tests are direct translations of the English tests. The
validity of these tests, as mentioned before, is questionable, given the linguistic and cultural differences
of the items. (de la Plata, 2008; Loewenstein, Rubert,
Arguelles, & Duara, 1995). These differences and the
lack of normative data could generate erroneous interpretation in the performance of each individual (de la
Plata et al. 2009), thus, the aim of this study is to provide cross-cultural normative data for the BNT (Kaplan
et al., 1983) to help its clinical interpretation when used
in Latin America. We have chosen the standard version
of the BNT with 60 items (Kaplan et al., 1983) since this
is considered the most complete and most used in clinical work. In addition, these normative data are the first
part of a series of psychometric analysis to be developed
for the BNT, and for that reason we need the standard
version.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The sample consisted of 3,779 healthy individuals
who were recruited from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile,
Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru,
and Puerto Rico. The participants were selected according to the following criteria: a) were between 18 to 95
years of age, b) were born and currently lived in the
country where the protocol was conducted, c) spoke
Spanish as their native language, d) had completed at
least one year of formal education, e) were able to read
and write at the time of evaluation, f) scored 23 on
the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE, Folstein,
Folstein, & McHugh, 1975), g) scored4 on the Patient
Williams, 2001), and h) scored90 on the Barthel Index
(Mahoney & Barthel, 1965).
Participants with self-reported neurologic or psychiatric disorders were excluded due to a potential effect
on cognitive performance. Participants were volunteers
from the community and signed an informed consent.
Socio-demographic and participant characteristics for
each of the countries samples have been reported
in Guàrdia-Olmos, Pero-Cebollero, Rivera & ArangoLasprilla (2015). The multi-center study was approved
by the Ethics Committee of the coordinating site, the
University of Deusto, Spain.
504
spontaneously, the examiner provides a semantic clue

(in case of misrecognition error) or phonological clue
(when the semantic clue is still not enough to generate a response, or during the spontaneous response
there has been an error that is not a misrecognition
2.2. Instrument administration

The BNT requires examinees to denominate 60
pictures, which are presented in order of increasing difficulty. If the participant does not give a correct answer
Table 1
Effect of gender in the BNT
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Argentina
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
53.2 (5.0)
51.0 (5.9)
47.2 (8.5)
44.9 (9.0)
50.8 (7.1)
47.0 (7.4)
50.5 (7.7)
46.8 (8.0)
45.3 (9.5)
44.8 (9.2)
45.3 (9.9)
44.8 (8.7)
41.8 (7.2)
43.9 (7.3)
55.3 (4.0)
55.8 (3.4)
50.9 (6.0)
49.7 (7.4)
48.4 (7.8)
47.1 (9.1)
3.18
318
0.002
0.176
2.01
270
0.045
0.121
4.64
318
<0.001
0.252
4.03
304
<0.001
0.225
0.45
255
0.655
0.028
1.62
212
0.107
0.110
5.33
1,298
<0.001
0.146
1.03
261
0.306
0.063
1.29
209.3
0.197
0.089
1.28
280
0.203
0.076
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Mexico
Paraguay
Perua
Puerto Rico
a Value
Sig. (2-tailed)
of the t-test for independent groups from the different variances with the corresponding correction of Yuen-Welch of degrees of freedom.
p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001.
Table 2
Final multiple linear regression models for BNT
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
49.122
4.780
45.102
3.746
51.671
0.082
5.837
54.515
0.123
2.329
47.675
0.086
10.013
38.929
0.090
9.365
51.054
0.081
4.593
55.231
2.215
44.828
8.229
52.641
0.120
2.506
0.427
0.582
0.582
1.415
1.241
0.020
0.906
1.297
0.022
1.035
1.509
0.025
1.249
0.765
0.032
1.234
0.552
0.009
0.458
0.240
0.569
0.613
0.763
1.638
0.027
1.005
115.093
8.210
77.503
2.647
41.631
4.094
6.445
42.027
5.523
2.251
31.588
3.477
8.015
51.469
2.837
8.062
92.527
8.639
10.026
229.679
3.894
73.152
10.784
32.144
4.403
2.494
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.009
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.025
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.005
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.013
0.175
5.184
0.025
8.732
0.203
6.662
0.110
7.637
0.241
8.108
0.243
8.017
0.139
6.820
0.055
3.527
0.324
5.704
0.106
8.105
error). The total score is the sum of correct spontaneous

answers plus correct answers followed by a semantic
clue (Goodglass, Kaplan, & Barresi, 2001). The administration of the BNT was rigorous. Thus, synonyms
were not taken as correct responses.
2.3. Statistical analyses
The detailed statistical analyses used to generate the
normative data for this test are described in GuàrdiaOlmos et al. (2015). In summary, the data manipulation
process for each country-specific dataset involved fivesteps: a) t tests for independent samples and effect
sizes (r) were conducted to determine gender effects. If
the effect size was larger than 0.3, gender was included
in the model with gender dummy coded and female
as the reference group (male = 1 and female = 0). b)
A multivariable regression model was used to specify the predictive model including gender (if effect
size was larger than 0.3), age as a continuous variable, and education as a dummy coded variable with
1 if the participant had >12 years of education and
0 if the participants had 112 years of education.
If gender, age and/or education was not statistically
significant in this multivariate model with an alpha
of 0.05, the non-significant variables were removed
and the model was re-run. Then a final regression
model was conducted that included age (if statistically
significant in the multivariate model), dichotomized
education (if statistically significant in the multivariate
model),
! and/or gender
" (if effect #size was greater than
0.3) y i = 0 + Age Agei + (Educ Educi )
+ (Gender Genderi )] c) residual scores were calculated based on this final model (ei = yi y i ) d)
using the SD (residual) value provided by the regression
model, residuals were standardized: z = ei /SDe , with
SDe (residual) = the standard deviation of the residuals
in the normative sample; and e) standardized residuals were converted to percentile values (Strauss et al.,
2006). Using each countrys dataset, these steps were
applied to BNT score.
3. Results
Regarding the effect of gender on BNT scores, the
t-tests showed significant differences between men and
women for Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, and Mexico, however, none of these five countries had an effect
size larger than 0.3. Table 1 shows the results of the gender analyses by country on BNT scores. As shown in
Table 1, the effect sizes for all countries were less than
505
0.3, and therefore gender was not taken into account to

generate BNT normative data for any of the countries
in the study.
The final ten BNT multivariate linear regression
models for each country are shown in Table 2. In all
countries, BNT score increased for those with more
than 12 years of education (see Table 2) and, except for
Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Peru, BNT scores
decreased in a linear fashion as a function of age. The
amount of variance explained in BNT scores ranged
from 3% (in Bolivia) to 32% (in Peru).
3.1. Normative procedure
Norms (e.g., a percentile score) for the BNT score
test were established using the five-step procedure
described above. To facilitate the understanding of the
procedure to obtain the percentile associated with a
score on this test, an example will be given. Suppose
you need to find the percentile score for a Mexican
man, who is 59 years old and has 15 years of education.
He has a score of 52 on the BNT. The steps to obtain
the percentile for this score are: a) Check Table 1 to
determine if the effect size of gender in the country of
interest (Mexico) on this test and task (BNT) is greater
than 0.3 by country. The column labelled r in Table 1
indicates the effect size. In this example, the effect size
is 0.146, which is not greater than 0.3. For Mexicans on
this test, gender does not influence scores to a sufficient
degree to take it into account when determining the
percentile. b) Find Mexico in Table 2, which provides
the final regression models by country for the BNT. Use
the B weights to create an equation that will allow you
to obtain the predicted BNT score. The corresponding
B weights are multiplied by the actual age and
dichotomized education scores and added to a constant
in order to calculate the predicted value. In this case,
the predicted BNT score would be calculated using
the equation [yi = 51.054 + (0.081 . Agei ) +
(4.593 Dichotomized Educational Level i )]
(the
values have been rounded for presentation in the
formula). The subscript notation i indicates the person
of interest. The persons age is 59, but the education
variable is not continuous in the model. Years of
education is split into either 1 to 12 years (and
assigned a 0) or more than 12 years (and assigned a
1) in the model. Since our hypothetical person in the
example has 15 years of education, his educational
level value is 1. Thus the predicted value is y i =
51.054 + (0.081 59) + (4.593 1) = 51.054
4.763 + 4.593 = 50.88) c) In order to calculate
506
the residual value (indicated with an e in the equation),

we subtract the actual value from the predicted value we
just calculated ( ei = yi y i ). In this case, it would
be ei = 52 50.8 = 1.117. d) Next, consult the
SDe column in Table 2 to obtain the country-specific
SDe (residual) value. For Mexico it is 6.820. Using
this value, we can transform the residual value to a
standardized z score using the equation (ei / SDe ). In
this case, we have (1.117) / 6.820 = 0.163. This is
the standardized z score for a Mexican man aged 59
years with 15 years of education and a score of 52 on
the BNT. e) The last step is to look-up the tables in the
statistical reference books (e.g. Strauss et al., 2006) or
use a trusted online calculator like the one available at
http://www.measuringu.com/pcalcz.php. In the online
calculator, you would enter the z score and choose a
one-sided test and note the percent of area after hitting
the submit button. In this case, the probability of 0.163
corresponds to the 56th percentile.
3.2. User-friendly normative data tables
The five-step normative procedures explained above
can provide more individualized norms. However, this
method can be prone to human error due to the number
of required computations. To enhance user-friendliness,
the authors have completed these steps for a range of
raw scores based on small age range groupings (see
Guàrdia-Olmos et al., 2015) and created tables that clinicians can more easily use to obtain a percentile range
associated with a given raw score on this test. These
tables are available by country in the Appendix. In order
to obtain an approximate percentile for the above example (converting a raw score of 52 for a Mexican man
who is 59 years old and has 15 years of education)
using the simplified normative tables provided, the following steps are recommended. (1) First, identify the
appropriate table ensuring the specific country and test.
In this case, the table for BNT scores for Mexico can
be found in Table A7. (2) Note if the title of the table
indicates that it is only to be used for one specific gender. In this case, gender is not specified. Thus Table
A8 is used for both males and females. (3) Next, the
table is divided based on educational level (1 to 12 vs.
more than 12 years of education). Since this man has
15 years of education, he falls into the more than 12
years of education category. These data can be found in
the top section of the table. (4) Determine the age range
most appropriate for the individual. In this case, 59 falls
into the column 5862 years of age. (5) Read down the
age range column to find the approximate location of
the raw score the person obtained on the test. Reading

down the 5862 column, the score of 52 obtained by this
Mexican man corresponds to an approximate percentile
of 60.
The percentile obtained via this user-friendly table
method (60th) is slightly different than the more exact
one (56th) obtained following the individual conversion
steps above because the table method is based on an age
range (e.g., individuals aged 5862) instead of the exact
age (individuals aged 59). If the exact score is not listed
in the column, you must estimate the percentile value
from the listed raw scores.
4. Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to generate normative data on the BNT across 10 countries in Latin
America, with country-specific adjustments for gender, age, and education, where appropriate. The final
multiple linear regression models explained between
332% of the variance in BNT scores. Although men
had higher scores on the BNT in Mexico, Argentina,
Chile, Cuba, Guatemala, and Bolivia, these effect sizes
were all small. As a result, gender-adjusted norms were
not generated. These findings are generally in line with
the previous literature which has not found significant
gender differences, although one study found a slight
advantage in men which was interpreted as a reflection
of the items being more in line with traditional male
roles (Aranciva et al., 2012). Considering the previous
literature, the current results suggest that gender should
not be taken into account in calculating participants
percentiles for the BNT in Latin America when using
these norms.
BNT scores increased linearly as a function of
education in all countries. These findings were quite
consistent with the previous research which has robustly
found BNT scores to increase with higher educational
levels (Elkadi et al, 2006; Fernandez-Blazquez et al.,
2012; Neils et al., 1995). Therefore neuropsychologists
in Latin America should use the education-adjusted
norms generated for each country when administering
the BNT in that country. There are potentially major
differences in the quality of education across countries
in Latin America, and the current data provide a good
starting point for standardizing across education on the
BNT.
BNT scores decreased with advancing age in all
countries except Argentina, Peru, Paraguay, Guatemala,
and Bolivia, and as a result, age-adjusted norms are
presented for only the countries showing an effect of
age. These age findings are similar to previous studies that have shown lower BNT scores in older adults
(Fernandez-Blazquez et al., 2012), although as with the
current study, age effects were generally smaller than
education effects (Neils et al., 1995). On the other hand,
one study did not find an effect of age on BNT performance (Aranciva et al., 2012). The current findings, in
light of the previous research, suggest that BNT corrections for age in Latin America should only be made in
the countries where age effects were present.
4.1. Limitations and future directions
This study has several limitations that should be taken
into account and that can also be seen as directions for
future research. First, neuropsychologists should exercise caution when using the BNT norms from this study
for people in countries other than the 10 countries from
which data were collected. It is important that future
studies create BNT norms in other Latin American
countries such as Ecuador, Uruguay, Venezuela, and
Panama. Nonetheless, the current BNT norms could
be more accurate in those Latin American countries
than other norms currently in use, such as those from
Spain. Examining this generalizability is a crucial area
for future research.
Second, the BNT is a very common neuropsychological measure in Latin America, but many other
assessments need to be normed in the same manner to
improve their use in this region. Future studies should
investigate the psychometric properties and ecological
validity of the BNT and other typical instruments in
Latin America. If shown to be low, researchers need to
create instruments within Latin American cultures that
have strong ecological validity. For example, the Modified Boston Naming Test-Spanish (MBNT-S; Ponton et
al., 1996) is less sensitive to dementia-related naming
impairment than a naming test developed for Spanishspeakers (Texas Naming Test [TNT]; de la Plata et al.,
2008). Much more of this line of research needs to be
conducted, as the BNT was created in a Western culture that may differ from the diverse cultures in Latin
America. Future studies would benefit from creating
assessments within local cultures, not simply translate
and norm tests from other cultures and countries.
Third, the current data should be interpreted and used
in light of several sampling limitations. Participants
in the current study spoke Spanish as their primary
language. This study did not collect data on whether participants spoke additional local languages or English,
and BNT performance could differ among people who
507
speak secondary languages. Future research should

examine the influence of bilingualism on BNT performance. It should also be noted that data collection
occurred in specific cities or regions of the countries in
in this study as opposed to nationally. Although the current study is the largest neuropsychological normative
study in the history of Latin America for the BNT, or in
any global region, it should be seen as a first step toward
larger, nationally representative normative studies. For
example, many participants had fewer than 12 years
of education, but illiterate individuals were excluded.
Therefore the current norms cannot generalize well to
illiterate adults. Similarly, participants were excluded
who had a history of neurological conditions; future
studies should be conducted with illiterate adults, with
neurological populations, as well as children.
Although these limitations are present, only limited
studies have produced BNT norms in Spanish-speaking
populations (Allegri et al., 1997; Pena-Casanova et al.,
2009; Rami et al., 2008). This study was the first to generate BNT norms across ten countries in Latin America
with nearly 4,000 participants. Therefore this was the
largest, most comprehensive BNT normative study to
date in any global region, and its norms will likely affect
the standard of neuropsychological assessment with the
BNT in Latin America unlike any study before it.
References
Allegri, R., Mangone, C., Fernndez Villavicencio, M., Rymberg, S.,
Taragano, F. & Baumann, D. (1997). Spanish Boston Naming
Test norms. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 11(4), 416-420.
Aranciva, F., Casals-Colla, M., Snchez-Benavidesa, G., Quintana,
M., Manero, R., Rognoni, T., Calvo, L., Palomo, R., Tamayo F., y
Pea-Casanovab, J. (2012). Spanish normative studies in a young
adult population (NEURONORMA young adults project): Norms
for the Boston Naming Test and the Token Test. Neurologa, 27(7),
394-399.
Au, R., Joung, P., Nicholas, M., Obler, L. K., Kass, R., & Albert,
M. L. (1995). Naming ability across the adult life span. Aging,
Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 2(4), 300-311.
Beltrn, C. & Sols, G. (2012). Evaluacin Neuropsicolgica en Adolescentes: Normas para poblacin de Bucaramanga. Revista de
Neuropsicologa, Neuropsiquiatra y Neurociencias, 12(2), 7793.
Brooks, J., Fos, L. A., Greve, K. W., & Hammond, J. S. (1999).
Assessment of executive function in patients with mild traumatic
brain injury. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 46(1),
159-163.
Cheung, R. W., Cheung, M. C., & Chan, A. S. (2004). Confrontation naming in Chinese patients with left, right or bilateral brain
damage. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society,
10(01), 46-53.
508
de la Plata. C, Arango-Lasprilla. JC, Alegret. M, Moreno. A, Trraga.

L, Lara. M, Hewlitt. M, Hynan. L & Cullum. C. (2009). Item analysis of three Spanish naming tests: A cross-cultural investigation.
Neurorehabilitation. 24(1) 75-85.
de la Plata, C. M., Vicioso, B., Hynan, L., Evans, H. M., Diaz-Arrastia,
R., Lacritz, L., & Munro Cullum, C. (2008). Development of the
Texas Spanish Naming Test: A test for Spanish speakers. The
Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22(2), 288-304.
del Toro, C. M., Bislick, L. P., Comer, M., Velozo, C., Romero,
S., Rothi, L. J. G., & Kendall, D. L. (2011). Development of
a short form of the Boston naming test for individuals with aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54(4),
1089-1100.
Elkadi, S., Clark, M., Dennerstein, L., Guthrie, J., Bowden, S. & Henderson, W. (2006). Normative data for Australian midlife women
on category fluency and a short form of the Boston Naming Test.
Australian Psychologist, 41(1), 37-42.
Fastenau, P. S., Denburg, N. L., & Mauer, B. A. (1998). Parallel
short forms for the Boston Naming Test: Psychometric properties
and norms for older adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 20(6), 828-834.
Fernndez-Blzquez, M. A., Ruiz-Snchez de Len, J. M., LpezPina, J. A., Llanero-Luque, M., Montenegro-Pea, M., &
Montejo-Carrasco, P. (2012). Nueva versin reducida del test de
denominacin de Boston para mayores de 65 aos: Aproximacin
desde la teora de respuesta al tem. Revista de Neurologa, 55(7),
399-407.
Flanagan, J. L., & Jackson, S. T. (1997). Test-retest reliability of three
aphasia tests: Performance of non-brain-damaged older adults.
Journal of communication disorders, 30(1), 33-43.
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Minimental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state
of patients for the clinician. Journal of psychiatric research, 12(3),
189-198.
Goodglass, H., & Kaplan, E. (1983). The assessment of aphasia and
related disorders. Lea & Febiger.
Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barresi, B. (2001). The assessment of
aphasia and related disorders. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Graves, R.E., Bezeau, S.C., Fogarty, J. & Blair, R. (2004). Boston
Naming Test Short Forms: A Comparison of Previous Forms with
New Items Response Theory Based Forms. Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Neuropsychology, 26(7), 891-902.
Guàrdia-Olmos, J., Pero-Cebollero, M., Rivera, D., & ArangoLasprilla, J.C. (2015). Methodology for the development of
normative data for ten Spanish-language neuropsychological tests
in eleven Latin American countries. NeuroRehabilitation, 37,
493-499.
Kaplan, E. F., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1978). The Boston
Naming Test (exp. ed.). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
Kaplan, E. F., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). The Boston
naming test, 2nd. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (2000). The Boston
Naming Test - Second Edition (2nd ed.).
Katsumata, Y., Mathews, M., Abner, E. L., Jicha, G. A., Caban-Holt,
A., Smith, C. D.,... & Fardo, D. W. (2015). Assessing the Discriminant Ability, Reliability, and Comparability of Multiple Short
Forms of the Boston Naming Test in an Alzheimers Disease Center Cohort. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 39(3-4),
215-227.
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ-9.
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606-613.
LaBarge, E., Edwards, D., & Knesevich, J. W. (1986). Performance of

normal elderly on the Boston Naming Test. Brain and Language,
27(2), 380-384.
Loewenstein, D. A., Rubert, M. P., Argelles, T., & Duara, R. (1995).
Neuropsychological test performance and prediction of functional capacities among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking
patients with dementia. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
10(2), 75-88.
Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal. 14, 56-61.
Marin, P., Mampaey, E., Vervaet, A., Saerens, J., & De Deyn, PP.
(1998). Normative data for the Boston naming test in native
Dutch-speaking Belgian elderly. Brain Lang, 65(3), 447-67.
Miotto E., Sato J., Lucia M., Camargo C., & Scaff M. (2010). Development of an adapted version of the Boston Naming Test for
Portuguese speakers. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatra 32(3),
279-282.
Mitchell, R. L., & Crow, T. J. (2005). Right hemisphere language
functions and schizophrenia: The forgotten hemisphere? Brain,
128(5), 963-978.
Neils, J., Baris, J., Carter, C., Dellaira, A., Nordloh, S., Weiler, E.,
Weisiger, B. (1995). Effects of Age, Education, and Living Environment on Boston Naming Test Performance. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 38, 1143-1149.
Obler, L. K., Rykhlevskaia, E., Schnyer, D., Clark-Cotton, M. R.,
Spiro, A., Hyun, J., Albert, M. L. (2010). Bilateral Brain
Regions Associated with Naming in Older Adults. Brain and
Language, 113(3), 113123. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.03.001
Pea-Casanova, J., Blesa, R., Aguilar, M., Gramunt-Fombuena,
N., Gmez- Ansn, B., Oliva, R., Molinuevo, J. L., Robles,
A., Sagrario Barquero, M., Antnez, Carmen., Martnez-Parra,
C., Frank-Garca, A., Fernndez, M., Alfonso, V. y Sol, J.
M. (2009). Spanish Multicenter Normative Studies (NEURONORMA Project): Methods and Sample Characteristics.
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 24, 307-319.
Pineda, D.A., Meja-Mag, S.E., Rosselli M., Ardila, A., Romero,
M.G., Prez, C. (1998). Variabilidad en la prueba de Boston para
el diagnstico de las aphasias en adultos laboralmente activos.
Revista de Neurologa, 26, 962-970.
Pontn, M. O., Satz, P., Herrera, L., Ortiz, F., Urrutia, C. P., Young,
R.,... & Namerow, N. (1996). Normative data stratified by age
and education for the Neuropsychological Screening Battery for
Hispanics (NeSBHIS): Initial report. Journal of the International
Rami, L., Serradell, M., Bosch, B., Caprile, C., Sekler, A., Villar,
A., Canal, R. y Molinuevo, J. (2008). Normative date for the
Boston Naming Test and the Pyramids and Palm Tress Test in the
elderly Spanish population. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 30 (1), 1-6.
Tallberg, I.M. (2005). The Boston Naming Test in Swedish: Normative data. Brain and Language, 94(1), 19-31.
Van Gorp, W. G., Satz, P., Kiersch, M. E., & Henry, R. (1986). Normative data on the boston maming test for a group of normal older
adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,
8(6), 702-705.
Zec, R. F., Burkett, N.R., Markwell, S. J. y Larsen, D.L. (2007). A
Cross-Sectional Study of the Effects of Age, Education, and Gender on the Boston Naming Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist,
21(4), 587-616.
509
Appendix
Table A1
Normative data for the BNT stratified by education levels for ARGENTINA
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1 to 12 years of education
>12 years of education
57.6
55.8
54.5
53.5
51.8
50.4
49.1
47.8
46.4
44.8
43.7
42.5
40.6
60.0
59.3
58.3
56.6
55.2
53.9
52.6
51.2
49.5
48.5
47.3
45.4
Table A2
Normative data for the BNT stratified by education levels for BOLIVIA
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
59.4
56.3
54.2
52.4
49.6
47.3
45.1
42.9
40.6
37.8
36.0
33.9
30.8
60.0
57.9
56.2
53.4
51.0
48.8
46.7
44.3
41.5
39.8
37.7
34.5
510

Table A3
Normative data for the BNT stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
60.0
59.3
57.5
55.9
54.2
52.4
50.3
48.9
47.3
44.9
60.0
58.9
57.1
55.5
53.8
52.0
49.9
48.5
46.9
44.5
60.0
58.5
56.7
55.1
53.4
51.6
49.5
48.1
46.5
44.1
60.0
58.1
56.3
54.7
53.0
51.2
49.1
47.7
46.1
43.7
60.0
59.8
57.7
55.9
54.2
52.6
50.8
48.6
47.3
45.7
43.3
60.0
59.4
57.3
55.5
53.8
52.2
50.4
48.2
46.9
45.3
42.9
60.0
59.0
56.9
55.1
53.4
51.8
50.0
47.8
46.5
44.9
42.5
60.0
59.9
58.6
56.5
54.7
53.0
51.4
49.6
47.4
46.1
44.5
42.1
60.0
59.5
58.2
56.1
54.3
52.6
50.9
49.1
47.0
45.7
44.1
41.7
60.0
59.1
57.8
55.7
53.9
52.2
50.5
48.7
46.6
45.3
43.7
41.3
60.0
58.7
57.4
55.3
53.5
51.8
50.1
48.3
46.2
44.9
43.3
40.9
60.0
59.9
58.3
57.0
54.9
53.1
51.4
49.7
47.9
45.8
44.5
42.9
40.5
60.0
59.5
57.9
56.6
54.4
52.6
51.0
49.3
47.5
45.4
44.0
42.5
40.1
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
60.0
58.6
57.0
55.6
53.5
51.7
50.0
48.4
46.6
44.4
43.1
41.5
39.1
60.0
58.2
56.6
55.2
53.1
51.3
49.6
48.0
46.2
44.0
42.7
41.1
38.7
60.0
57.7
56.2
54.8
52.7
50.9
49.2
47.6
45.8
43.6
42.3
40.7
38.3
59.7
57.3
55.7
54.4
52.3
50.5
48.8
47.1
45.3
43.2
41.9
40.3
37.9
59.3
56.9
55.3
54.0
51.9
50.1
48.4
46.7
44.9
42.8
41.5
39.9
37.5
58.9
56.5
54.9
53.6
51.5
49.7
48.0
46.3
44.5
42.4
41.1
39.5
37.1
58.5
56.1
54.5
53.2
51.1
49.3
47.6
45.9
44.1
42.0
40.7
39.1
36.7
58.1
55.7
54.1
52.8
50.6
48.8
47.2
45.5
43.7
41.6
40.3
38.7
36.3
57.7
55.3
53.7
52.4
50.2
48.4
46.8
45.1
43.3
41.2
39.8
38.2
35.8
57.3
54.9
53.3
52.0
49.8
48.0
46.4
44.7
42.9
40.8
39.4
37.8
35.4
56.9
54.5
52.9
51.6
49.4
47.6
46.0
44.3
42.5
40.4
39.0
37.4
35.0
56.5
54.1
52.5
51.1
49.0
47.2
45.5
43.9
42.1
40.0
38.6
37.0
34.6
56.1
53.7
52.1
50.7
48.6
46.8
45.1
43.5
41.7
39.5
38.2
36.6
34.2
Table A4
Normative data for the BNT stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
60.0
58.4
56.3
54.4
52.5
50.4
48.0
46.4
44.6
41.9
60.0
57.7
55.7
53.8
51.9
49.8
47.4
45.8
44.0
41.2
60.0
59.6
57.1
55.1
53.2
51.2
49.2
46.7
45.2
43.4
40.6
60.0
59.0
56.5
54.4
52.5
50.6
48.6
46.1
44.6
42.8
40.0
60.0
59.9
58.3
55.9
53.8
51.9
50.0
48.0
45.5
44.0
42.1
39.4
60.0
59.2
57.7
55.3
53.2
51.3
49.4
47.3
44.9
43.4
41.5
38.8
60.0
58.6
57.1
54.7
52.6
50.7
48.8
46.7
44.3
42.7
40.9
38.2
60.0
59.9
58.0
56.5
54.0
52.0
50.1
48.2
46.1
43.7
42.1
40.3
37.6
60.0
59.2
57.4
55.9
53.4
51.4
49.5
47.6
45.5
43.0
41.5
39.7
36.9
60.0
58.6
56.8
55.3
52.8
50.8
48.8
46.9
44.9
42.4
40.9
39.1
36.3
60.0
58.0
56.2
54.6
52.2
50.1
48.2
46.3
44.3
41.8
40.3
38.5
35.7
60.0
57.4
55.6
54.0
51.6
49.5
47.6
45.7
43.6
41.2
39.7
37.8
35.1
59.5
56.8
54.9
53.4
51.0
48.9
47.0
45.1
43.0
40.6
39.1
37.2
34.5
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
60.0
58.5
56.0
54.0
52.1
50.1
48.1
45.6
44.1
42.3
39.5
60.0
59.4
57.9
55.4
53.3
51.4
49.5
47.5
45.0
43.5
41.7
38.9
60.0
58.8
57.2
54.8
52.7
50.8
48.9
46.9
44.4
42.9
41.0
38.3
60.0
58.2
56.6
54.2
52.1
50.2
48.3
46.2
43.8
42.3
40.4
37.7
60.0
59.4
57.5
56.0
53.6
51.5
49.6
47.7
45.6
43.2
41.7
39.8
37.1
60.0
58.8
56.9
55.4
52.9
50.9
49.0
47.1
45.0
42.6
41.0
39.2
36.5
60.0
58.1
56.3
54.8
52.3
50.3
48.4
46.5
44.4
41.9
40.4
38.6
35.8
60.0
57.5
55.7
54.2
51.7
49.7
47.7
45.8
43.8
41.3
39.8
38.0
35.2
59.7
56.9
55.1
53.5
51.1
49.0
47.1
45.2
43.2
40.7
39.2
37.4
34.6
59.0
56.3
54.5
52.9
50.5
48.4
46.5
44.6
42.5
40.1
38.6
36.7
34.0
58.4
55.7
53.8
52.3
49.9
47.8
45.9
44.0
41.9
39.5
38.0
36.1
33.4
57.8
55.1
53.2
51.7
49.3
47.2
45.3
43.4
41.3
38.9
37.3
35.5
32.8
57.2
54.4
52.6
51.1
48.6
46.6
44.7
42.8
40.7
38.3
36.7
34.9
32.1
511

Table A5
Normative data for the BNT stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
60.0
58.0
56.0
53.9
51.8
49.2
47.5
45.6
42.7
60.0
59.8
57.6
55.5
53.5
51.3
48.7
47.1
45.2
42.3
60.0
59.3
57.1
55.1
53.1
50.9
48.3
46.7
44.7
41.8
60.0
58.9
56.7
54.7
52.7
50.5
47.9
46.3
44.3
41.4
60.0
58.5
56.3
54.3
52.2
50.0
47.5
45.8
43.9
41.0
60.0
58.1
55.9
53.8
51.8
49.6
47.0
45.4
43.5
40.5
60.0
57.6
55.4
53.4
51.4
49.2
46.6
45.0
43.0
40.1
60.0
59.8
57.2
55.0
53.0
51.0
48.8
46.2
44.5
42.6
39.7
60.0
59.4
56.8
54.6
52.6
50.5
48.3
45.7
44.1
42.2
39.3
60.0
58.9
56.3
54.2
52.1
50.1
47.9
45.3
43.7
41.7
38.8
60.0
58.5
55.9
53.7
51.7
49.7
47.5
44.9
43.3
41.3
38.4
60.0
59.7
58.1
55.5
53.3
51.3
49.2
47.1
44.5
42.8
40.9
38.0
60.0
59.3
57.7
55.1
52.9
50.8
48.8
46.6
44.0
42.4
40.5
37.5
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
59.3
56.3
54.4
52.8
50.2
48.0
46.0
43.9
41.7
39.2
37.5
35.6
32.7
58.8
55.9
54.0
52.3
49.8
47.6
45.5
43.5
41.3
38.7
37.1
35.2
32.2
58.4
55.5
53.5
51.9
49.3
47.1
45.1
43.1
40.9
38.3
36.7
34.7
31.8
58.0
55.1
53.1
51.5
48.9
46.7
44.7
42.7
40.5
37.9
36.2
34.3
31.4
57.5
54.6
52.7
51.1
48.5
46.3
44.3
42.2
40.0
37.4
35.8
33.9
31.0
57.1
54.2
52.3
50.6
48.0
45.9
43.8
41.8
39.6
37.0
35.4
33.4
30.5
56.7
53.8
51.8
50.2
47.6
45.4
43.4
41.4
39.2
36.6
35.0
33.0
30.1
56.3
53.3
51.4
49.8
47.2
45.0
43.0
40.9
38.8
36.2
34.5
32.6
29.7
55.8
52.9
51.0
49.4
46.8
44.6
42.5
40.5
38.3
35.7
34.1
32.2
29.2
55.4
52.5
50.5
48.9
46.3
44.1
42.1
40.1
37.9
35.3
33.7
31.7
28.8
55.0
52.1
50.1
48.5
45.9
43.7
41.7
39.7
37.5
34.9
33.3
31.3
28.4
54.6
51.6
49.7
48.1
45.5
43.3
41.3
39.2
37.0
34.4
32.8
30.9
28.0
54.1
51.2
49.3
47.6
45.0
42.9
40.8
38.8
36.6
34.0
32.4
30.4
27.5
Table A6
Normative data for the BNT stratified by education levels for GUATEMALA
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
52.1
49.2
47.3
45.7
43.1
40.9
38.9
36.9
34.8
32.2
30.6
28.7
25.8
60.0
58.6
56.6
55.0
52.5
50.3
48.3
46.3
44.1
41.6
40.0
38.0
35.1
512
Table A8
Normative data for the BNT stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
60.0
59.8
57.6
55.7
54.0
52.3
50.5
48.3
46.9
45.3
42.8
60.0
59.4
57.2
55.3
53.6
51.9
50.1
47.9
46.5
44.9
42.4
60.0
59.0
56.8
54.9
53.2
51.5
49.7
47.5
46.1
44.5
42.0
60.0
59.9
58.5
56.4
54.5
52.8
51.1
49.3
47.1
45.7
44.1
41.6
60.0
59.5
58.1
56.0
54.1
52.4
50.7
48.9
46.7
45.3
43.7
41.2
60.0
59.1
57.7
55.6
53.7
52.0
50.3
48.5
46.3
44.9
43.3
40.8
60.0
58.7
57.3
55.2
53.3
51.6
49.9
48.1
45.9
44.5
42.9
40.4
60.0
59.9
58.3
56.9
54.8
52.9
51.2
49.5
47.7
45.5
44.1
42.5
40.0
60.0
59.5
57.9
56.5
54.3
52.5
50.8
49.1
47.3
45.1
43.7
42.1
39.6
60.0
59.1
57.5
56.1
53.9
52.1
50.4
48.7
46.9
44.7
43.3
41.7
39.2
60.0
58.7
57.1
55.7
53.5
51.7
50.0
48.3
46.4
44.3
42.9
41.3
38.8
60.0
58.3
56.7
55.3
53.1
51.3
49.6
47.9
46.0
43.9
42.5
40.9
38.4
60.0
57.9
56.3
54.9
52.7
50.9
49.2
47.5
45.6
43.5
42.1
40.5
38.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
60.0
58.2
56.5
55.2
53.0
51.1
49.4
47.7
45.9
43.7
42.3
40.7
38.3
60.0
57.8
56.1
54.8
52.6
50.7
49.0
47.3
45.5
43.3
41.9
40.3
37.9
59.8
57.4
55.7
54.4
52.2
50.3
48.6
46.9
45.1
42.9
41.5
39.9
37.4
59.4
57.0
55.3
54.0
51.8
49.9
48.2
46.5
44.7
42.5
41.1
39.5
37.0
59.0
56.6
54.9
53.6
51.4
49.5
47.8
46.1
44.3
42.1
40.7
39.1
36.6
58.6
56.2
54.5
53.1
51.0
49.1
47.4
45.7
43.9
41.7
40.3
38.7
36.2
58.2
55.7
54.1
52.7
50.6
48.7
47.0
45.3
43.5
41.3
39.9
38.3
35.8
57.8
55.3
53.7
52.3
50.2
48.3
46.6
44.9
43.1
40.9
39.5
37.9
35.4
57.4
54.9
53.3
51.9
49.8
47.9
46.2
44.5
42.7
40.5
39.1
37.5
35.0
57.0
54.5
52.9
51.5
49.4
47.5
45.8
44.1
42.3
40.1
38.7
37.1
34.6
56.6
54.1
52.5
51.1
48.9
47.1
45.4
43.7
41.9
39.7
38.3
36.7
34.2
56.2
53.7
52.1
50.7
48.5
46.7
45.0
43.3
41.5
39.3
37.9
36.3
33.8
55.8
53.3
51.7
50.3
48.1
46.3
44.6
42.9
41.0
38.9
37.5
35.9
33.4
Table A9
Normative data for the BNT stratified by education levels for PARAGUAY
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
60.0
59.7
58.9
58.2
57.1
56.1
55.2
54.3
53.4
52.3
51.6
50.7
49.4
60.0
59.3
58.3
57.4
56.6
55.6
54.5
53.8
52.9
51.7
513

Table A10
Normative data for the BNT stratified by education levels for PERU
Percentile
54.2
52.1
50.8
49.6
47.8
46.3
44.8
43.4
41.9
40.0
38.9
37.5
35.5
60.0
59.0
57.8
56.0
54.5
53.1
51.6
50.1
48.3
47.1
45.8
43.7
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
Table A11
Normative data for the BNT stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
60.0
59.6
57.0
54.8
52.8
50.7
48.5
45.9
44.3
42.4
39.5
60.0
59.0
56.4
54.2
52.2
50.1
47.9
45.4
43.7
41.8
38.9
60.0
58.4
55.8
53.6
51.6
49.5
47.3
44.8
43.1
41.2
38.3
60.0
59.4
57.8
55.2
53.0
51.0
48.9
46.7
44.2
42.5
40.6
37.7
60.0
58.8
57.2
54.6
52.4
50.4
48.3
46.2
43.6
41.9
40.0
37.1
60.0
58.2
56.6
54.0
51.8
49.8
47.7
45.6
43.0
41.3
39.4
36.5
60.0
59.5
57.6
56.0
53.4
51.2
49.2
47.1
45.0
42.4
40.7
38.8
35.9
60.0
58.9
57.0
55.4
52.8
50.6
48.6
46.5
44.4
41.8
40.1
38.2
35.3
60.0
58.3
56.4
54.8
52.2
50.0
48.0
45.9
43.8
41.2
39.5
37.6
34.7
60.0
57.8
55.8
54.2
51.6
49.4
47.4
45.4
43.2
40.6
38.9
37.0
34.1
60.0
57.2
55.2
53.6
51.0
48.8
46.8
44.8
42.6
40.0
38.3
36.4
33.5
59.5
56.6
54.6
53.0
50.4
48.2
46.2
44.2
42.0
39.4
37.8
35.8
32.9
58.9
56.0
54.0
52.4
49.8
47.6
45.6
43.6
41.4
38.8
37.2
35.2
32.3
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
60.0
58.7
57.1
54.5
52.3
50.3
48.2
46.0
43.4
41.8
39.9
37.0
60.0
58.1
56.5
53.9
51.7
49.7
47.6
45.4
42.8
41.2
39.3
36.4
60.0
59.4
57.5
55.9
53.3
51.1
49.1
47.0
44.8
42.2
40.6
38.7
35.8
60.0
58.8
56.9
55.3
52.7
50.5
48.5
46.4
44.2
41.6
40.0
38.1
35.2
60.0
58.2
56.3
54.7
52.1
49.9
47.9
45.8
43.6
41.1
39.4
37.5
34.6
60.0
57.6
55.7
54.1
51.5
49.3
47.3
45.2
43.0
40.5
38.8
36.9
34.0
60.0
57.0
55.1
53.5
50.9
48.7
46.7
44.6
42.4
39.9
38.2
36.3
33.4
59.4
56.4
54.5
52.9
50.3
48.1
46.1
44.0
41.9
39.3
37.6
35.7
32.8
58.8
55.8
53.9
52.3
49.7
47.5
45.5
43.4
41.3
38.7
37.0
35.1
32.2
58.2
55.2
53.3
51.7
49.1
46.9
44.9
42.8
40.7
38.1
36.4
34.5
31.6
57.6
54.6
52.7
51.1
48.5
46.3
44.3
42.2
40.1
37.5
35.8
33.9
31.0
57.0
54.0
52.1
50.5
47.9
45.7
43.7
41.6
39.5
36.9
35.2
33.3
30.4
56.4
53.5
51.5
49.9
47.3
45.1
43.1
41.1
38.9
36.3
34.6
32.7
29.8

DOI:10.3233/NRE-151279
IOS Press
515
Verbal Fluency Tests: Normative data

for the Latin American Spanish speaking
adult population
L. Olabarrieta-Landaa , D. Riveraa , J. Galarza-del-Angelb , M.T. Garzac , C.P. Sarachod , W. Rodrgueze ,
M. Chavez-Oliverosf , B. Rabagog , G. Leibachh , S. Schebelai , C. Martnezj , M. Lunak , M. Longonil ,
N. Ocampo-Barbam , G. Rodrguezn , A. Aliagao , L. Esenarrop , C. Garca de la Cadenaq , P.B. Perrinh
and J.C. Arango-Lasprillar,a,
a Faculty

Autonoma de Baja California, Mexicali, Mexico
c Facultad de Psicologa Universidad Aut
onoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico
d CETYS University, Mexicali, Mexico
e Ponce Health Sciences University, Ponce, Puerto Rico
f Instituto Nacional de Neurologa y Neurociruga MVS, Mexico City, Mexico
h Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
i Instituto de Prevenci
on Social, Asuncion, Paraguay
j Departamento de Medicina de Rehabilitaci
on, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Honduras,
Tegucigalpa, Honduras
k Universidad Dr. Jos
l Clnica de rehabilitaci
m Fundaci
n Departamento de Psicologa, Universidad de Camag
uey Ignacio Agramonte Loynaz, Camaguey, Cuba
o Servicio M
p Instituto de Neuropsicologa y Demencias, Lima, Peru
q Departamento de Psicologa, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala
r IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain
b Universidad
Abstract.
OBJECTIVE: To generate normative data for the Verbal Fluency Tests across 11 countries in Latin America, with country-specific
adjustments for gender, age, and education, where appropriate.
METHOD: The sample consisted of 3,977 healthy adults who were recruited from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and, Puerto Rico. Each subject was administered the Verbal Fluency Test as part
of a larger neuropsychological battery. A standardized five-step statistical procedure was used to generate the norms.
Address for correspondence: Juan

Carlos Arango-Lasprilla,
for Science, Bilbao, Spain. Tel.: +34 804 859 4329; E-mail:
jcarango@deusto.es.
516
L. Olabarrieta-Landa et al. / Normative data for the Latin American Spanish speaking adult population
RESULTS: The final multiple linear regression models for the letter F explained 830% of the variance, 732% for letter A,
832% for the letter S, and 1643% for the animal category in Verbal Fluency Test scores. Although t-tests showed significant
differences between men and women on the Verbal Fluency Test, they did not have an effect size larger than 0.3. As a result,
gender-adjusted norms were not generated.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first normative multicenter study conducted in Latin America aiming to create norms for the
Verbal Fluency Test; this study will have important outcomes for the future of neuropsychology in the region.
Keywords: Normative data, semantic verbal fluency test, phonological verbal fluency test, Latin America, executive
functions
1. Introduction
Verbal fluency tests are used to assess complex
cognitive functioning, including executive dysfunction.
They are most commonly administered to individuals
who have experienced neurological damage, including
traumatic brain injury (TBI), brain lesions, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, and Parkinsons disease
(Henry & Crawford, 2004a; Strauss, Sherman, &
Spreen, 2006). In healthy individuals, certain areas of
the brain are activated when these tasks are attempted,
including the left frontal cortex (associated with stimulation of Brocas area), the dorsolateral prefrontal
cortex, the premotor cortex, and the right cerebellum
(Cabeza & Nyberg, 2000; Indefrey & Levelt, 2000;
McGraw, Mathews, Wang, & Phillips, 2001).
Verbal fluency is defined as the ability to form and
express words in accordance with required criteria
and is essential for communication and functioning
(Wysokinski et al., 2010, p. 438). Verbal fluency tasks
require individuals to be flexible, organize information,
provide effort, and exercise inhibition when necessary.
An inability to complete these tasks is suggestive of
frontal lobe dysfunction, specifically dysfunction in
the left frontal cortex (Gouveia, Brucki, Malheiros, &
Bueno, 2007). In phonological fluency tasks, individuals are asked to produce words corresponding with a
specific letter of the alphabet (e.g., F), while semantic
fluency tasks involve producing words corresponding
with a target category of items (e.g., animals; Henry
& Crawford, 2004a). They are often examined concurrently, although some studies have focused solely on
one component of verbal fluency (Strauss et al., 2006).
Additionally, these tasks can be combined to assess
phonological and semantic fluency simultaneously in
one operation (e.g., fruit that being with A; Heller &
Dobbs, 1993).
In the phonological verbal fluency task, participants
are presented with a letter and asked to produce as many
words that begin with that letter as possible. Participants are typically given the letters F, A, and S, one at
a time, and then have one minute per letter to complete
the task (Strauss et al., 2006). The letters C, F, and L
are also occasionally used for this task, and research
has shown that these two clusters of letters produce
comparable results (Troyer, 2000). In other languages,
different combinations of letters are used to assess
phonological fluency in more culturally-appropriate
ways. For example, one Arabic study tested the use
of W, R, and G, and found that these letters are
more appropriate for use within an Arabic population
(Khalil, 2010). Similarly, a Greek study used X
(Chi), ! (Sigma), and A (Alpha) because these letters
followed the same ratios as F, A, and S in the English
language and were more relevant to the Greek alphabet
and overall culture (Kosmidis, Vlahou, Panagiotaki,
& Kiosseoglou, 2004). The result is the number of
words produced for each letter, and sometimes the total
summed score of words produced across all phonological fluency tasks (Strauss et al., 2006; Wysokinski et al.,
2010).
The semantic verbal fluency task requires participants to produce items that fall within a given category
that is provided (e.g., animals), generally within one
minute (Strauss et al., 2006). The most common category is animals, although other studies have used
fruits, occupations, items from a grocery store, and
furniture (da Silva, Petersson, Faisca, Ingvar, & Reis,
2005; Gocer March & Pattison, 2006; Price et al.,
2012; Troyer, 2000). The result is the number of words
produced for each category, and sometimes the total
summed score of words produced across all semantic
fluency tasks (Strauss et al., 2006; Wysokinski et al.,
2010).
Verbal fluency tests have been administered in a
variety of populations, including to patients with various neurological disorders (Strauss et al., 2006).
Phonological and semantic fluency have been assessed
in individuals with schizophrenia (Costafreda et al.,
2011; Henry & Crawford, 2005), cognitive impairment
(Price et al., 2012), TBI (Henry & Crawford,

2004a; Raskin & Rearick, 1996), brain lesions
(Baldo & Shimamura, 1998), Alzheimers disease
(Gocer March & Pattison, 2006; Pasquier, Lebert,
Grymonprez, & Petit, 1995; Randolph, Braun, Goldberg, & Chase, 1993; Ting, Hameed, Earnest, &
Tan, 2012), dementia (Moreno-Martinez & Montoro,
2010; Pasquier et al., 1995), Parkinsons disease
(Henry & Crawford, 2004b; Randolph et al., 1993),
Huntingtons disease (Randolph et al., 1993; Weber,
Koch, & Reilmann, 2012), clinically isolated syndrome (Anhoque, Biccas-Neto, Domingues, Teixeira,
& Domingues, 2013; Till et al., 2013), and multiple sclerosis (Brissart et al., 2013; Till et al.,
2013).
Previous studies have identified associations between
demographic variables and verbal fluency, both
phonological and semantic. Age is associated with
phonological fluency, such that scores increase substantially between ages five and seven, continue to
increase through early adulthood, and subsequently
begin to decline in old age (Strauss et al., 2006).
Semantic fluency abilities often level off around age
11 or 12 (Sauzeon, Lestage, Raboutet, NKaoua, &
Claverie, 2004) and decline around age 20 (Mitrushina,
2005). Education level is related to verbal fluency,
such that those with more years of education tend
to achieve higher scores on both tasks (Strauss et
al., 2006). Moreover, reading level and phonological fluency are moderately correlated, while a smaller
correlation has been found between reading level
and scores on semantic fluency (Johnson-Selfridge
& Zalewski, 2001). Studies have shown differences
in verbal fluency based on ethnicity, language, and
geographic region. Specifically, Caucasians and nonHispanics tend to produce more words on phonological
and semantic tasks than individuals from other ethnic
groups (Strauss et al., 2006). Higher level of intelligence is also related to better phonological and semantic
fluency (Diaz-Asper, Schretlen, & Pearlson, 2004).
Gender is another demographic variable that has been
examined in the context of performance on phonological and semantic fluency tasks. Data on the impact of
gender, however, are inconsistent. Gladsjo et al. (1999)
conducted a review of reported verbal fluency norms
and found that gender is inconsistently associated with
phonological fluency and unrelated to semantic fluency.
To date, verbal fluency norms have been established for adults, specifically for the phonological and
semantic tasks (Strauss et al., 2006). Metanorms and
517
individual norms studies have been completed for the

phonological verbal fluency task using the cluster of letters F, A, and S, most commonly with English speaking
adults in the United States and Canada (Acevedo et al.,
2000; Gladsjo et al., 1999; Heaton, 2004; Loonstra,
Tarlow, & Sellers, 2001; Mitrushina, 2005; Tombaugh,
Kozak, & Rees, 1999). Additionally, norms have been
established in the United States for phonological fluency using the letters C, F, and L (Ruff, Light, Parker,
& Levin, 1996). Normative data are also available for
elderly adults in these regions (Ivnik, Malec, Smith,
Tangalos, & Peterson, 1996; Ravdin, Katzen, Agrawal,
& Relkin, 2003; Steinberg, Bieliauskas, Smith, & Ivnik,
2005; Stricks, Pittman, Jacobs, Sano, & Stern, 1998).
Stricks et al. (2008) collected normative data in Spanish from Spanish-speakers in the United States. Few
norms studies on phonological fluency have been conducted in regions outside of the United States and
Canada, including Sweden (Tallberg, Ivachova, Jones
Tinghag, & Osterberg,

2008), Saudi Arabia (Khalil,
2010), and the Netherlands (Van der Elst, Van Boxtel, Van Breukelen, & Jolles, 2006). Semantic fluency
norms have also been established for animals, vegetables, fruits, foods, and clothing, primarily from the
United States and Canada (Gladsjo et al., 1999; Lucas
et al., 1998; Mitrushina, 2005; Tombaugh et al., 1999).
Only a select few collected norms for Spanish-speaking
individuals, none of which were established in Latin
America (Acevedo et al., 2000; Lucas et al., 1998;
Stricks et al., 1998).
Normative data are also available for verbal fluency
for children and adolescents (Strauss et al., 2006), but
they are less frequent. Several studies established norms
for F, A, and S on the phonological verbal fluency task
(Anderson, Anderson, Northam, Jacobs, & Catroppa,
2001; Delis, Kaplan, & Kramer, 2001). In addition,
normative data are available for the following clusters of letters: C, F, L and P, R, W, as well as the
sound, sh (Barr, 2003; Halperin, Healey, Zeitchik,
Ludman, & Weinstein, 1989; Schum, Sivan, & Benton, 1989). Semantic fluency norms have also been
established for children and adolescents (Halperin et
al., 1989).
Trends in verbal fluency scores and demographic
variables have been identified, as have normative data
on the phonological and semantic components of verbal
fluency (Strauss et al., 2006). Norms from Latin America, however, are non-existent, and as a result, there is
a need to establish normative data on verbal fluency
in Latin America given the paucity of research in this
diverse region.
518
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico,
Paraguay, Peru, and, Puerto Rico. The participants were
selected according to the following criteria: a) were
between 18 to 95 years of age, b) were born and currently lived in the country where the protocol was
conducted, c) spoke Spanish as their native language,
d) had completed at least one year of formal education,
e) were able to read and write at the time of evaluation,
f) scored 23 on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE, Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975),
g) scored 4 on the Patient Health Questionnaire9
(PHQ-9, Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001), and h)
scored 90 on the Barthel Index (Mahoney & Barthel,
1965).
Participants with self-reported neurologic or psychiatric disorders were excluded due to a potential
effect on cognitive performance. Participants were volunteers from the community and signed an informed
consent. Nine participants were excluded from the
analyses, with a final sample of 3,961 participants.
in Guàrdia-Olmos, Pero-Cebollero, Rivera & ArangoLasprilla (2015). The multi-center study was approved
by the Ethics Committee of the coordinating site, the
University of Deusto, Spain.
1 if the participants had >12 years of education and
0 if participants had 112 years of education. If
gender, age and/or education were not statistically
education (if statistically significant in the multivariate model), and/or gender (if effect size was greater
than 0.3) [yi = 0 + (Age . Age i ) + (Educ . Educ i ) +
(Gender . Gender i )]; c) residual scores were calculated
based on this final model ( ei = yi y i ); d) using
the SD (residual) value provided by the regression
model, residuals were standardized: z = ei /SDe , with
SDe (residual) = the standard deviation of the residuals
in the normative sample; and e) standardized residuals were converted to percentile values (Strauss et al.,
applied to phonological and semantic verbal fluency
scores.
3. Results
3.1. Phonological fluency - letter F
For the present study, phonological and semantic verbal fluency tests were applied. The aim of each test is
to create, within 60 seconds, as many words as participants can that begin with certain letter (F, A, S) or that
belong to a particular category (animals). Participants
were told to avoid proper names, augmentatives, and
diminutives. At the same time, the examiner provided
prompts if the participant gave no responses within 10
seconds during each trial. The total score consisted of
the total correct answers for each letter or category.
Regarding the effect of gender on letter F, the ttests showed significant differences between men and
women from Guatemala, however, its effect size was
less than 0.3. Table 1 shows the results of the gender
analyses by country on letter F. As shown in Table 1,
the effect sizes for all countries were less than 0.3, and
therefore gender was not taken into account to generate
letter F normative data for any of the countries in the
study.
The final eleven letter F multivariate linear regression
countries, the letter F score increased for those with
more than 12 years of education (see Table 2) and, in all
countries except Argentina, Guatemala, Honduras, and,
Paraguay, letter F score decreased in a linear fashion as
519
Table 1
Effect of gender in the Letter F
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentina
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
13.9 (4.5)
14.1 (4.6)
8.7 (3.4)
8.4 (3.7)
10.6 (4.5)
10.0 (4.3)
10.3 (4.0)
10.1 (3.8)
10.0 (4.7)
9.6 (5.0)
10.5 (5.0)
12.1 (5.3)
10.2 (4.7)
8.8 (4.3)
11.8 (4.6)
11.8 (4.5)
10.4 (2.0)
10.4 (1.7)
13.2 (4.0)
13.4 (4.6)
10.3 (4.0)
10.6 (4.0)
0.44
318
0.659
0.025
0.81
271
0.421
0.049
1.13
318
0.258
0.063
0.50
303
0.618
0.029
0.66
254
0.508
0.042
2.22
211
0.027
0.151
1.95
181
0.053
0.143
0.20
1,297
0.839
0.006
0.18
261
0.854
0.011
0.30
243
0.766
0.019
0.67
289
0.504
0.039
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
p < 0.05.
Table 2
Final multiple linear regression models for Letter F
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
12.020
3.770
10.600
0.046
2.630
12.793
0.064
3.968
11.827
0.039
1.702
11.026
0.042
5.218
9.750
4.324
8.605
5.185
14.245
0.058
2.654
9.986
2.105
12.195
0.029
3.757
11.094
0.032
2.230
0.341
0.465
0.564
0.009
0.524
0.685
0.011
0.500
0.634
0.011
0.505
0.805
0.013
0.666
0.416
0.674
0.332
0.677
0.339
0.006
0.282
0.109
0.259
0.742
0.013
0.538
0.748
0.012
0.458
35.273
8.112
18.792
5.038
5.024
18.686
5.791
7.942
18.661
3.581
3.366
13.693
3.184
7.832
23.451
6.414
24.311
7.664
41.970
10.075
9.418
91.277
8.933
16.437
2.322
6.989
14.826
2.545
4.870
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.021
<0.001
<0.001
0.011
<0.001
0.171
4.139
0.179
3.248
0.298
3.675
0.079
3.728
0.229
4.321
0.163
4.765
0.245
3.900
0.149
4.195
0.234
1.605
0.205
3.939
0.121
3.739
520
Table 3
Effect of gender in the Letter A
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentinaa
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
13.5 (3.8)
13.7 (4.3)
8.4 (3.9)
8.5 (3.9)
10.6 (4.9)
9.5 (4.2)
9.6 (3.6)
10.1 (3.9)
9.4 (5.1)
9.8 (5.1)
10.6 (5.0)
12.5 (5.5)
10.0 (5.2)
8.9 (4.4)
11.7 (4.7)
11.3 (4.7)
10.7 (2.1)
11.2 (1.7)
13.1 (4.0)
13.6 (4.4)
10.9 (3.8)
11.5 (4.1)
0.35
202.3
0.725
0.025
0.23
271
0.818
0.014
2.01
258.4
0.046
0.124
1.11
303
0.270
0.063
0.67
254
0.506
0.042
2.71
211
0.007
0.184
1.49
181
0.139
0.110
1.29
1,297
0.198
0.036
2.05
261
0.041
0.126
0.90
243
0.366
0.058
1.30
289
0.195
0.076
Bolivia
Chilea
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
a Value
p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001.
a function of age. The amount of variance explained in

letter F scores ranged from 8% (in Cuba) to 30% (in
Chile).
3.2. Phonological fluency - letter A
Regarding the effect of gender on letter A, the
women in the countries of Chile, Guatemala, and,
Paraguay, however, none of these three countries had
an effect size larger than 0.3. Table 3 shows the results
of the gender analysis by country on letter A. As shown
in Table 1, the effect sizes for all countries were less than
generate letter A normative data for any of the countries
in the study.
The final eleven letter A multivariate linear regression models for each country are shown in Table 4.
In all countries, the letter A score increased for those
with more than 12 years of education (see Table 4) and
decreased in a linear fashion as a function of age except
in Argentina, Guatemala and, Paraguay. The amount of
variance explained in letter A scores ranged from 7%
(in Paraguay) to 32% (in Chile).
3.3. Phonological fluency - letter S
Regarding the effect of gender on letter S, the
women from Puerto Rico, however, its effect size was

less than 0.3. Table 5 shows the results of the gender
analysis by country on letter S. As shown in Table 5,
letter S normative data for any of the countries in the
study.
The final eleven letter S multivariate linear regression models for each country are shown in Table 6.
In all countries, the letter S score increased for those
decreased in linear fashion as a function of age except
in Argentina, Guatemala and, Paraguay. The amount of
variance explained in letter S scores ranged from 8%
(in Cuba) to 32% (in Chile).
3.4. Semantic fluency - animals
Regarding the effect of gender on animals, the
women in Guatemala, however, its effect size was less
than 0.3. Table 7 shows the results of the gender analysis
by country on animals. As shown in Table 7, the effect
sizes for all countries were less than 0.3, and therefore
gender was not taken into account to generate animals
normative data for any of the countries in the study.
The final eleven animals multivariate linear regression models for each country are shown in Table 8.
521
Table 4
Final multiple linear regression models for Letter A
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
11.696
3.577
10.651
0.050
3.435
13.558
0.082
3.608
11.480
0.042
2.616
10.776
0.042
5.942
9.871
4.697
10.433
0.045
4.405
14.324
0.068
3.127
10.810
1.211
13.191
0.036
2.849
13.201
0.054
1.770
0.308
0.420
0.598
0.010
0.555
0.695
0.011
0.507
0.596
0.010
0.475
0.815
0.013
0.674
0.423
0.685
0.934
0.017
0.742
0.342
0.006
0.284
0.122
0.288
0.745
0.013
0.540
0.745
0.012
0.456
37.953
8.511
17.823
5.242
6.193
19.502
7.309
7.111
19.277
4.102
5.507
13.227
3.163
8.816
23.357
6.853
11.173
2.643
5.936
41.871
11.748
11.011
88.656
4.199
17.700
2.869
5.277
17.723
4.363
3.883
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.009
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.004
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.186
3.743
0.221
3.441
0.316
3.732
0.143
3.503
0.267
4.372
0.182
4.844
0.222
4.167
0.193
4.228
0.066
1.786
0.152
3.957
0.139
3.722
Table 5
Effect of gender in the Letter S
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentinaa
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
13.4 (3.7)
13.8 (4.3)
7.3 (3.6)
7.6 (3.9)
9.9 (4.4)
9.3 (4.2)
9.3 (3.7)
9.7 (3.6)
8.9 (5.1)
8.6 (4.6)
10.6 (5.2)
12.0 (5.4)
8.7 (4.3)
8.2 (4.4)
11.3 (4.3)
10.9 (4.4)
10.0 (2.6)
10.3 (1.9)
12.4 (4.2)
12.8 (4.5)
10.4 (4.1)
11.5 (4.4)
0.81
209.8
0.419
0.056
0.64
271
0.525
0.039
1.33
318
0.184
0.074
1.01
303
0.315
0.058
0.48
254
0.633
0.030
1.89
211
0.060
0.129
0.77
181
0.439
0.057
1.43
1,297
0.152
0.040
0.74
167.0
0.461
0.057
0.61
243
0.539
0.039
2.13
289
0.034
0.124
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguaya
Peru
Puerto Rico
a Value
p < 0.05, p < 0.01.
522
Table 6
Final multiple linear regression models for Letter S
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
12.068
2.950
9.453
0.046
3.404
13.110
0.080
3.384
10.705
0.031
1.872
9.724
0.040
5.881
9.394
5.137
9.020
0.033
3.811
13.229
0.053
2.589
9.722
2.597
11.256
0.026
3.983
13.170
0.056
1.529
0.318
0.434
0.591
0.010
0.549
0.661
0.011
0.482
0.595
0.010
0.474
0.758
0.012
0.627
0.411
0.667
0.881
0.016
0.700
0.327
0.006
0.271
0.134
0.318
0.731
0.012
0.530
0.811
0.013
0.496
37.960
6.803
15.986
4.854
6.202
19.842
7.502
7.018
18.001
3.077
3.947
12.836
3.201
9.382
22.840
7.702
10.240
2.038
5.445
40.516
9.574
9.550
72.295
8.163
15.397
2.132
7.519
16.245
4.154
3.083
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.043
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.034
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
0.128
3.860
0.210
3.405
0.320
3.547
0.081
3.498
0.289
4.066
0.219
4.714
0.183
3.931
0.144
4.035
0.213
1.961
0.223
3.881
0.111
4.051
Table 7
Effect of gender in the Animal category
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentina
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
19.2 (4.2)
19.8 (5.0)
13.2 (5.3)
13.2 (5.5)
16.0 (5.8)
14.8 (5.2)
15.2 (4.6)
14.5 (4.1)
13.9 (5.6)
13.4 (5.6)
17.8 (5.8)
19.5 (5.3)
16.5 (5.1)
15.1 (5.0)
17.7 (5.4)
17.3 (5.0)
12.5 (3.7)
11.9 (3.3)
19.0 (5.0)
19.0 (5.3)
15.6 (5.4)
16.4 (5.0)
0.88
318
0.378
0.049
0.02
272
0.987
0.001
1.91
265.1
0.057
0.117
1.52
303
0.130
0.087
0.58
254
0.562
0.036
2.16
212
0.032
0.147
1.84
182
0.067
0.135
1.21
1,298
0.225
0.034
1.32
261
0.187
0.082
0.01
243
0.989
0.001
1.33
288
0.185
0.078
Bolivia
Chilea
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
a Value
p < 0.05.
In all countries, the animals score increased for those

amount of variance explained in animals scores ranged
from 16% (in Cuba) to 43% (in Paraguay).
Norms (e.g., a percentile score) for the verbal fluency
different scores were established using the five-step
procedure described above. To facilitate the understanding of the procedure to obtain the percentile associated
with a score on this test, an example will be given. Suppose you need to find the percentile score for a Mexican
woman, who is 50 years old and has 8 years of education. She has a score of 20 on animals. The steps to
obtain the percentile for this score are: a) Check Table 7
to determine if the effect size of gender in the country of
interest (Mexico) on this test and time point (animals)
is greater than 0.3 by country. The column labelled r
in Table 7 indicates the effect size. In this example, the
effect size is 0.034, which is not greater than 0.3. For
Mexicans on this test, does not influence scores to a
sufficient degree to take it into account when determining the percentile. b) Find Mexico in Table 8, which
provides the final regression models by country for animals. Use the B weights to create an equation that will
allow you to obtain the predicted animals score. The
corresponding B weights are multiplied by the actual
age and dichotomized education scores and added to a
constant in order to calculate the predicted value. In this
case, the predicted animals score would be calculated
using the equation [yi = 21.551 + (0.087 Agei ) +
(2.043 Dichotomized Educational Level i )] (the values
have been rounded for presentation in the formula).
The subscript notation i indicate the person of interest. The persons age is 50, but the education variable
is not continuous in the model. Years of education is
split into either 1 to 12 years (and assigned a 0) or
more than 12 years (and assigned a 1) in the model.
Since our hypothetical person in the example has 8
years of education, her educational level value is 0.
Thus the predicted value is y i = 21.551 + (0.087
50) + (2.043 0) = 21.551 4.350 + 0 = 17.201). c)
In order to calculate the residual value (indicated with
an e in the equation), we subtract the actual value from
the predicted value we just calculated (ei = yi y i ).
In this case, it would be ei = 20 17.201 = 2.80. d)
Next, consult the SDe column in Table 8 to obtain the
country-specific SDe (residual) value. For Mexico it is
4.673. Using this value, we can transform the resid-
523
ual value to a standardized z score using the equation

(ei /SDe ). In this case, we have (2.80)/4.673 = 0.599.
This is the standardized z score for a Mexican woman
aged 50 and 8 years of education and a score of 20
on animals. e) The last step is to look-up the tables
in the statistical reference books (e.g. Strauss et al.,
2006) or use a trusted online calculator like the one
available at http://www.measuringu.com/pcalcz.php. In
the online calculator, you would enter the z score and
choose a one-sided test and note the percent of area
after hitting the submit button. In this case, the probability of 0.599 corresponds to the 72th percentile.
Please remember to use the appropriate tables that correspond to each test (letter vs. animal) when performing
these calculations. If the percentile for the others verbal fluency scores is desired, Tables 16 must be
used.
3.6. User-friendly normative data
Guàrdia-Olmos et al., 2015) and created tables so that
clinicians can more easily use to obtain a percentile
range associated with a given raw score on this test.
These tables are available by country and type of test
in the Appendix. In order to obtain an approximate percentile for the above example (converting a raw score
of 20 in animals for a Mexican women who is 50 years
old and has 8 years of education using the simplified normative tables provided, the following steps are
recommended. (1) First, identify the appropriate table
ensuring the specific country and test. In this case, the
table for animals scores for Mexico can be found in
Table A41. (2) Note if the title of the table indicates
that it is only to be used for one specific gender. In this
case, gender is not specified. Thus Table A41 is used for
both males and females. (3) Next, the table is divided
based on educational level (1 to 12 vs. >12 years of education). Since this woman has 8 years of education, she
falls into 112 years of education category. These data
can be found in the top section of the table. (4) Determine the age range most appropriate for the individual.
In this case, 50 falls into the column 4852 years of age.
(5) Read down the age range column to find the approximate location of the raw score the person obtained on
the test. Reading down the 4852 column, the score of
524
Table 8
Final multiple linear regression models for Animal category
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
19.442
0.038
3.554
18.013
0.100
4.398
20.914
0.122
4.516
17.739
0.066
2.458
17.596
0.092
5.429
19.598
0.057
5.735
18.745
0.088
4.804
21.551
0.087
2.043
14.549
0.061
4.588
19.740
0.071
3.683
21.651
0.122
1.194
0.707
0.013
0.492
0.787
0.013
0.733
0.786
0.013
0.573
0.676
0.012
0.539
0.882
0.014
0.730
1.079
0.019
0.668
0.929
0.017
0.744
0.378
0.006
0.314
0.692
0.012
0.463
0.863
0.015
0.625
0.915
0.015
0.561
27.508
3.052
7.227
22.897
7.866
5.999
26.614
9.640
7.875
26.226
5.650
4.557
19.946
6.376
7.438
18.161
3.049
8.580
20.182
5.214
6.461
56.995
13.638
6.509
21.021
5.087
9.916
22.885
4.862
5.893
23.653
8.019
2.130
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.034
0.178
4.333
0.294
4.552
0.407
4.218
0.157
3.979
0.289
4.735
0.286
4.718
0.324
4.184
0.169
4.673
0.430
2.623
0.228
4.580
0.226
4.571
20 obtained by this Mexican woman corresponds to an

approximate percentile of 70.
4. Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to generate normative data on the verbal fluency tests across
11 countries in Latin America, with country-specific
adjustments for gender, age, and education, where
appropriate. The final multiple linear regression models explained between 830% of the variance in letter
F scores, 732% of the variance in letter A scores,
832% of the variance in letter S scores, and 1643%

of the variance in animals category scores. There were
a number of gender differences across all four verbal fluency test scores in several different countries,
but the all effect sizes were small, so gender-adjusted
norms were not generated for any country. These findings were in line with the previous literature, which
has shown that the impact of gender on phonological
fluency and semantic fluency performance is inconsistent or non-existent (Gladsjo et al., 1999). When
considering the previous research, the current results
suggest that gender-adjustments should not be made
when obtaining percentiles for the verbal fluency tests
in Latin America.
Verbal fluency test scores increased linearly as a
function of education in all countries and tests. This
robust pattern is consistent with the previous literature
which has found participants with more years of
education to score higher on verbal fluency tasks
(Strauss et al., 2006). When considering the previous
research, it is suggested that neuropsychologists in

Latin America use education-adjusted norms for each
country when administering the verbal fluency tests
in that country. As there are likely large differences
in education throughout Latin America, this studys
education adjustments will be important when administering the verbal fluency tests across many different
Latin American countries.
Verbal fluency test scores worsened with increasing
age in most countries. However, Argentina, Paraguay,
Honduras, and Guatemala did not show an effect
of age on letter F scores; Argentina, Paraguay, and
Guatemala did not show an effect of age on letter A
scores; and Argentina, Paraguay, and Guatemala did
not show an effect of age on letter S scores. Previous
studies have found that higher age is associated with
reduced phonological fluency (Strauss et al., 2006) and
semantic fluency (Mitrushina, 2005). In consideration
of the previous findings, the current study suggests
that verbal fluency test corrections for age in Latin
America should be made in all countries and tests
except for those that showed no age effect in the current
study.
The current study has several limitations and directions for future research. First, participants in this study
spoke Spanish as a primary language, and no data
were collected on bilingualism. Verbal fluency test performance could likely differ among individuals who
speak secondary languages, so future research should
examine effects of bilingualism on verbal fluency test
performance. Participants were recruited in specific
cities and regions of the countries in this study as
opposed to nationally. Although the current study is
the largest verbal fluency test normative study to date
in Latin America, or in any global region, it should be
seen as a first step toward larger, nationally representative normative studies. Although many participants in
this study had fewer than 12 years of education, illiterate individuals did not participate, and the current norms
cannot generalize well to illiterate adults. Similarly, participants with a history of neurological conditions and
children were excluded, so future normative research
should be conducted with these groups.
Second, neuropsychologists need to exercise caution
in using the verbal fluency test norms from this study
for people in countries outside of those from which
data were collected. Researchers need to create verbal
fluency test norms in Latin American countries such
525
as Ecuador, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Panama. Despite

this limitation, these verbal fluency test norms may
be actually more accurate in Latin American countries
not a part of this study than current norms in use, but
this generalizability needs to be investigated in future
studies.
Third, the verbal fluency tests are common neuropsychological instruments in Latin America, but other
measures need to be normed using a similar approach to
improve their accuracy in this region. Future research
should also examine the psychometrics and ecological
validity of the verbal fluency tests, and that of other
common assessments in Latin America. Researchers
need to create instruments within Latin American cultures with good ecological validity, as the verbal fluency
tests were created in a Western culture perhaps very
different from the diverse cultures in Latin America.
Future research can develop assessments within local
cultures, not simply translate and norm tests from other
countries.
Despite these limitations, limited studies have produced verbal fluency test norms in Spanish-speakers in
the United States (Lucas et al., 1998; Stricks et al., 1998;
Acevedo et al., 2000). The current study was the first to
generate verbal fluency test norms across 11 countries
in Latin America with nearly 4,000 participants. As a
result, it was the largest, most comprehensive verbal fluency test normative study to date in any global region,
and its norms will influence the standard of neuropsychological assessment with the verbal fluency tests in
Latin America unlike any study before it.
References
Acevedo, A., Loewenstein, D. A., Barker, W. W., Harwood, D. G.,
Luis, C., Bravo, M., et al. (2000). Category Fluency Test: Normative data for English- and Spanish-speaking elderly. Journal
of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6(7), 760-769.
Anderson, V. A., Anderson, P., Northam, E., Jacobs, R., & Catroppa,
C. (2001). Development of executive functions through late childhood and adolescence in an Australian sample. Developmental
Anhoque, C. F., Biccas-Neto, L., Domingues, S. C. A., Teixeira, A. L.,
& Domingues, R. B. (2013). Cognitive impairment is correlated
with reduced quality of life in patients with clinically isolated
syndrome. Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, 71(2), 74-77.
Baldo, J. V., & Shimamura, A. P. (1998). Letter and category fluency
in patients with frontal lobe lesions. Neuropsychology, 12(2), 259.
Barr, W. B. (2003). Neuropsychological testing of high school athletes: Preliminary norms and test, retest indices. Archives of
Clinical Neuropsychology, 18(1), 91-101.
Brissart, H., Leroy, M., Morele, E., Baumann, C., Spitz, E., & Debouverie, M. (2013). Cognitive rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis.
Neurocase, 19(6), 553-565.
526
Cabeza, R., & Nyberg, L. (2000). Imaging cognition II: An empirical review of 275 PET and fMRI studies. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 12(1), 1-47.
Costafreda, S. G., Fu, C. H., Picchioni, M., Toulopoulou, T.,
McDonald, C., Kravariti, E., McGuire, P. K., et al. (2011). Pattern
of neural responses to verbal fluency shows diagnostic specificity for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. BMC Psychiatry,
11(1), 18.
da Silva, C. G., Petersson, K. M., Fasca, L., Ingvar, M., & Reis,
A. (2004). The effects of literacy and education on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of semantic verbal fluency. Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 26(2), 266-277.
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2001). Delis-Kaplan executive function system (D-KEFS). San Antonio,TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Diaz-Asper, C. M., Schretlen, D. J., & Pearlson, G. D. (2004). How
well does IQ predict neuropsychological test performance in
normal adults? Journal of the International Neuropsychological
Society, 10(01), 82-90.
189-198.
Gladsjo, J. A., Schuman, C. C., Evans, J. D., Peavy, G. M., Miller,
S. W., & Heaton, R. K. (1999). Norms for letter and category fluency: Demographic corrections for age, education, and ethnicity.
Assessment, 6(2), 147-178.
Gocer March, E., & Pattison, P. (2006). Semantic verbal fluency in
Alzheimers disease: Approaches beyond the traditional scoring
system. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,
28(4), 549-566.
Gouveia, P. A., Brucki, S. M., Malheiros, S. M., & Bueno, O. F.
(2007). Disorders in planning and strategy application in frontal
lobe lesion patients. Brain and Cognition, 63(3), 240-246.
493-499.
Halperin, J. M., Healey, J. M., Zeitchik, E., Ludman, W. L., &
Weinstein, L. (1989). Developmental aspects of linguistic and
mnestic abilities in normal children. Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology, 11(4), 518-528.
Heaton, R. K. (2004). Revised comprehensive norms for an
expanded Halstead-Reitan Battery: Demographically adjusted
neuropsychological norms for African American and Caucasian
adults, professional manual. Lutz, Fla. Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Heller, R. B., & Dobbs, A. R. (1993). Age differences in word finding
in discourse and nondiscourse situations. Psychology and Aging,
8(3), 443.
Henry, J., & Crawford, J. (2005). A meta-analytic review of verbal
fluency deficits in schizophrenia relative to other neurocognitive
deficits. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 10(1), 1-33.
Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2004a). A meta-analytic review of
verbal fluency performance in patients with traumatic brain injury.
Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2004b). Verbal fluency deficits in
Parkinsons disease: A meta-analysis. Journal of the International
Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). The neural correlates of

language production. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences; 2nd ed. (pp. 845-865). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Ivnik, R. J., Malec, J. F., Smith, G. E., Tangalos, E. G., &
Petersen, R. C. (1996). Neuropsychological tests norms above
age 55: COWAT, BNT, MAE token, WRAT-R reading, AMNART,
STROOP, TMT, and JLO. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 10(3),
262-278.
Johnson-Selfridge, M., & Zalewski, C. (2001). Moderator variables of
executive functioning in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin,
27(2), 305-316.
Khalil, M. S. (2010). Preliminary Arabic normative data of neuropsychological tests: The verbal and design fluency. Journal of
Kosmidis, M. H., Vlahou, C. H., Panagiotaki, P., Kiosseoglou, G.
(2004). The verbal fluency task in the Greek population: Normative data, and clustering and switching strategies. Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society, 10(2), 164-172.
Loonstra, A. S., Tarlow, A. R., & Sellers, A. H. (2001). COWAT
metanorms across age, education, and gender. Applied Neuropsychology, 8(3), 161-166.
Lucas, J. A., Ivnik, R. J., Smith, G. E., Bohac, D. L., Tangalos, E.
G., Graff-Radford, N. R., & Petersen, R. C. (1998). Mayos older
Americans normative studies: Category fluency norms. Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20(2), 194-200.
McGraw, P., Mathews, V. P., Wang, Y., & Phillips, M. D. (2001).
Approach to functional magnetic resonance imaging of language
based on models of language organization. Neuroimaging Clinics
of North America, 11(2), 343-53.
Mitrushina, M. (2005). Handbook of normative data for neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Moreno-Martinez, F. J., & Montoro, P. R. (2010). Longitudinal patterns of fluency impairment in dementia: The role of domain and
nuisance variables. Aphasiology, 24(11), 1389-1399.
Pasquier, F., Lebert, F., Grymonprez, L., & Petit, H. (1995). Verbal fluency in dementia of frontal lobe type and dementia of Alzheimer
type. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 58(1),
81-84.
Price, S. E., Ong, B., Mullaly, E., Pangnadasa-Fox, L., Kinsella, G.
J., & Storey, E., et al. (2012). Semantic verbal fluency strategies
in amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychology, 26(4),
490-497.
Randolph, C., Braun, A. R., Goldberg, T. E., & Chase, T. N. (1993).
Semantic fluency in Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and Huntingtons
disease: Dissociation of storage and retrieval failures. Neuropsychology, 7(1), 82.
Raskin, S. A., & Rearick, E. (1996). Verbal fluency in individuals
with mild traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychology, 10(3), 416.
Ravdin, L., Katzen, H., Agrawal, P., & Relkin, N. (2003). Letter
and semantic fluency in older adults: Effects of mild depressive symptoms and age-stratified normative data. The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 17(2), 195-202.
Ruff, R., Light, R., Parker, S., & Levin, H. (1996). Benton controlled oral word association test: Reliability and updated norms.
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11(4), 329-338.
Sauzeon, H., Lestage, P., Raboutet, C., NKaoua, B., & Claverie,
B. (2004). Verbal fluency output in children aged 7-16 as a function of the production criterion: Qualitative analysis of clustering,
switching processes, and semantic network exploitation. Brain
and Language, 89(1), 192-202.
Schum, R. L., Sivan, A. B., & Benton, A. (1989). Multilingual aphasia examination: Norms for children. The Clinical
Steinberg, B. A., Bieliauskas, L. A., Smith, G. E., & Ivnik, R.
J. (2005). Mayos Older Americans Normative Studies: Ageand IQ-adjusted norms for the trail-making test, the stroop test,
and MAE controlled oral word association test. The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 19(3-4), 329-377.
Strauss, E. H., Sherman, E. M., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of
neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary.New York: Oxford University Press.
Stricks, L., Pittman, J., Jacobs, D. M., Sano, M., & Stern, Y. (1998).
Normative data for a brief neuropsychological battery administered to English-and Spanish-speaking community-dwelling
elders. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society,
4(04), 311-318.
Tallberg, I.-M., Ivachova, E., Jones Tinghag, K., & Ostberg,

P. (2008).
Swedish norms for word fluency tests: FAS, animals and verbs.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(5), 479-485.
Till, C., Racine, N., Araujo, D., Narayanan, S., Collins, D. L., AubertBroche, B., Banwell, B., et al. (2013). Changes in cognitive
performance over a 1-year period in children and adolescents
with multiple sclerosis. Neuropsychology, 27(2), 210.
Ting, S. K. S., Hameed, S., Earnest, A., & Tan, E. K. (2012).
Dissociative semantic breakdown in Alzheimers disease: Evidence from multiple category fluency test. Clinical Neurology
and Neurosurgery, 115(7), 1049-1051.
527
Tombaugh, T. N., Kozak, J., & Rees, L. (1999). Normative data stratified by age and education for two measures of verbal fluency:
FAS and animal naming. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
14(2), 167-177.
Troyer, A. K. (2000). Normative data for clustering and switching
on verbal fluency tasks. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Van Breukelen, G. J. P., & Vlaeyen, J. W. S. (2005). Norming clinical
questionnaires with multiple regression: The Pain Cognition List.
Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 336-344.
Van der Elst, W., Van Boxtel, M. P., Van Breukelen, G. J., & Jolles,
J. (2006). Normative data for the animal, profession and letter M
naming verbal fluency tests for Dutch speaking participants and
the effects of age, education, and sex. Journal of the International
Van der Elst, W., Van Boxtel, M. P. J., Van Breukelen, G. J. P., & Jolles,
J. (2007). Assessment of information processing in working memory in applied settings: The paper & pencil memory scanning test.
Psychological Medicine, 37(09), 1335-1344.
Weber, N., Koch, R., & Reilmann, R. (2012). J04 Measuring cognitive
decline in Huntingtons disease: A longitudinal analysis of the
UHDRS cognitive battery. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery
& Psychiatry, 83(Suppl 1), A36-A37.
Wysokinski, A., Zboralski, K., Orzechowska, A., Galecki, P.,
Florkowski, A., & Talarowska, M. (2010). Normalization of the
verbal fluency test on the basis of results for healthy subjects,
patients with schizophrenia, patients with organic lesions of the
chronic nervous system and patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes.
Archives of Medical Science, 6(3), 438-446.
528
Appendix
Table A1
Normative data for the Letter F stratified by education levels for ARGENTINA
Percentile
> 12 years of education
18.8
17.3
16.3
15.5
14.2
13.1
12.0
11.0
9.9
8.5
7.7
6.7
5.2
22.6
21.1
20.1
19.3
17.9
16.8
15.8
14.8
13.6
12.3
11.5
10.5
9.0
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
Table A2
Normative data for the Letter F stratified by age and education levels for BOLIVIA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.6
16.5
15. 7
15.0
14.0
13.1
12.3
11.5
10.6
9.6
8.9
8.2
7.0
17.4
16.2
15.5
14.8
13.8
12.9
12.1
11.3
10.4
9.4
8.7
7.9
6.8
17.2
16.0
15.2
14.6
13.5
12.7
11.9
11.0
10.2
9.1
8.5
7.7
6.5
17.0
15.8
15.0
14.4
13.3
12.4
11.6
10.8
9.9
8.9
8.3
7.5
6.3
16.7
15.6
14.8
14.1
13.1
12.2
11.4
10.6
9.7
8.7
8.0
7.2
6.1
16.5
15.3
14.5
13.9
12.9
12.0
11.2
10.4
9.5
8.4
7.8
7.0
5.8
16.3
15.1
14.3
13.7
12.6
11.8
10.9
10.1
9.3
8.2
7.6
6.8
5.6
16.0
14.9
14.1
13.4
12.4
11.5
10.7
9.9
9.0
8.0
7.3
6.6
5.4
15.8
14.6
13.9
13.2
12.2
11.3
10.5
9.7
8.8
7.8
7.1
6.3
5.2
15.6
14.4
13.6
13.0
11.9
11.1
10.3
9.4
8.6
7.5
6.9
6.1
4.9
15.4
14.2
13.4
12.8
11.7
10.8
10.0
9.2
8.3
7.3
6.6
5.9
4.7
15.1
14.0
13.2
12.5
11.5
10.6
9.8
9.0
8.1
7.1
6.4
5.6
4.5
14.9
13.7
12.9
12.3
11.3
10.4
9.6
8.8
7.9
6.8
6.2
5.4
4.2
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
15.0
13.8
13.1
12.4
11.4
10.5
9.7
8.9
8.0
7.0
6.3
5.5
4.4
14.8
13.6
12.8
12.2
11.1
10.3
9.5
8.6
7.8
6.7
6.1
5.3
4.1
14.6
13.4
12.6
12.0
10.9
10.0
9.2
8.4
7.5
6.5
5.8
5.1
3.9
14.3
13.2
12.4
11.7
10.7
9.8
9.0
8.2
7.3
6.3
5.6
4.8
3.7
14.1
12.9
12.1
11.5
10.5
9.6
8.8
8.0
7.1
6.0
5.4
4.6
3.4
13.9
12.7
11.9
11.3
10.2
9.4
8.5
7.7
6.9
5.8
5.2
4.4
3.2
13.6
12.5
11.7
11.0
10.0
9.1
8.3
7.5
6.6
5.6
4.9
4.2
3.0
13.4
12.2
11.5
10.8
9.8
8.9
8.1
7.3
6.4
5.4
4.7
3.9
2.8
13.2
12.0
11.2
10.6
9.5
8.7
7.9
7.0
6.2
5.1
4.5
3.7
2.5
13.0
11.8
11.0
10.4
9.3
8.4
7.6
6.8
5.9
4.9
4.2
3.5
2.3
12.7
11.6
10.8
10.1
9.1
8.2
7.4
6.6
5.7
4.7
4.0
3.2
2.1
12.5
11.3
10.5
9.9
8.9
8.0
7.2
6.4
5.5
4.4
3.8
3.0
1.8
12.3
11.1
10.3
9.7
8.6
7.8
6.9
6.1
5.3
4.2
3.6
2.8
1.6
529
Table A3
Normative data for the Letter F stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
21.5
20.2
19.3
18.6
17.4
16.4
15.5
14.6
13.6
12.4
11.7
10.8
9.5
21.2
19.9
19.0
18.3
17.1
16.1
15.2
14.3
13.3
12.1
11.3
10.5
9.1
20.9
19.6
18.7
17.9
16.8
15.8
14.9
13.9
12.9
11.8
11.0
10.1
8.8
20.6
19.2
18.4
17.6
16.4
15.5
14.5
13.6
12.6
11.4
10.7
9.8
8.5
20.2
18.9
18.0
17.3
16.1
15.1
14.2
13.3
12.3
11.1
10.4
9.5
8.2
19.9
18.6
17.7
17.0
15.8
14.8
13.9
13.0
12.0
10.8
10.1
9.2
7.9
19.6
18.3
17.4
16.7
15.5
14.5
13.6
12.7
11.7
10.5
9.8
8.9
7.5
19.3
18.0
17.1
16.3
15.2
14.2
13.3
12.3
11.3
10.2
9.4
8.6
7.2
19.0
17.6
16.8
16.0
14.9
13.9
12.9
12.0
11.0
9.9
9.1
8.2
6.9
18.6
17.3
16.4
15.7
14.5
13.5
12.6
11.7
10.7
9.5
8.8
7.9
6.6
18.3
17.0
16.1
15.4
14.2
13.2
12.3
11.4
10.4
9.2
8.5
7.6
6.3
18.0
16.7
15.8
15.1
13.9
12.9
12.0
11.1
10.1
8.9
8.2
7.3
6.0
17.7
16.4
15.5
14.8
13.6
12.6
11.7
10.7
9.8
8.6
7.8
7.0
5.6
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.5
16.2
15.3
14.6
13.4
12.4
11.5
10.6
9.6
8.4
7.7
6.8
5.5
17.2
15.9
15.0
14.3
13.1
12.1
11.2
10.3
9.3
8.1
7.4
6.5
5.2
16.9
15.6
14.7
14.0
12.8
11.8
10.9
10.0
9.0
7.8
7.1
6.2
4.9
16.6
15.3
14.4
13.7
12.5
11.5
10.6
9.6
8.7
7.5
6.7
5.9
4.5
16.3
15.0
14.1
13.3
12.2
11.2
10.2
9.3
8.3
7.2
6.4
5.5
4.2
16.0
14.6
13.7
13.0
11.8
10.8
9.9
9.0
8.0
6.8
6.1
5.2
3.9
15.6
14.3
13.4
12.7
11.5
10.5
9.6
8.7
7.7
6.5
5.8
4.9
3.6
15.3
14.0
13.1
12.4
11.2
10.2
9.3
8.4
7.4
6.2
5.5
4.6
3.3
15.0
13.7
12.8
12.1
10.9
9.9
9.0
8.1
7.1
5.9
5.2
4.3
2.9
14.7
13.4
12.5
11.7
10.6
9.6
8.7
7.7
6.7
5.6
4.8
3.9
2.6
14.4
13.0
12.2
11.4
10.2
9.3
8.3
7.4
6.4
5.2
4.5
3.6
2.3
14.0
12.7
11.8
11.1
9.9
8.9
8.0
7.1
6.1
4.9
4.2
3.3
2.0
13.7
12.4
11.5
10.8
9.6
8.6
7.7
6.8
5.8
4.6
3.9
3.0
1.7
530
Table A4
Normative data for the Letter F stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
18.9
17.5
16.6
15.9
14.7
13.7
12.7
11.8
10.8
9.6
8.9
8.0
6.6
18.7
17.3
16.4
15.7
14.5
13.5
12.6
11.6
10.6
9.4
8.7
7.8
6.4
18.5
17.1
16.2
15.5
14.3
13.3
12.4
11.4
10.4
9.2
8.5
7.6
6.2
18.3
16.9
16.0
15.3
14.1
13.1
12.2
11.2
10.2
9.0
8.3
7.4
6.1
18.1
16.7
15.8
15.1
13.9
12.9
12.0
11.0
10.0
8.8
8.1
7.2
5.9
17.9
16.5
15.7
14.9
13.7
12.7
11.8
10.8
9.8
8.6
7.9
7.0
5.7
17.7
16.4
15.5
14.7
13.5
12.5
11.6
10.6
9.6
8.4
7.7
6.8
5.5
17.5
16.2
15.3
14.5
13.3
12.3
11.4
10.5
9.4
8.3
7.5
6.6
5.3
17.3
16.0
15.1
14.3
13.1
12.1
11.2
10.3
9.3
8.1
7.3
6.4
5.1
17.1
15.8
14.9
14.1
12.9
11.9
11.0
10.1
9.1
7.9
7.1
6.2
4.9
16.9
15.6
14.7
13.9
12.7
11.7
10.8
9.9
8.9
7.7
6.9
6.0
4.7
16.7
15.4
14.5
13.7
12.5
11.5
10.6
9.7
8.7
7.5
6.7
5.8
4.5
16.5
15.2
14.3
13.5
12.4
11.3
10.4
9.5
8.5
7.3
6.5
5.6
4.3
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.2
15.8
14.9
14.2
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.1
9.1
7.9
7.2
6.3
4.9
17.0
15.6
14.7
14.0
12.8
11.8
10.9
9.9
8.9
7.7
7.0
6.1
4.7
16.8
15.4
14.5
13.8
12.6
11.6
10.7
9.7
8.7
7.5
6.8
5.9
4.5
16.6
15.2
14.3
13.6
12.4
11.4
10.5
9.5
8.5
7.3
6.6
5.7
4.3
16.4
15.0
14.1
13.4
12.2
11.2
10.3
9.3
8.3
7.1
6.4
5.5
4.2
16.2
14.8
14.0
13.2
12.0
11.0
10.1
9.1
8.1
6.9
6.2
5.3
4.0
16.0
14.7
13.8
13.0
11.8
10.8
9.9
8.9
7.9
6.7
6.0
5.1
3.8
15.8
14.5
13.6
12.8
11.6
10.6
9.7
8.8
7.7
6.6
5.8
4.9
3.6
15.6
14.3
13.4
12.6
11.4
10.4
9.5
8.6
7.6
6.4
5.6
4.7
3.4
15.4
14.1
13.2
12.4
11.2
10.2
9.3
8.4
7.4
6.2
5.4
4.5
3.2
15.2
13.9
13.0
12.2
11.0
10.0
9.1
8.2
7.2
6.0
5.2
4.3
3.0
15.0
13.7
12.8
12.0
10.8
9.8
8.9
8.0
7.0
5.8
5.0
4.1
2.8
14.8
13.5
12.6
11.8
10.6
9.6
8.7
7.8
6.8
5.6
4.8
3.9
2.6
531
Table A5
Normative data for the Letter F stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
22.5
20.9
19.9
19.0
17.7
16.5
15.4
14.3
13.2
11.8
10.9
9.9
8.3
22.3
20.7
19.7
18.8
17.4
16.3
15.2
14.1
13.0
11.6
10.7
9.7
8.1
22.1
20.5
19.5
18.6
17.2
16.1
15.0
13.9
12.7
11.4
10.5
9.5
7.9
21.9
20.3
19.3
18.4
17.0
15.9
14.8
13.7
12.5
11.2
10.3
9.3
7.7
21.7
20.1
19.1
18.2
16.8
15.7
14.6
13.5
12.3
10.9
10.1
9.0
7.5
21.5
19.9
18.9
18.0
16.6
15.4
14.4
13.3
12.1
10.7
9.9
8.8
7.3
21.2
19.7
18.6
17.8
16.4
15.2
14.2
13.1
11.9
10.5
9.7
8.6
7.1
21.0
19.5
18.4
17.6
16.2
15.0
13.9
12.9
11.7
10.3
9.5
8.4
6.9
20.8
19.3
18.2
17.4
16.0
14.8
13.7
12.7
11.5
10.1
9.2
8.2
6.6
20.6
19.1
18.0
17.2
15.8
14.6
13.5
12.4
11.3
9.9
9.0
8.0
6.4
20.4
18.9
17.8
16.9
15.6
14.4
13.3
12.2
11.1
9.7
8.8
7.8
6.2
20.2
18.6
17.6
16.7
15.4
14.2
13.1
12.0
10.9
9.5
8.6
7.6
6.0
20.0
18.4
17.4
16.5
15.1
14.0
12.9
11.8
10.7
9.3
8.4
7.4
5.8
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.3
15.7
14.7
13.8
12.4
11.3
10.2
9.1
7.9
6.6
5.7
4.7
3.1
17.1
15.5
14.5
13.6
12.2
11.1
10.0
8.9
7.7
6.4
5.5
4.4
2.9
16.9
15.3
14.3
13.4
12.0
10.9
9.8
8.7
7.5
6.1
5.3
4.2
2.7
16.7
15.1
14.1
13.2
11.8
10.6
9.6
8.5
7.3
5.9
5.1
4.0
2.5
16.4
14.9
13.8
13.0
11.6
10.4
9.4
8.3
7.1
5.7
4.9
3.8
2.3
16.2
14.7
13.6
12.8
11.4
10.2
9.1
8.1
6.9
5.5
4.7
3.6
2.1
16.0
14.5
13.4
12.6
11.2
10.0
8.9
7.9
6.7
5.3
4.4
3.4
1.8
15.8
14.3
13.2
12.4
11.0
9.8
8.7
7.6
6.5
5.1
4.2
3.2
1.6
15.6
14.1
13.0
12.1
10.8
9.6
8.5
7.4
6.3
4.9
4.0
3.0
1.4
15.4
13.8
12.8
11.9
10.6
9.4
8.3
7.2
6.1
4.7
3.8
2.8
1.2
15.2
13.6
12.6
11.7
10.3
9.2
8.1
7.0
5.9
4.5
3.6
2.6
1.0
15.0
13.4
12.4
11.5
10.1
9.0
7.9
6.8
5.6
4.3
3.4
2.4
0.8
14.8
13.2
12.2
11.3
9.9
8.8
7.7
6.6
5.4
4.1
3.2
2.2
0.6
Table A6
Normative data for the Letter F stratified by education levels for GUATEMALA
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.6
15.8
14.7
13.8
12.2
10.9
9.7
8.6
7.3
5.7
4.8
3.7
1.9
21.9
20.2
19.0
18.1
16.6
15.3
14.1
12.9
11.6
10.1
9.1
8.0
6.3
532
Table A7
Normative data for the Letter F stratified by education levels for HONDURAS
Percentile
14.5
13.1
12.1
11.3
10.1
9.0
8.1
7.1
6.0
4.8
4.0
3.1
1.7
19.6
18.2
17.3
16.5
15.3
14.2
13.3
12.3
11.2
10.0
9.2
8.3
6.9
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
Table A8
Normative data for the Letter F stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
Age (Years)
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
2327
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
22.6
21.1
20.1
19.3
17.9
16.8
15.7
14.7
13.6
12.2
11.4
10.4
8.9
22.3
20.8
19.8
19.0
17.6
16.5
15.5
14.4
13.3
11.9
11.1
10.1
8.6
22.0
20.5
19.5
18.7
17.3
16.2
15.2
14.1
13.0
11.6
10.8
9.8
8.3
21.8
20.2
19.2
18.4
17.1
15.9
14.9
13.8
12.7
11.3
10.5
9.5
8.0
21.5
20.0
18.9
18.1
16.8
15.6
14.6
13.5
12.4
11.1
10.2
9.2
7.7
21.2
19.7
18.7
17.8
16.5
15.3
14.3
13.2
12.1
10.8
9.9
8.9
7.4
20.9
19.4
18.4
17.5
16.2
15.1
14.0
13.0
11.8
10.5
9.6
8.6
7.1
20.6
19.1
18.1
17.2
15.9
14.8
13.7
12.7
11.5
10.2
9.3
8.3
6.8
20.3
18.8
17.8
16.9
15.6
14.5
13.4
12.4
11.2
9.9
9.1
8.1
6.5
20.0
18.5
17.5
16.7
15.3
14.2
13.1
12.1
11.0
9.6
8.8
7.8
6.3
19.7
18.2
17.2
16.4
15.0
13.9
12.8
11.8
10.7
9.3
8.5
7.5
6.0
19.4
17.9
16.9
16.1
14.7
13.6
12.6
11.5
10.4
9.0
8.2
7.2
5.7
19.1
17.6
16.6
15.8
14.4
13.3
12.3
11.2
10.1
8.7
7.9
6.9
5.4
Percentile 1822
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
18.5
17.4
16.6
15.3
14.1
13.1
12.0
10.9
9.6
8.7
7.7
6.2
19.7
18.2
17.2
16.3
15.0
13.8
12.8
11.7
10.6
9.3
8.4
7.4
5.9
19.4
17.9
16.9
16.0
14.7
13.6
12.5
11.5
10.3
9.0
8.1
7.1
5.6
19.1
17.6
16.6
15.7
14.4
13.3
12.2
11.2
10.0
8.7
7.9
6.8
5.3
18.8
17.3
16.3
15.5
14.1
13.0
11.9
10.9
9.7
8.4
7.6
6.6
5.0
18.5
17.0
16.0
15.2
13.8
12.7
11.6
10.6
9.5
8.1
7.3
6.3
4.8
18.2
16.7
15.7
14.9
13.5
12.4
11.3
10.3
9.2
7.8
7.0
6.0
4.5
17.9
16.4
15.4
14.6
13.2
12.1
11.1
10.0
8.9
7.5
6.7
5.7
4.2
17.6
16.1
15.1
14.3
12.9
11.8
10.8
9.7
8.6
7.2
6.4
5.4
3.9
17.4
15.8
14.8
14.0
12.7
11.5
10.5
9.4
8.3
7.0
6.1
5.1
3.6
17.1
15.6
14.6
13.7
12.4
11.2
10.2
9.1
8.0
6.7
5.8
4.8
3.3
16.8
15.3
14.3
13.4
12.1
10.9
9.9
8.9
7.7
6.4
5.5
4.5
3.0
16.5
15.0
14.0
13.1
11.8
10.7
9.6
8.6
7.4
6.1
5.2
4.2
2.7
533
Table A9
Normative data for the Letter F stratified by education levels for PARAGUAY
Percentile
12.6
12.0
11.7
11.3
10.8
10.4
10.0
9.6
9.2
8.6
8.3
7.9
7.4
14.9
14.4
14.0
13.6
13.1
12.7
12.3
11.9
11.5
10.9
10.6
10.2
9.7
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
Table A10
Normative data for the Letter F stratified by age and education levels for PERU
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
21.8
20.4
19.5
18.7
17.4
16.4
15.4
14.4
13.3
12.1
11.3
10.3
8.9
21.7
20.3
19.3
18.5
17.3
16.2
15.2
14.2
13.2
11.9
11.1
10.2
8.8
21.5
20.1
19.2
18.4
17.1
16.1
15.1
14.1
13.0
11.8
11.0
10.0
8.6
21.4
20.0
19.0
18.2
17.0
15.9
14.9
13.9
12.9
11.6
10.8
9.9
8.5
21.2
19.8
18.9
18.1
16.8
15.8
14.8
13.8
12.7
11.5
10.7
9.7
8.3
21.1
19.7
18.7
18.0
16.7
15.6
14.6
13.7
12.6
11.3
10.5
9.6
8.2
21.0
19.5
18.6
17.8
16.5
15.5
14.5
13.5
12.4
11.2
10.4
9.5
8.0
20.8
19.4
18.4
17.7
16.4
15.3
14.4
13.4
12.3
11.0
10.3
9.3
7.9
20.7
19.2
18.3
17.5
16.3
15.2
14.2
13.2
12.2
10.9
10.1
9.2
7.7
20.5
19.1
18.2
17.4
16.1
15.0
14.1
13.1
12.0
10.8
10.0
9.0
7.6
20.4
19.0
18.0
17.2
16.0
14.9
13.9
12.9
11.9
10.6
9.8
8.9
7.5
20.2
18.8
17.9
17.1
15.8
14.8
13.8
12.8
11.7
10.5
9.7
8.7
7.3
>77
20.1
18.7
17.7
16.9
15.7
14.6
13.6
12.6
11.6
10.3
9.5
8.6
7.2
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
18.1
16.7
15.7
14.9
13.7
12.6
11.6
10.6
9.6
8.3
7.5
6.6
5.2
17.9
16.5
15.6
14.8
13.5
12.5
11.5
10.5
9.4
8.2
7.4
6.4
5.0
17.8
16.4
15.4
14.6
13.4
12.3
11.3
10.3
9.3
8.0
7.2
6.3
4.9
17.6
16.2
15.3
14.5
13.2
12.2
11.2
10.2
9.1
7.9
7.1
6.1
4.7
17.5
16.1
15.1
14.3
13.1
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
7.7
6.9
6.0
4.6
17.3
15.9
15.0
14.2
12.9
11.9
10.9
9.9
8.8
7.6
6.8
5.8
4.4
17.2
15.8
14.8
14.1
12.8
11.7
10.7
9.8
8.7
7.4
6.6
5.7
4.3
17.1
15.6
14.7
13.9
12.6
11.6
10.6
9.6
8.5
7.3
6.5
5.6
4.1
16.9
15.5
14.5
13.8
12.5
11.4
10.5
9.5
8.4
7.1
6.4
5.4
4.0
16.8
15.3
14.4
13.6
12.4
11.3
10.3
9.3
8.3
7.0
6.2
5.3
3.8
16.6
15.2
14.3
13.5
12.2
11.1
10.2
9.2
8.1
6.9
6.1
5.1
3.7
16.5
15.1
14.1
13.3
12.1
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
6.7
5.9
5.0
3.6
16.3
14.9
14.0
13.2
11.9
10.9
9.9
8.9
7.8
6.6
5.8
4.8
3.4
534
Table A11
Normative data for the Letter F stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
Age (Years)
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
2327
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
18.8
17.5
16.6
15.8
14.6
13.6
12.7
11.8
10.7
9.6
8.8
7.9
6.6
18.7
17.3
16.4
15.7
14.5
13.5
12.5
11.6
10.6
9.4
8.6
7.7
6.4
18.5
17.2
16.3
15.5
14.3
13.3
12.4
11.4
10.4
9.2
8.5
7.6
6.2
18.4
17.0
16.1
15.4
14.2
13.2
12.2
11.3
10.3
9.1
8.3
7.4
6.1
18.2
16.8
15.9
15.2
14.0
13.0
12.1
11.1
10.1
8.9
8.2
7.3
5.9
18.0
16.7
15.8
15.0
13.8
12.8
11.9
11.0
10.0
8.8
8.0
7.1
5.8
17.9
16.5
15.6
14.9
13.7
12.7
11.7
10.8
9.8
8.6
7.9
7.0
5.6
17.7
16.4
15.5
14.7
13.5
12.5
11.6
10.7
9.6
8.4
7.7
6.8
5.5
17.6
16.2
15.3
14.6
13.4
12.4
11.4
10.5
9.5
8.3
7.5
6.6
5.3
17.4
16.1
15.2
14.4
13.2
12.2
11.3
10.3
9.3
8.1
7.4
6.5
5.1
17.2
15.9
15.0
14.3
13.1
12.0
11.1
10.2
9.2
8.0
7.2
6.3
5.0
17.1
15.7
14.8
14.1
12.9
11.9
11.0
10.0
9.0
7.8
7.1
6.2
4.8
16.9
15.6
14.7
13.9
12.7
11.7
10.8
9.9
8.9
7.7
6.9
6.0
4.7
Percentile 1822
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
16.6
15.2
14.4
13.6
12.4
11.4
10.5
9.5
8.5
7.3
6.6
5.7
4.3
16.4
15.1
14.2
13.4
12.2
11.2
10.3
9.4
8.4
7.2
6.4
5.5
4.2
16.3
14.9
14.0
13.3
12.1
11.1
10.1
9.2
8.2
7.0
6.3
5.4
4.0
16.1
14.8
13.9
13.1
11.9
10.9
10.0
9.1
8.0
6.8
6.1
5.2
3.9
16.0
14.6
13.7
13.0
11.8
10.8
9.8
8.9
7.9
6.7
5.9
5.0
3.7
15.8
14.5
13.6
12.8
11.6
10.6
9.7
8.7
7.7
6.5
5.8
4.9
3.5
15.6
14.3
13.4
12.7
11.5
10.4
9.5
8.6
7.6
6.4
5.6
4.7
3.4
15.5
14.1
13.2
12.5
11.3
10.3
9.4
8.4
7.4
6.2
5.5
4.6
3.2
15.3
14.0
13.1
12.3
11.1
10.1
9.2
8.3
7.3
6.1
5.3
4.4
3.1
15.2
13.8
12.9
12.2
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.1
7.1
5.9
5.2
4.3
2.9
15.0
13.7
12.8
12.0
10.8
9.8
8.9
7.9
6.9
5.7
5.0
4.1
2.8
14.9
13.5
12.6
11.9
10.7
9.7
8.7
7.8
6.8
5.6
4.8
3.9
2.6
14.7
13.4
12.5
11.7
10.5
9.5
8.6
7.6
6.6
5.4
4.7
3.8
2.4
Table A12
Normative data for the Letter A stratified by education levels for ARGENTINA
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.8
16.5
15.6
14.8
13.6
12.6
11.7
10.8
9.7
8.5
7.8
6.9
5.6
21.4
20.1
19.2
18.4
17.2
16.2
15.3
14.3
13.3
12.1
11.4
10.5
9.1
535
Table A13
Normative data for the Letter A stratified by age and education levels for BOLIVIA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
18.7
17.5
16.7
16.0
14.9
13.9
13.1
12.2
11.3
10.2
9.5
8.7
7.4
18.5
17.2
16.4
15.7
14.6
13.7
12.8
12.0
11.0
9.9
9.2
8.4
7.2
18.2
17.0
16.2
15.5
14.4
13.4
12.6
11.7
10.8
9.7
9.0
8.2
6.9
18.0
16.7
15.9
15.2
14.1
13.2
12.3
11.5
10.5
9.4
8.7
7.9
6.7
17.7
16.5
15.6
15.0
13.9
12.9
12.1
11.2
10.3
9.2
8.5
7.7
6.4
17.5
16.2
15.4
14.7
13.6
12.7
11.8
11.0
10.0
8.9
8.2
7.4
6.2
17.2
16.0
15.1
14.5
13.4
12.4
11.6
10.7
9.8
8.7
8.0
7.2
5.9
17.0
15.7
14.9
14.2
13.1
12.2
11.3
10.5
9.5
8.4
7.7
6.9
5.7
16.7
15.5
14.6
14.0
12.8
11.9
11.1
10.2
9.3
8.2
7.5
6.7
5.4
16.5
15.2
14.4
13.7
12.6
11.7
10.8
9.9
9.0
7.9
7.2
6.4
5.2
16.2
15.0
14.1
13.4
12.3
11.4
10.6
9.7
8.8
7.7
7.0
6.2
4.9
15.9
14.7
13.9
13.2
12.1
11.2
10.3
9.4
8.5
7.4
6.7
5.9
4.7
15.7
14.5
13.6
12.9
11.8
10.9
10.1
9.2
8.3
7.2
6.5
5.6
4.4
Age (Years)
Percentile
6872 7377
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
15.3
14.0
13.2
12.5
11.4
10.5
9.6
8.8
7.9
6.8
6.1
5.2
4.0
15.0
13.8
13.0
12.3
11.2
10.3
9.4
8.5
7.6
6.5
5.8
5.0
3.7
14.8
13.5
12.7
12.0
10.9
10.0
9.1
8.3
7.3
6.2
5.6
4.7
3.5
14.5
13.3
12.5
11.8
10.7
9.7
8.9
8.0
7.1
6.0
5.3
4.5
3.2
14.3
13.0
12.2
11.5
10.4
9.5
8.6
7.8
6.8
5.7
5.1
4.2
3.0
14.0
12.8
12.0
11.3
10.2
9.2
8.4
7.5
6.6
5.5
4.8
4.0
2.7
13.8
12.5
11.7
11.0
9.9
9.0
8.1
7.3
6.3
5.2
4.6
3.7
2.5
13.5
12.3
11.5
10.8
9.7
8.7
7.9
7.0
6.1
5.0
4.3
3.5
2.2
13.3
12.0
11.2
10.5
9.4
8.5
7.6
6.8
5.8
4.7
4.0
3.2
2.0
13.0
11.8
11.0
10.3
9.2
8.2
7.4
6.5
5.6
4.5
3.8
3.0
1.7
12.8
11.5
10.7
10.0
8.9
8.0
7.1
6.3
5.3
4.2
3.5
2.7
1.5
12.5
11.3
10.4
9.8
8.7
7.7
6.9
6.0
5.1
4.0
3.3
2.5
1.2
12.3
11.0
10.2
9.5
8.4
7.5
6.6
5.8
4.8
3.7
3.0
2.2
1.0
>77
536
Table A14
Normative data for the Letter A stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
21.7
20.3
19.4
18.7
17.5
16.5
15.5
14.6
13.6
12.4
11.7
10.8
9.4
21.2
19.9
19.0
18.3
17.1
16.1
15.1
14.2
13.2
12.0
11.2
10.3
9.0
20.8
19.5
18.6
17.9
16.7
15.7
14.7
13.8
12.8
11.6
10.8
9.9
8.6
20.4
19.1
18.2
17.4
16.3
15.2
14.3
13.4
12.4
11.2
10.4
9.5
8.2
20.0
18.7
17.8
17.0
15.8
14.8
13.9
13.0
12.0
10.8
10.0
9.1
7.8
19.6
18.3
17.4
16.6
15.4
14.4
13.5
12.6
11.6
10.4
9.6
8.7
7.4
19.2
17.9
17.0
16.2
15.0
14.0
13.1
12.2
11.1
10.0
9.2
8.3
7.0
18.8
17.5
16.6
15.8
14.6
13.6
12.7
11.7
10.7
9.5
8.8
7.9
6.6
18.4
17.0
16.2
15.4
14.2
13.2
12.3
11.3
10.3
9.1
8.4
7.5
6.1
18.0
16.6
15.7
15.0
13.8
12.8
11.9
10.9
9.9
8.7
8.0
7.1
5.7
17.6
16.2
15.3
14.6
13.4
12.4
11.5
10.5
9.5
8.3
7.6
6.7
5.3
17.2
15.8
14.9
14.2
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.1
9.1
7.9
7.2
6.3
4.9
16.8
15.4
14.5
13.8
12.6
11.6
10.6
9.7
8.7
7.5
6.8
5.9
4.5
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
18.0
16.7
15.8
15.1
13.9
12.9
11.9
11.0
10.0
8.8
8.0
7.1
5.8
17.6
16.3
15.4
14.7
13.5
12.5
11.5
10.6
9.6
8.4
7.6
6.7
5.4
17.2
15.9
15.0
14.2
13.1
12.0
11.1
10.2
9.2
8.0
7.2
6.3
5.0
16.8
15.5
14.6
13.8
12.6
11.6
10.7
9.8
8.8
7.6
6.8
5.9
4.6
16.4
15.1
14.2
13.4
12.2
11.2
10.3
9.4
8.4
7.2
6.4
5.5
4.2
16.0
14.7
13.8
13.0
11.8
10.8
9.9
9.0
7.9
6.8
6.0
5.1
3.8
15.6
14.3
13.4
12.6
11.4
10.4
9.5
8.5
7.5
6.3
5.6
4.7
3.4
15.2
13.8
13.0
12.2
11.0
10.0
9.1
8.1
7.1
5.9
5.2
4.3
2.9
14.8
13.4
12.5
11.8
10.6
9.6
8.7
7.7
6.7
5.5
4.8
3.9
2.5
14.4
13.0
12.1
11.4
10.2
9.2
8.3
7.3
6.3
5.1
4.4
3.5
2.1
14.0
12.6
11.7
11.0
9.8
8.8
7.8
6.9
5.9
4.7
4.0
3.1
1.7
13.6
12.2
11.3
10.6
9.4
8.4
7.4
6.5
5.5
4.3
3.6
2.7
1.3
13.1
11.8
10.9
10.2
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.1
5.1
3.9
3.1
2.3
0.9
537
Table A15
Normative data for the Letter A stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
19.0
17.7
16.9
16.2
15.1
14.1
13.3
12.4
11.4
10.3
9.6
8.8
7.5
18.8
17.5
16.7
16.0
14.9
13.9
13.0
12.2
11.2
10.1
9.4
8.6
7.3
18.6
17.3
16.5
15.8
14.7
13.7
12.8
12.0
11.0
9.9
9.2
8.4
7.1
18.4
17.1
16.3
15.6
14.5
13.5
12.6
11.8
10.8
9.7
9.0
8.1
6.9
18.2
16.9
16.1
15.4
14.2
13.3
12.4
11.5
10.6
9.5
8.8
7.9
6.7
18.0
16.7
15.9
15.2
14.0
13.1
12.2
11.3
10.4
9.3
8.6
7.7
6.5
17.7
16.5
15.6
14.9
13.8
12.9
12.0
11.1
10.2
9.1
8.4
7.5
6.3
17.5
16.3
15.4
14.7
13.6
12.7
11.8
10.9
10.0
8.8
8.1
7.3
6.0
17.3
16.1
15.2
14.5
13.4
12.5
11.6
10.7
9.8
8.6
7.9
7.1
5.8
17.1
15.9
15.0
14.3
13.2
12.2
11.4
10.5
9.5
8.4
7.7
6.9
5.6
16.9
15.6
14.8
14.1
13.0
12.0
11.2
10.3
9.3
8.2
7.5
6.7
5.4
16.7
15.4
14.6
13.9
12.8
11.8
11.0
10.1
9.1
8.0
7.3
6.5
5.2
16.5
15.2
14.4
13.7
12.6
11.6
10.7
9.9
8.9
7.8
7.1
6.3
5.0
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
16.4
15.1
14.3
13.6
12.5
11.5
10.6
9.8
8.8
7.7
7.0
6.2
4.9
16.2
14.9
14.1
13.4
12.3
11.3
10.4
9.6
8.6
7.5
6.8
5.9
4.7
16.0
14.7
13.9
13.2
12.0
11.1
10.2
9.3
8.4
7.3
6.6
5.7
4.5
15.8
14.5
13.7
13.0
11.8
10.9
10.0
9.1
8.2
7.1
6.4
5.5
4.3
15.5
14.3
13.4
12.7
11.6
10.7
9.8
8.9
8.0
6.9
6.2
5.3
4.1
15.3
14.1
13.2
12.5
11.4
10.5
9.6
8.7
7.8
6.7
6.0
5.1
3.8
15.1
13.9
13.0
12.3
11.2
10.3
9.4
8.5
7.6
6.4
5.7
4.9
3.6
14.9
13.7
12.8
12.1
11.0
10.1
9.2
8.3
7.4
6.2
5.5
4.7
3.4
14.7
13.4
12.6
11.9
10.8
9.8
9.0
8.1
7.1
6.0
5.3
4.5
3.2
14.5
13.2
12.4
11.7
10.6
9.6
8.8
7.9
6.9
5.8
5.1
4.3
3.0
14.3
13.0
12.2
11.5
10.4
9.4
8.5
7.7
6.7
5.6
4.9
4.1
2.8
14.1
12.8
12.0
11.3
10.2
9.2
8.3
7.5
6.5
5.4
4.7
3.9
2.6
13.9
12.6
11.8
11.1
9.9
9.0
8.1
7.3
6.3
5.2
4.5
3.6
2.4
538
Table A16
Normative data for the Letter A stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
23.0
21.5
20.4
19.6
18.2
17.0
15.9
14.8
13.6
12.2
11.3
10.3
8.7
22.8
21.3
20.2
19.3
17.9
16.8
15.7
14.6
13.4
12.0
11.1
10.1
8.5
22.6
21.1
20.0
19.1
17.7
16.6
15.5
14.4
13.2
11.8
10.9
9.9
8.3
22.4
20.8
19.8
18.9
17.5
16.3
15.2
14.2
13.0
11.6
10.7
9.7
8.1
22.2
20.6
19.6
18.7
17.3
16.1
15.0
13.9
12.8
11.4
10.5
9.4
7.9
22.0
20.4
19.4
18.5
17.1
15.9
14.8
13.7
12.6
11.2
10.3
9.2
7.7
21.8
20.2
19.2
18.3
16.9
15.7
14.6
13.5
12.3
10.9
10.1
9.0
7.4
21.6
20.0
19.0
18.1
16.7
15.5
14.4
13.3
12.1
10.7
9.9
8.8
7.2
21.4
19.8
18.7
17.9
16.5
15.3
14.2
13.1
11.9
10.5
9.7
8.6
7.0
21.2
19.6
18.5
17.7
16.3
15.1
14.0
12.9
11.7
10.3
9.4
8.4
6.8
20.9
19.4
18.3
17.5
16.1
14.9
13.8
12.7
11.5
10.1
9.2
8.2
6.6
20.7
19.2
18.1
17.2
15.8
14.7
13.6
12.5
11.3
9.9
9.0
8.0
6.4
20.5
19.0
17.9
17.0
15.6
14.5
13.4
12.3
11.1
9.7
8.8
7.8
6.2
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.1
15.5
14.5
13.6
12.2
11.0
9.9
8.8
7.7
6.3
5.4
4.3
2.8
16.9
15.3
14.3
13.4
12.0
10.8
9.7
8.6
7.5
6.1
5.2
4.1
2.6
16.7
15.1
14.1
13.2
11.8
10.6
9.5
8.4
7.2
5.8
5.0
3.9
2.3
16.5
14.9
13.9
13.0
11.6
10.4
9.3
8.2
7.0
5.6
4.8
3.7
2.1
16.3
14.7
13.6
12.8
11.4
10.2
9.1
8.0
6.8
5.4
4.5
3.5
1.9
16.1
14.5
13.4
12.6
11.2
10.0
8.9
7.8
6.6
5.2
4.3
3.3
1.7
15.8
14.3
13.2
12.3
10.9
9.8
8.7
7.6
6.4
5.0
4.1
3.1
1.5
15.6
14.1
13.0
12.1
10.7
9.6
8.5
7.4
6.2
4.8
3.9
2.9
1.3
15.4
13.9
12.8
11.9
10.5
9.3
8.3
7.2
6.0
4.6
3.7
2.7
1.1
15.2
13.6
12.6
11.7
10.3
9.1
8.0
7.0
5.8
4.4
3.5
2.4
0.9
15.0
13.4
12.4
11.5
10.1
8.9
7.8
6.7
5.6
4.2
3.3
2.2
0.7
14.8
13.2
12.2
11.3
9.9
8.7
7.6
6.5
5.4
4.0
3.1
2.0
0.5
14.6
13.0
12.0
11.1
9.7
8.5
7.4
6.3
5.1
3.7
2.9
1.8
0.2
Table A17
Normative data for the Letter A stratified by education levels for GUATEMALA
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.8
16.1
14.9
13.9
12.4
11.1
9.9
8.7
7.4
5.8
4.8
3.7
1.9
22.5
20.8
19.6
18.6
17.1
15.8
14.6
13.4
12.0
10.5
9.5
8.4
6.6
539
Table A18
Normative data for the Letter A stratified by age and education levels for HONDURAS
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.8
19.3
18.3
17.4
16.1
15.0
13.9
12.9
11.8
10.4
9.6
8.6
7.1
20.6
19.1
18.1
17.2
15.9
14.8
13.7
12.7
11.6
10.2
9.4
8.4
6.9
20.3
18.8
17.8
17.0
15.7
14.5
13.5
12.5
11.3
10.0
9.2
8.2
6.7
20.1
18.6
17.6
16.8
15.4
14.3
13.3
12.2
11.1
9.8
8.9
7.9
6.4
19.9
18.4
17.4
16.5
15.2
14.1
13.0
12.0
10.9
9.5
8.7
7.7
6.2
19.7
18.2
17.2
16.3
15.0
13.9
12.8
11.8
10.7
9.3
8.5
7.5
6.0
19.4
17.9
16.9
16.1
14.8
13.6
12.6
11.6
10.4
9.1
8.3
7.3
5.8
19.2
17.7
16.7
15.9
14.5
13.4
12.4
11.3
10.2
8.9
8.0
7.0
5.5
19.0
17.5
16.5
15.7
14.3
13.2
12.2
11.1
10.0
8.7
7.8
6.8
5.3
18.8
17.3
16.3
15.4
14.1
13.0
11.9
10.9
9.8
8.4
7.6
6.6
5.1
18.5
17.0
16.0
15.2
13.9
12.7
11.7
10.7
9.5
8.2
7.4
6.4
4.9
18.3
16.8
15.8
15.0
13.6
12.5
11.5
10.4
9.3
8.0
7.1
6.1
4.6
18.1
16.6
15.6
14.8
13.4
12.3
11.3
10.2
9.1
7.8
6.9
5.9
4.4
Age (Years)
Percentile
1822 2327
2832
3337 3842
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
16.4
14.9
13.9
13.0
11.7
10.6
9.5
8.5
7.4
6.0
5.2
4.2
2.7
16.1
14.6
13.6
12.8
11.5
10.4
9.3
8.3
7.1
5.8
5.0
4.0
2.5
15.9
14.4
13.4
12.6
11.3
10.1
9.1
8.0
6.9
5.6
4.8
3.8
2.3
15.7
14.2
13.2
12.4
11.0
9.9
8.9
7.8
6.7
5.4
4.5
3.5
2.0
15.5
14.0
13.0
12.1
10.8
9.7
8.6
7.6
6.5
5.1
4.3
3.3
1.8
15.3
13.8
12.8
11.9
10.6
9.5
8.4
7.4
6.3
4.9
4.1
3.1
1.6
15.0
13.5
12.5
11.7
10.4
9.2
8.2
7.2
6.0
4.7
3.9
2.9
1.4
14.8
13.3
12.3
11.5
10.1
9.0
8.0
6.9
5.8
4.5
3.6
2.6
1.1
14.6
13.1
12.1
11.2
9.9
8.8
7.7
6.7
5.6
4.2
3.4
2.4
0.9
14.4
12.9
11.9
11.0
9.7
8.6
7.5
6.5
5.4
4.0
3.2
2.2
0.7
14.1
12.6
11.6
10.8
9.5
8.3
7.3
6.3
5.1
3.8
3.0
2.0
0.5
13.9
12.4
11.4
10.6
9.2
8.1
7.1
6.0
4.9
3.6
2.7
1.7
0.2
13.7
12.2
11.2
10.4
9.0
7.9
6.9
5.8
4.7
3.4
2.5
1.5
0.0
540
Table A19
Normative data for the Letter A stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
23.0
21.5
20.5
19.6
18.3
17.1
16.1
15.0
13.9
12.5
11.7
10.7
9.2
22.7
21.2
20.1
19.3
17.9
16.8
15.7
14.7
13.5
12.2
11.4
10.3
8.8
22.3
20.8
19.8
19.0
17.6
16.5
15.4
14.4
13.2
11.9
11.0
10.0
8.5
22.0
20.5
19.5
18.6
17.3
16.1
15.1
14.0
12.9
11.5
10.7
9.7
8.1
21.7
20.1
19.1
18.3
16.9
15.8
14.7
13.7
12.5
11.2
10.3
9.3
7.8
21.3
19.8
18.8
17.9
16.6
15.4
14.4
13.3
12.2
10.8
10.0
9.0
7.5
21.0
19.5
18.4
17.6
16.2
15.1
14.0
13.0
11.8
10.5
9.6
8.6
7.1
20.6
19.1
18.1
17.3
15.9
14.8
13.7
12.6
11.5
10.2
9.3
8.3
6.8
20.3
18.8
17.8
16.9
15.6
14.4
13.4
12.3
11.2
9.8
9.0
8.0
6.4
20.0
18.4
17.4
16.6
15.2
14.1
13.0
12.0
10.8
9.5
8.6
7.6
6.1
19.6
18.1
17.1
16.2
14.9
13.7
12.7
11.6
10.5
9.1
8.3
7.3
5.8
19.3
17.8
16.7
15.9
14.5
13.4
12.3
11.3
10.1
8.8
7.9
6.9
5.4
18.9
17.4
16.4
15.6
14.2
13.1
12.0
10.9
9.8
8.5
7.6
6.6
5.1
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
19.9
18.4
17.4
16.5
15.2
14.0
13.0
11.9
10.8
9.4
8.6
7.6
6.0
19.6
18.0
17.0
16.2
14.8
13.7
12.6
11.6
10.4
9.1
8.2
7.2
5.7
19.2
17.7
16.7
15.8
14.5
13.3
12.3
11.2
10.1
8.7
7.9
6.9
5.3
18.9
17.4
16.3
15.5
14.1
13.0
11.9
10.9
9.7
8.4
7.5
6.5
5.0
18.5
17.0
16.0
15.2
13.8
12.7
11.6
10.5
9.4
8.0
7.2
6.2
4.7
18.2
16.7
15.7
14.8
13.5
12.3
11.3
10.2
9.1
7.7
6.9
5.8
4.3
17.9
16.3
15.3
14.5
13.1
12.0
10.9
9.9
8.7
7.4
6.5
5.5
4.0
17.5
16.0
15.0
14.1
12.8
11.6
10.6
9.5
8.4
7.0
6.2
5.2
3.6
17.2
15.6
14.6
13.8
12.4
11.3
10.2
9.2
8.0
6.7
5.8
4.8
3.3
16.8
15.3
14.3
13.4
12.1
11.0
9.9
8.8
7.7
6.3
5.5
4.5
3.0
16.5
15.0
14.0
13.1
11.8
10.6
9.6
8.5
7.4
6.0
5.2
4.1
2.6
16.2
14.6
13.6
12.8
11.4
10.3
9.2
8.2
7.0
5.7
4.8
3.8
2.3
15.8
14.3
13.3
12.4
11.1
9.9
8.9
7.8
6.7
5.3
4.5
3.5
1.9
Table A20
Normative data for the Letter A stratified by education levels for PARAGUAY
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
13.7
13.1
12.7
12.3
11.7
11.3
10.8
10.4
9.9
9.3
9.0
8.5
7.9
15.0
14.3
13.9
13.5
13.0
12.5
12.0
11.6
11.1
10.5
10.2
9.7
9.1
541
Table A21
Normative data for the Letter A stratified by age and education levels for PERU
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
21.8
20.4
19.4
18.6
17.4
16.3
15.3
14.3
13.3
12.0
11.2
10.3
8.8
21.6
20.2
19.3
18.5
17.2
16.1
15.1
14.1
13.1
11.8
11.0
10.1
8.6
21.4
20.0
19.1
18.3
17.0
15.9
15.0
14.0
12.9
11.6
10.8
9.9
8.5
21.3
19.8
18.9
18.1
16.8
15.8
14.8
13.8
12.7
11.5
10.7
9.7
8.3
21.1
19.7
18.7
17.9
16.7
15.6
14.6
13.6
12.5
11.3
10.5
9.5
8.1
20.9
19.5
18.5
17.7
16.5
15.4
14.4
13.4
12.4
11.1
10.3
9.4
7.9
20.7
19.3
18.4
17.6
16.3
15.2
14.2
13.2
12.2
10.9
10.1
9.2
7.7
20.5
19.1
18.2
17.4
16.1
15.0
14.1
13.1
12.0
10.7
9.9
9.0
7.6
20.4
18.9
18.0
17.2
15.9
14.9
13.9
12.9
11.8
10.6
9.8
8.8
7.4
20.2
18.8
17.8
17.0
15.8
14.7
13.7
12.7
11.6
10.4
9.6
8.6
7.2
20.0
18.6
17.6
16.8
15.6
14.5
13.5
12.5
11.5
10.2
9.4
8.4
7.0
19.8
18.4
17.4
16.7
15.4
14.3
13.3
12.3
11.3
10.0
9.2
8.3
6.8
19.6
18.2
17.3
16.5
15.2
14.1
13.2
12.2
11.1
9.8
9.0
8.1
6.7
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
19.0
17.5
16.6
15.8
14.5
13.5
12.5
11.5
10.4
9.1
8.4
7.4
6.0
18.8
17.4
16.4
15.6
14.3
13.3
12.3
11.3
10.2
9.0
8.2
7.2
5.8
18.6
17.2
16.2
15.4
14.2
13.1
12.1
11.1
10.1
8.8
8.0
7.0
5.6
18.4
17.0
16.0
15.3
14.0
12.9
11.9
10.9
9.9
8.6
7.8
6.9
5.4
18.2
16.8
15.9
15.1
13.8
12.7
11.7
10.8
9.7
8.4
7.6
6.7
5.3
18.1
16.6
15.7
14.9
13.6
12.6
11.6
10.6
9.5
8.2
7.5
6.5
5.1
17.9
16.5
15.5
14.7
13.4
12.4
11.4
10.4
9.3
8.1
7.3
6.3
4.9
17.7
16.3
15.3
14.5
13.3
12.2
11.2
10.2
9.1
7.9
7.1
6.1
4.7
17.5
16.1
15.1
14.3
13.1
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
7.7
6.9
6.0
4.5
17.3
15.9
15.0
14.2
12.9
11.8
10.8
9.9
8.8
7.5
6.7
5.8
4.4
17.2
15.7
14.8
14.0
12.7
11.7
10.7
9.7
8.6
7.3
6.5
5.6
4.2
17.0
15.5
14.6
13.8
12.5
11.5
10.5
9.5
8.4
7.2
6.4
5.4
4.0
16.8
15.4
14.4
13.6
12.4
11.3
10.3
9.3
8.2
7.0
6.2
5.2
3.8
542
Table A22
Normative data for the Letter A stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
18.7
17.8
17.0
15.8
14.8
13.9
13.0
12.0
10.8
10.0
9.1
7.8
19.7
18.4
17.5
16.8
15.6
14.6
13.6
12.7
11.7
10.5
9.8
8.9
7.5
19.5
18.1
17.2
16.5
15.3
14.3
13.4
12.4
11.4
10.2
9.5
8.6
7.3
19.2
17.8
17.0
16.2
15.0
14.0
13.1
12.2
11.1
10.0
9.2
8.3
7.0
18.9
17.6
16.7
15.9
14.8
13.7
12.8
11.9
10.9
9.7
8.9
8.1
6.7
18.6
17.3
16.4
15.7
14.5
13.5
12.5
11.6
10.6
9.4
8.7
7.8
6.4
18.4
17.0
16.1
15.4
14.2
13.2
12.3
11.3
10.3
9.2
8.4
7.5
6.2
18.1
16.8
15.9
15.1
13.9
12.9
12.0
11.1
10.1
8.9
8.1
7.2
5.9
17.8
16.5
15.6
14.9
13.7
12.7
11.7
10.8
9.8
8.6
7.9
7.0
5.6
17.6
16.2
15.3
14.6
13.4
12.4
11.5
10.5
9.5
8.3
7.6
6.7
5.4
17.3
16.0
15.1
14.3
13.1
12.1
11.2
10.3
9.3
8.1
7.3
6.4
5.1
17.0
15.7
14.8
14.1
12.9
11.9
10.9
10.0
9.0
7.8
7.1
6.2
4.8
16.8
15.4
14.5
13.8
12.6
11.6
10.7
9.7
8.7
7.5
6.8
5.9
4.6
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
18.2
16.9
16.0
15.2
14.1
13.1
12.1
11.2
10.2
9.0
8.3
7.4
6.0
18.0
16.6
15.7
15.0
13.8
12.8
11.9
10.9
9.9
8.7
8.0
7.1
5.8
17.7
16.3
15.5
14.7
13.5
12.5
11.6
10.7
9.6
8.5
7.7
6.8
5.5
17.4
16.1
15.2
14.4
13.3
12.2
11.3
10.4
9.4
8.2
7.4
6.6
5.2
17.1
15.8
14.9
14.2
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.1
9.1
7.9
7.2
6.3
4.9
16.9
15.5
14.6
13.9
12.7
11.7
10.8
9.8
8.8
7.6
6.9
6.0
4.7
16.6
15.3
14.4
13.6
12.4
11.4
10.5
9.6
8.6
7.4
6.6
5.7
4.4
16.3
15.0
14.1
13.4
12.2
11.2
10.2
9.3
8.3
7.1
6.4
5.5
4.1
16.1
14.7
13.8
13.1
11.9
10.9
10.0
9.0
8.0
6.8
6.1
5.2
3.9
15.8
14.5
13.6
12.8
11.6
10.6
9.7
8.8
7.8
6.6
5.8
4.9
3.6
15.5
14.2
13.3
12.6
11.4
10.4
9.4
8.5
7.5
6.3
5.6
4.7
3.3
15.3
13.9
13.0
12.3
11.1
10.1
9.2
8.2
7.2
6.0
5.3
4.4
3.1
15.0
13.7
12.8
12.0
10.8
9.8
8.9
8.0
7.0
5.8
5.0
4.1
2.8
Table A23
Normative data for the Letter S stratified by education levels for ARGENTINA
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
18.4
17.0
16.1
15.3
14.1
13.0
12.1
11.1
10.1
8.8
8.1
7.1
5.7
21.4
20.0
19.0
18.3
17.0
16.0
15.0
14.1
13.0
11.8
11.0
10.1
8.7
543
Table A24
Normative data for the Letter S stratified by age and education levels for BOLIVIA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.5
16.3
15.5
14.8
13.7
12.8
11.9
11.1
10.2
9.1
8.4
7.6
6.3
17.3
16.1
15.2
14.6
13.5
12.6
11.7
10.9
9.9
8.8
8.2
7.3
6.1
17.1
15.8
15.0
14.3
13.2
12.3
11.5
10.6
9.7
8.6
7.9
7.1
5.9
16.8
15.6
14.8
14.1
13.0
12.1
11.2
10.4
9.5
8.4
7.7
6.9
5.7
16.6
15.4
14.6
13.9
12.8
11.9
11.0
10.2
9.2
8.1
7.5
6.7
5.4
16.4
15.1
14.3
13.6
12.5
11.6
10.8
9.9
9.0
7.9
7.2
6.4
5.2
16.1
14.9
14.1
13.4
12.3
11.4
10.5
9.7
8.8
7.7
7.0
6.2
5.0
15.9
14.7
13.9
13.2
12.1
11.2
10.3
9.5
8.5
7.5
6.8
6.0
4.7
15.7
14.4
13.6
12.9
11.9
10.9
10.1
9.2
8.3
7.2
6.5
5.7
4.5
15.4
14.2
13.4
12.7
11.6
10.7
9.9
9.0
8.1
7.0
6.3
5.5
4.3
15.2
14.0
13.2
12.5
11.4
10.5
9.6
8.8
7.9
6.8
6.1
5.3
4.0
15.0
13.8
12.9
12.3
11.2
10.2
9.4
8.5
7.6
6.5
5.9
5.0
3.8
14.7
13.5
12.7
12.0
10.9
10.0
9.2
8.3
7.4
6.3
5.6
4.8
3.6
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
14.1
12.9
12.1
11.4
10.3
9.4
8.5
7.7
6.8
5.7
5.0
4.2
2.9
13.9
12.7
11.8
11.2
10.1
9.1
8.3
7.4
6.5
5.4
4.8
3.9
2.7
13.7
12.4
11.6
10.9
9.8
8.9
8.1
7.2
6.3
5.2
4.5
3.7
2.5
13.4
12.2
11.4
10.7
9.6
8.7
7.8
7.0
6.1
5.0
4.3
3.5
2.3
13.2
12.0
11.1
10.5
9.4
8.5
7.6
6.8
5.8
4.7
4.1
3.2
2.0
13.0
11.7
10.9
10.2
9.1
8.2
7.4
6.5
5.6
4.5
3.8
3.0
1.8
12.7
11.5
10.7
10.0
8.9
8.0
7.1
6.3
5.4
4.3
3.6
2.8
1.6
12.5
11.3
10.5
9.8
8.7
7.8
6.9
6.1
5.1
4.1
3.4
2.6
1.3
12.3
11.0
10.2
9.5
8.5
7.5
6.7
5.8
4.9
3.8
3.1
2.3
1.1
12.0
10.8
10.0
9.3
8.2
7.3
6.4
5.6
4.7
3.6
2.9
2.1
0.9
11.8
10.6
9.8
9.1
8.0
7.1
6.2
5.4
4.4
3.4
2.7
1.9
0.6
11.6
10.3
9.5
8.8
7.8
6.8
6.0
5.1
4.2
3.1
2.4
1.6
0.4
11.3
10.1
9.3
8.6
7.5
6.6
5.8
4.9
4.0
2.9
2.2
1.4
0.2
544
Table A25
Normative data for the Letter S stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.7
19.4
18.6
17.9
16.7
15.8
14.9
14.0
13.1
11.9
11.2
10.4
9.1
20.3
19.0
18.2
17.5
16.3
15.4
14.5
13.6
12.7
11.5
10.8
10.0
8.7
19.9
18.6
17.8
17.1
15.9
15.0
14.1
13.2
12.3
11.1
10.4
9.6
8.3
19.5
18.2
17.4
16.7
15.6
14.6
13.7
12.8
11.9
10.7
10.0
9.2
7.9
19.1
17.8
17.0
16.3
15.2
14.2
13.3
12.4
11.5
10.3
9.6
8.8
7.5
18.7
17.5
16.6
15.9
14.8
13.8
12.9
12.0
11.1
9.9
9.2
8.4
7.1
18.3
17.1
16.2
15.5
14.4
13.4
12.5
11.6
10.7
9.5
8.8
8.0
6.7
17.9
16.7
15.8
15.1
14.0
13.0
12.1
11.2
10.3
9.1
8.4
7.6
6.3
17.5
16.3
15.4
14.7
13.6
12.6
11.7
10.8
9.9
8.7
8.0
7.2
5.9
17.1
15.9
15.0
14.3
13.2
12.2
11.3
10.4
9.5
8.3
7.6
6.8
5.5
16.7
15.5
14.6
13.9
12.8
11.8
10.9
10.0
9.1
7.9
7.2
6.4
5.1
16.3
15.1
14.2
13.5
12.4
11.4
10.5
9.6
8.7
7.5
6.8
6.0
4.7
15.9
14.7
13.8
13.1
12.0
11.0
10.1
9.2
8.3
7.1
6.4
5.6
4.3
Age (Years)
6872 7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.3
16.1
15.2
14.5
13.4
12.4
11.5
10.6
9.7
8.5
7.8
7.0
5.7
16.9
15.7
14.8
14.1
13.0
12.0
11.1
10.2
9.3
8.1
7.4
6.6
5.3
16.5
15.3
14.4
13.7
12.6
11.6
10.7
9.8
8.9
7.7
7.0
6.2
4.9
16.1
14.9
14.0
13.3
12.2
11.2
10.3
9.4
8.5
7.3
6.6
5.8
4.5
15.7
14.5
13.6
12.9
11.8
10.8
9.9
9.0
8.1
6.9
6.2
5.4
4.1
15.3
14.1
13.2
12.5
11.4
10.4
9.5
8.6
7.7
6.5
5.8
5.0
3.7
14.9
13.7
12.8
12.1
11.0
10.0
9.1
8.2
7.3
6.1
5.4
4.6
3.3
14.5
13.3
12.4
11.7
10.6
9.6
8.7
7.8
6.9
5.8
5.0
4.2
2.9
14.1
12.9
12.0
11.3
10.2
9.2
8.3
7.4
6.5
5.4
4.6
3.8
2.5
13.8
12.5
11.6
10.9
9.8
8.8
7.9
7.0
6.1
5.0
4.2
3.4
2.1
13.4
12.1
11.2
10.5
9.4
8.4
7.5
6.6
5.7
4.6
3.8
3.0
1.7
13.0
11.7
10.8
10.1
9.0
8.0
7.1
6.3
5.3
4.2
3.4
2.6
1.3
12.6
11.3
10.4
9.7
8.6
7.6
6.7
5.9
4.9
3.8
3.1
2.2
0.9
545
Table A26
Normative data for the Letter S stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.7
16.4
15.6
14.9
13.8
12.8
11.9
11.1
10.1
9.0
8.3
7.5
6.2
17.5
16.3
15.4
14.7
13.6
12.7
11.8
10.9
10.0
8.9
8.2
7.3
6.1
17.4
16.1
15.3
14.6
13.5
12.5
11.6
10.8
9.8
8.7
8.0
7.2
5.9
17.2
16.0
15.1
14.4
13.3
12.4
11.5
10.6
9.7
8.5
7.8
7.0
5.7
17.1
15.8
15.0
14.3
13.1
12.2
11.3
10.4
9.5
8.4
7.7
6.8
5.6
16.9
15.6
14.8
14.1
13.0
12.0
11.2
10.3
9.3
8.2
7.5
6.7
5.4
16.7
15.5
14.6
13.9
12.8
11.9
11.0
10.1
9.2
8.1
7.4
6.5
5.3
16.6
15.3
14.5
13.8
12.7
11.7
10.8
10.0
9.0
7.9
7.2
6.4
5.1
16.4
15.2
14.3
13.6
12.5
11.6
10.7
9.8
8.9
7.8
7.1
6.2
5.0
16.3
15.0
14.2
13.5
12.4
11.4
10.5
9.7
8.7
7.6
6.9
6.1
4.8
16.1
14.9
14.0
13.3
12.2
11.3
10.4
9.5
8.6
7.4
6.7
5.9
4.6
16.0
14.7
13.9
13.2
12.0
11.1
10.2
9.3
8.4
7.3
6.6
5.7
4.5
15.8
14.5
13.7
13.0
11.9
10.9
10.1
9.2
8.2
7.1
6.4
5.6
4.3
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
15.8
14.6
13.7
13.0
11.9
11.0
10.1
9.2
8.3
7.1
6.4
5.6
4.3
15.7
14.4
13.6
12.9
11.7
10.8
9.9
9.0
8.1
7.0
6.3
5.4
4.2
15.5
14.2
13.4
12.7
11.6
10.6
9.8
8.9
7.9
6.8
6.1
5.3
4.0
15.3
14.1
13.2
12.5
11.4
10.5
9.6
8.7
7.8
6.7
6.0
5.1
3.9
15.2
13.9
13.1
12.4
11.3
10.3
9.4
8.6
7.6
6.5
5.8
5.0
3.7
15.0
13.8
12.9
12.2
11.1
10.2
9.3
8.4
7.5
6.4
5.7
4.8
3.6
14.9
13.6
12.8
12.1
11.0
10.0
9.1
8.3
7.3
6.2
5.5
4.7
3.4
14.7
13.5
12.6
11.9
10.8
9.9
9.0
8.1
7.2
6.0
5.3
4.5
3.2
14.6
13.3
12.5
11.8
10.6
9.7
8.8
7.9
7.0
5.9
5.2
4.3
3.1
14.4
13.1
12.3
11.6
10.5
9.5
8.7
7.8
6.8
5.7
5.0
4.2
2.9
14.2
13.0
12.1
11.4
10.3
9.4
8.5
7.6
6.7
5.6
4.9
4.0
2.8
14.1
12.8
12.0
11.3
10.2
9.2
8.3
7.5
6.5
5.4
4.7
3.9
2.6
13.9
12.7
11.8
11.1
10.0
9.1
8.2
7.3
6.4
5.3
4.6
3.7
2.5
546
Table A27
Normative data for the Letter S stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
21.5
20.0
19.0
18.2
16.9
15.8
14.8
13.8
12.7
11.4
10.6
9.6
8.1
21.3
19.8
18.8
18.0
16.7
15.6
14.6
13.6
12.5
11.2
10.4
9.4
7.9
21.1
19.6
18.6
17.8
16.5
15.4
14.4
13.4
12.3
11.0
10.2
9.2
7.8
20.9
19.4
18.5
17.6
16.3
15.2
14.2
13.2
12.1
10.8
10.0
9.0
7.6
20.7
19.2
18.3
17.4
16.1
15.0
14.0
13.0
11.9
10.6
9.8
8.8
7.4
20.5
19.0
18.1
17.2
15.9
14.8
13.8
12.8
11.7
10.4
9.6
8.6
7.2
20.3
18.8
17.9
17.0
15.7
14.6
13.6
12.6
11.5
10.2
9.4
8.4
7.0
20.1
18.6
17.7
16.8
15.5
14.4
13.4
12.4
11.3
10.0
9.2
8.2
6.8
19.9
18.4
17.5
16.6
15.3
14.3
13.2
12.2
11.1
9.8
9.0
8.0
6.6
19.7
18.2
17.3
16.5
15.2
14.1
13.0
12.0
10.9
9.6
8.8
7.8
6.4
19.5
18.0
17.1
16.3
15.0
13.9
12.8
11.8
10.7
9.4
8.6
7.6
6.2
19.3
17.8
16.9
16.1
14.8
13.7
12.6
11.6
10.5
9.2
8.4
7.4
6.0
19.1
17.6
16.7
15.9
14.6
13.5
12.4
11.4
10.3
9.0
8.2
7.2
5.8
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
15.6
14.1
13.2
12.3
11.0
10.0
8.9
7.9
6.8
5.5
4.7
3.7
2.3
15.4
13.9
13.0
12.2
10.9
9.8
8.7
7.7
6.6
5.3
4.5
3.5
2.1
15.2
13.7
12.8
12.0
10.7
9.6
8.5
7.5
6.4
5.1
4.3
3.3
1.9
15.0
13.5
12.6
11.8
10.5
9.4
8.3
7.3
6.2
4.9
4.1
3.1
1.7
14.8
13.3
12.4
11.6
10.3
9.2
8.1
7.1
6.0
4.7
3.9
2.9
1.5
14.6
13.1
12.2
11.4
10.1
9.0
7.9
6.9
5.8
4.5
3.7
2.7
1.3
14.4
13.0
12.0
11.2
9.9
8.8
7.7
6.7
5.6
4.3
3.5
2.5
1.1
14.2
12.8
11.8
11.0
9.7
8.6
7.6
6.5
5.4
4.1
3.3
2.3
0.9
14.0
12.6
11.6
10.8
9.5
8.4
7.4
6.3
5.2
3.9
3.1
2.1
0.7
13.8
12.4
11.4
10.6
9.3
8.2
7.2
6.1
5.0
3.7
2.9
2.0
0.5
13.6
12.2
11.2
10.4
9.1
8.0
7.0
5.9
4.8
3.5
2.7
1.8
0.3
13.4
12.0
11.0
10.2
8.9
7.8
6.8
5.7
4.6
3.3
2.5
1.6
0.1
13.2
11.8
10.8
10.0
8.7
7.6
6.6
5.5
4.4
3.1
2.3
1.4
0.0
Table A28
Normative data for the Letter S stratified by education levels for GUATEMALA
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.1
15.4
14.3
13.4
11.8
10.6
9.4
8.2
6.9
5.4
4.5
3.4
1.7
22.3
20.6
19.4
18.5
17.0
15.7
14.5
13.4
12.1
10.6
9.6
8.5
6.8
547
Table A29
Normative data for the Letter S stratified by age and education levels for HONDURAS
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
18.6
17.2
16.3
15.5
14.2
13.2
12.2
11.2
10.1
8.9
8.1
7.1
5.7
18.5
17.0
16.1
15.3
14.1
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
8.7
7.9
7.0
5.6
18.3
16.9
15.9
15.2
13.9
12.8
11.9
10.9
9.8
8.6
7.8
6.8
5.4
18.1
16.7
15.8
15.0
13.7
12.7
11.7
10.7
9.6
8.4
7.6
6.7
5.2
18.0
16.6
15.6
14.8
13.6
12.5
11.5
10.5
9.5
8.2
7.4
6.5
5.1
17.8
16.4
15.5
14.7
13.4
12.3
11.4
10.4
9.3
8.1
7.3
6.3
4.9
17.7
16.2
15.3
14.5
13.2
12.2
11.2
10.2
9.2
7.9
7.1
6.2
4.8
17.5
16.1
15.1
14.3
13.1
12.0
11.0
10.1
9.0
7.7
7.0
6.0
4.6
17.3
15.9
15.0
14.2
12.9
11.9
10.9
9.9
8.8
7.6
6.8
5.8
4.4
17.2
15.7
14.8
14.0
12.8
11.7
10.7
9.7
8.7
7.4
6.6
5.7
4.3
17.0
15.6
14.6
13.9
12.6
11.5
10.6
9.6
8.5
7.3
6.5
5.5
4.1
16.8
15.4
14.5
13.7
12.4
11.4
10.4
9.4
8.3
7.1
6.3
5.4
3.9
16.7
15.3
14.3
13.5
12.3
11.2
10.2
9.2
8.2
6.9
6.1
5.2
3.8
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
14.8
13.4
12.5
11.7
10.4
9.4
8.4
7.4
6.3
5.1
4.3
3.3
1.9
14.7
13.2
12.3
11.5
10.2
9.2
8.2
7.2
6.2
4.9
4.1
3.2
1.8
14.5
13.1
12.1
11.3
10.1
9.0
8.0
7.1
6.0
4.7
4.0
3.0
1.6
14.3
12.9
12.0
11.2
9.9
8.9
7.9
6.9
5.8
4.6
3.8
2.8
1.4
14.2
12.7
11.8
11.0
9.8
8.7
7.7
6.7
5.7
4.4
3.6
2.7
1.3
14.0
12.6
11.6
10.9
9.6
8.5
7.6
6.6
5.5
4.3
3.5
2.5
1.1
13.8
12.4
11.5
10.7
9.4
8.4
7.4
6.4
5.3
4.1
3.3
2.4
0.9
13.7
12.3
11.3
10.5
9.3
8.2
7.2
6.2
5.2
3.9
3.1
2.2
0.8
13.5
12.1
11.2
10.4
9.1
8.0
7.1
6.1
5.0
3.8
3.0
2.0
0.6
13.4
11.9
11.0
10.2
8.9
7.9
6.9
5.9
4.9
3.6
2.8
1.9
0.5
13.2
11.8
10.8
10.0
8.8
7.7
6.7
5.8
4.7
3.4
2.7
1.7
0.3
13.0
11.6
10.7
9.9
8.6
7.6
6.6
5.6
4.5
3.3
2.5
1.5
0.1
12.9
11.4
10.5
9.7
8.5
7.4
6.4
5.4
4.4
3.1
2.3
1.4
0.0
548
Table A30
Normative data for the Letter S stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
21.4
19.9
19.0
18.1
16.9
15.8
14.8
13.7
12.7
11.4
10.6
9.6
8.1
21.1
19.7
18.7
17.9
16.6
15.5
14.5
13.5
12.4
11.1
10.3
9.3
7.9
20.8
19.4
18.4
17.6
16.3
15.2
14.2
13.2
12.1
10.8
10.0
9.1
7.6
20.6
19.1
18.2
17.4
16.1
15.0
14.0
13.0
11.9
10.6
9.8
8.8
7.3
20.3
18.9
17.9
17.1
15.8
14.7
13.7
12.7
11.6
10.3
9.5
8.5
7.1
20.1
18.6
17.6
16.8
15.5
14.4
13.4
12.4
11.3
10.0
9.2
8.3
6.8
19.8
18.3
17.4
16.6
15.3
14.2
13.2
12.2
11.1
9.8
9.0
8.0
6.6
19.5
18.1
17.1
16.3
15.0
13.9
12.9
11.9
10.8
9.5
8.7
7.7
6.3
19.3
17.8
16.8
16.0
14.7
13.6
12.6
11.6
10.5
9.2
8.4
7.5
6.0
19.0
17.5
16.6
15.8
14.5
13.4
12.4
11.4
10.3
9.0
8.2
7.2
5.8
18.7
17.3
16.3
15.5
14.2
13.1
12.1
11.1
10.0
8.7
7.9
6.9
5.5
18.5
17.0
16.0
15.2
13.9
12.9
11.8
10.8
9.7
8.5
7.6
6.7
5.2
18.2
16.7
15.8
15.0
13.7
12.6
11.6
10.6
9.5
8.2
7.4
6.4
5.0
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
18.8
17.3
16.4
15.6
14.3
13.2
12.2
11.2
10.1
8.8
8.0
7.0
5.6
18.5
17.1
16.1
15.3
14.0
12.9
11.9
10.9
9.8
8.5
7.7
6.7
5.3
18.3
16.8
15.8
15.0
13.7
12.6
11.6
10.6
9.5
8.3
7.4
6.5
5.0
18.0
16.5
15.6
14.8
13.5
12.4
11.4
10.4
9.3
8.0
7.2
6.2
4.8
17.7
16.3
15.3
14.5
13.2
12.1
11.1
10.1
9.0
7.7
6.9
5.9
4.5
17.5
16.0
15.0
14.2
12.9
11.9
10.8
9.8
8.7
7.5
6.6
5.7
4.2
17.2
15.7
14.8
14.0
12.7
11.6
10.6
9.6
8.5
7.2
6.4
5.4
4.0
16.9
15.5
14.5
13.7
12.4
11.3
10.3
9.3
8.2
6.9
6.1
5.2
3.7
16.7
15.2
14.2
13.4
12.1
11.1
10.1
9.0
8.0
6.7
5.9
4.9
3.4
16.4
15.0
14.0
13.2
11.9
10.8
9.8
8.8
7.7
6.4
5.6
4.6
3.2
16.1
14.7
13.7
12.9
11.6
10.5
9.5
8.5
7.4
6.1
5.3
4.4
2.9
15.9
14.4
13.5
12.6
11.4
10.3
9.3
8.2
7.2
5.9
5.1
4.1
2.6
15.6
14.2
13.2
12.4
11.1
10.0
9.0
8.0
6.9
5.6
4.8
3.8
2.4
Table A31
Normative data for the Letter S stratified by education levels for PARAGUAY
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
13.0
12.2
11.8
11.4
10.7
10.2
9.7
9.2
8.7
8.1
7.7
7.2
6.5
15.6
14.8
14.4
14.0
13.3
12.8
12.3
11.8
11.3
10.7
10.3
9.8
9.1
549
Table A32
Normative data for the Letter S stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
21.1
19.7
18.7
18.0
16.7
15.7
14.7
13.7
12.7
11.5
10.7
9.7
8.3
20.9
19.5
18.6
17.8
16.6
15.6
14.6
13.6
12.6
11.3
10.5
9.6
8.2
20.8
19.4
18.5
17.7
16.5
15.4
14.4
13.5
12.4
11.2
10.4
9.5
8.1
20.7
19.3
18.4
17.6
16.3
15.3
14.3
13.3
12.3
11.1
10.3
9.3
8.0
20.6
19.2
18.2
17.4
16.2
15.2
14.2
13.2
12.2
10.9
10.1
9.2
7.8
20.4
19.0
18.1
17.3
16.1
15.0
14.1
13.1
12.0
10.8
10.0
9.1
7.7
20.3
18.9
18.0
17.2
15.9
14.9
13.9
13.0
11.9
10.7
9.9
9.0
7.6
20.2
18.8
17.8
17.1
15.8
14.8
13.8
12.8
11.8
10.5
9.8
8.8
7.4
20.0
18.6
17.7
16.9
15.7
14.6
13.7
12.7
11.6
10.4
9.6
8.7
7.3
19.9
18.5
17.6
16.8
15.5
14.5
13.5
12.6
11.5
10.3
9.5
8.6
7.2
19.8
18.4
17.4
16.7
15.4
14.4
13.4
12.4
11.4
10.1
9.4
8.4
7.0
19.6
18.2
17.3
16.5
15.3
14.2
13.3
12.3
11.2
10.0
9.2
8.3
6.9
19.5
18.1
17.2
16.4
15.2
14.1
13.1
12.2
11.1
9.9
9.1
8.2
6.8
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.1
15.7
14.8
14.0
12.7
11.7
10.7
9.8
8.7
7.5
6.7
5.8
4.4
17.0
15.6
14.6
13.9
12.6
11.6
10.6
9.6
8.6
7.3
6.6
5.6
4.2
16.8
15.4
14.5
13.7
12.5
11.4
10.5
9.5
8.4
7.2
6.4
5.5
4.1
16.7
15.3
14.4
13.6
12.4
11.3
10.3
9.4
8.3
7.1
6.3
5.4
4.0
16.6
15.2
14.2
13.5
12.2
11.2
10.2
9.2
8.2
6.9
6.2
5.2
3.8
16.4
15.0
14.1
13.3
12.1
11.0
10.1
9.1
8.1
6.8
6.0
5.1
3.7
16.3
14.9
14.0
13.2
12.0
10.9
9.9
9.0
7.9
6.7
5.9
5.0
3.6
16.2
14.8
13.8
13.1
11.8
10.8
9.8
8.8
7.8
6.5
5.8
4.8
3.4
16.0
14.6
13.7
12.9
11.7
10.6
9.7
8.7
7.7
6.4
5.6
4.7
3.3
15.9
14.5
13.6
12.8
11.6
10.5
9.5
8.6
7.5
6.3
5.5
4.6
3.2
15.8
14.4
13.5
12.7
11.4
10.4
9.4
8.4
7.4
6.2
5.4
4.4
3.0
15.6
14.3
13.3
12.5
11.3
10.3
9.3
8.3
7.3
6.0
5.2
4.3
2.9
15.5
14.1
13.2
12.4
11.2
10.1
9.2
8.2
7.1
5.9
5.1
4.2
2.8
550
Table A33
Normative data for the Letter S stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.2
18.8
17.8
17.0
15.7
14.6
13.6
12.6
11.5
10.2
9.4
8.4
6.9
19.9
18.5
17.5
16.7
15.4
14.3
13.3
12.3
11.2
9.9
9.1
8.1
6.7
19.7
18.2
17.2
16.4
15.1
14.0
13.0
12.0
10.9
9.6
8.8
7.8
6.4
19.4
17.9
17.0
16.1
14.9
13.8
12.7
11.7
10.6
9.3
8.5
7.6
6.1
19.1
17.7
16.7
15.9
14.6
13.5
12.5
11.5
10.4
9.1
8.3
7.3
5.8
18.8
17.4
16.4
15.6
14.3
13.2
12.2
11.2
10.1
8.8
8.0
7.0
5.5
18.6
17.1
16.1
15.3
14.0
12.9
11.9
10.9
9.8
8.5
7.7
6.7
5.3
18.3
16.8
15.8
15.0
13.7
12.6
11.6
10.6
9.5
8.2
7.4
6.4
5.0
18.0
16.5
15.6
14.8
13.5
12.4
11.3
10.3
9.2
7.9
7.1
6.2
4.7
17.7
16.3
15.3
14.5
13.2
12.1
11.1
10.1
9.0
7.7
6.9
5.9
4.4
17.4
16.0
15.0
14.2
12.9
11.8
10.8
9.8
8.7
7.4
6.6
5.6
4.1
17.2
15.7
14.7
13.9
12.6
11.5
10.5
9.5
8.4
7.1
6.3
5.3
3.9
16.9
15.4
14.4
13.6
12.3
11.2
10.2
9.2
8.1
6.8
6.0
5.0
3.6
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
18.7
17.2
16.3
15.5
14.2
13.1
12.1
11.0
9.9
8.7
7.8
6.9
5.4
18.4
17.0
16.0
15.2
13.9
12.8
11.8
10.8
9.7
8.4
7.6
6.6
5.1
18.1
16.7
15.7
14.9
13.6
12.5
11.5
10.5
9.4
8.1
7.3
6.3
4.9
17.9
16.4
15.4
14.6
13.3
12.2
11.2
10.2
9.1
7.8
7.0
6.0
4.6
17.6
16.1
15.1
14.3
13.0
11.9
10.9
9.9
8.8
7.5
6.7
5.8
4.3
17.3
15.8
14.9
14.1
12.8
11.7
10.7
9.6
8.6
7.3
6.4
5.5
4.0
17.0
15.6
14.6
13.8
12.5
11.4
10.4
9.4
8.3
7.0
6.2
5.2
3.7
16.7
15.3
14.3
13.5
12.2
11.1
10.1
9.1
8.0
6.7
5.9
4.9
3.5
16.5
15.0
14.0
13.2
11.9
10.8
9.8
8.8
7.7
6.4
5.6
4.6
3.2
16.2
14.7
13.8
12.9
11.6
10.6
9.5
8.5
7.4
6.1
5.3
4.4
2.9
15.9
14.4
13.5
12.7
11.4
10.3
9.3
8.2
7.2
5.9
5.0
4.1
2.6
15.6
14.2
13.2
12.4
11.1
10.0
9.0
8.0
6.9
5.6
4.8
3.8
2.3
15.3
13.9
12.9
12.1
10.8
9.7
8.7
7.7
6.6
5.3
4.5
3.5
2.1
551
Table A34
Normative data for the Animals category stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
Percentile
1822
2327
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
29.3
27.8
26.7
25.9
24.5
23.3
22.2
21.1
20.0
18.6
17.7
16.7
15.1
29.1
27.6
26.5
25.7
24.3
23.1
22.0
21.0
19.8
18.4
17.5
16.5
14.9
29.0
27.4
26.4
25.5
24.1
22.9
21.8
20.8
19.6
18.2
17.3
16.3
14.7
28.8
27.2
26.2
25.3
23.9
22.7
21.7
20.6
19.4
18.0
17.1
16.1
14.5
28.6
27.0
26.0
25.1
23.7
22.5
21.5
20.4
19.2
17.8
17.0
15.9
14.4
28.4
26.8
25.8
24.9
23.5
22.4
21.3
20.2
19.0
17.6
16.8
15.7
14.2
28.2
26.6
25.6
24.7
23.3
22.2
21.1
20.0
18.8
17.4
16.6
15.5
14.0
28.0
26.4
25.4
24.5
23.1
22.0
20.9
19.8
18.6
17.2
16.4
15.3
13.8
27.8
26.2
25.2
24.3
22.9
21.8
20.7
19.6
18.4
17.1
16.2
15.1
13.6
27.6
26.0
25.0
24.1
22.8
21.6
20.5
19.4
18.2
16.9
16.0
15.0
13.4
27.4
25.9
24.8
23.9
22.6
21.4
20.3
19.2
18.1
16.7
15.8
14.8
13.2
27.2
25.7
24.6
23.8
22.4
21.2
20.1
19.0
17.9
16.5
15.6
14.6
13.0
27.0
25.5
24.4
23.6
22.2
21.0
19.9
18.8
17.7
16.3
15.4
14.4
12.8
Age (Years)
2832 3337
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
25.8
24.2
23.2
22.3
20.9
19.8
18.7
17.6
16.4
15.0
14.2
13.1
11.6
25.6
24.0
23.0
22.1
20.7
19.6
18.5
17.4
16.2
14.8
14.0
12.9
11.4
25.4
23.8
22.8
21.9
20.5
19.4
18.3
17.2
16.0
14.7
13.8
12.7
11.2
25.2
23.6
22.6
21.7
20.4
19.2
18.1
17.0
15.8
14.5
13.6
12.6
11.0
25.0
23.5
22.4
21.5
20.2
19.0
17.9
16.8
15.7
14.3
13.4
12.4
10.8
24.8
23.3
22.2
21.4
20.0
18.8
17.7
16.6
15.5
14.1
13.2
12.2
10.6
24.6
23.1
22.0
21.2
19.8
18.6
17.5
16.4
15.3
13.9
13.0
12.0
10.4
24.4
22.9
21.8
21.0
19.6
18.4
17.3
16.2
15.1
13.7
12.8
11.8
10.2
24.2
22.7
21.6
20.8
19.4
18.2
17.1
16.1
14.9
13.5
12.6
11.6
10.0
24.1
22.5
21.5
20.6
19.2
18.0
16.9
15.9
14.7
13.3
12.4
11.4
9.8
23.9
22.3
21.3
20.4
19.0
17.8
16.8
15.7
14.5
13.1
12.2
11.2
9.6
23.7
22.1
21.1
20.2
18.8
17.6
16.6
15.5
14.3
12.9
12.1
11.0
9.5
23.5
21.9
20.9
20.0
18.6
17.5
16.4
15.3
14.1
12.7
11.9
10.8
9.3
552
Table A35
Normative data for the Animals category stratified by age and education levels for BOLIVIA
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
27.9
26.2
25.1
24.2
22.8
21.6
20.4
19.3
18.0
16.6
15.7
14.6
12.9
27.4
25.7
24.6
23.7
22.3
21.1
19.9
18.8
17.5
16.1
15.2
14.1
12.5
26.9
25.2
24.2
23.2
21.8
20.6
19.4
18.3
17.0
15.6
14.7
13.6
12.0
26.4
24.7
23.7
22.7
21.3
20.1
18.9
17.8
16.6
15.1
14.2
13.1
11.5
25.9
24.2
23.2
22.2
20.8
19.6
18.4
17.3
16.1
14.6
13.7
12.6
11.0
25.4
23.7
22.7
21.7
20.3
19.1
17.9
16.8
15.6
14.1
13.2
12.1
10.5
24.9
23.2
22.2
21.2
19.8
18.6
17.4
16.3
15.1
13.6
12.7
11.6
10.0
24.4
22.7
21.7
20.7
19.3
18.1
16.9
15.8
14.6
13.1
12.2
11.1
9.5
23.9
22.2
21.2
20.2
18.8
17.6
16.4
15.3
14.1
12.6
11.7
10.6
9.0
23.4
21.8
20.7
19.7
18.3
17.1
15.9
14.8
13.6
12.1
11.2
10.1
8.5
22.9
21.3
20.2
19.2
17.8
16.6
15.4
14.3
13.1
11.6
10.7
9.6
8.0
22.4
20.8
19.7
18.7
17.3
16.1
14.9
13.8
12.6
11.1
10.2
9.1
7.5
21.9
20.3
19.2
18.3
16.8
15.6
14.4
13.3
12.1
10.6
9.7
8.6
7.0
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
23.5
21.8
20.8
19.8
18.4
17.2
16.0
14.9
13.6
12.2
11.3
10.2
8.6
23.0
21.3
20.3
19.3
17.9
16.7
15.5
14.4
13.2
11.7
10.8
9.7
8.1
22.5
20.8
19.8
18.8
17.4
16.2
15.0
13.9
12.7
11.2
10.3
9.2
7.6
22.0
20.3
19.3
18.3
16.9
15.7
14.5
13.4
12.2
10.7
9.8
8.7
7.1
21.5
19.8
18.8
17.8
16.4
15.2
14.0
12.9
11.7
10.2
9.3
8.2
6.6
21.0
19.3
18.3
17.3
15.9
14.7
13.5
12.4
11.2
9.7
8.8
7.7
6.1
20.5
18.8
17.8
16.8
15.4
14.2
13.0
11.9
10.7
9.2
8.3
7.2
5.6
20.0
18.4
17.3
16.3
14.9
13.7
12.5
11.4
10.2
8.7
7.8
6.7
5.1
19.5
17.9
16.8
15.8
14.4
13.2
12.0
10.9
9.7
8.2
7.3
6.2
4.6
19.0
17.4
16.3
15.4
13.9
12.7
11.5
10.4
9.2
7.7
6.8
5.7
4.1
18.5
16.9
15.8
14.9
13.4
12.2
11.0
9.9
8.7
7.2
6.3
5.2
3.6
18.0
16.4
15.3
14.4
12.9
11.7
10.5
9.4
8.2
6.7
5.8
4.7
3.1
17.5
15.9
14.8
13.9
12.4
11.2
10.0
8.9
7.7
6.2
5.3
4.2
2.6
553
Table A36
Normative data for the Animals category stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
29.9
28.4
27.4
26.5
25.2
24.1
23.0
21.9
20.8
19.5
18.6
17.6
16.1
29.3
27.8
26.8
25.9
24.6
23.4
22.4
21.3
20.2
18.8
18.0
17.0
15.5
28.7
27.2
26.2
25.3
24.0
22.8
21.8
20.7
19.6
18.2
17.4
16.4
14.9
28.1
26.6
25.6
24.7
23.4
22.2
21.2
20.1
19.0
17.6
16.8
15.8
14.3
27.5
26.0
25.0
24.1
22.8
21.6
20.6
19.5
18.4
17.0
16.2
15.2
13.6
26.9
25.4
24.3
23.5
22.1
21.0
20.0
18.9
17.8
16.4
15.6
14.6
13.0
26.3
24.7
23.7
22.9
21.5
20.4
19.3
18.3
17.2
15.8
15.0
13.9
12.4
25.7
24.1
23.1
22.3
20.9
19.8
18.7
17.7
16.5
15.2
14.4
13.3
11.8
25.0
23.5
22.5
21.7
20.3
19.2
18.1
17.1
15.9
14.6
13.7
12.7
11.2
24.4
22.9
21.9
21.1
19.7
18.6
17.5
16.5
15.3
14.0
13.1
12.1
10.6
23.8
22.3
21.3
20.5
19.1
18.0
16.9
15.9
14.7
13.4
12.5
11.5
10.0
23.2
21.7
20.7
19.8
18.5
17.4
16.3
15.3
14.1
12.8
11.9
10.9
9.4
22.6
21.1
20.1
19.2
17.9
16.8
15.7
14.6
13.5
12.2
11.3
10.3
8.8
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
25.4
23.9
22.9
22.0
20.7
19.5
18.5
17.4
16.3
14.9
14.1
13.1
11.6
24.8
23.3
22.3
21.4
20.1
18.9
17.9
16.8
15.7
14.3
13.5
12.5
11.0
24.2
22.7
21.7
20.8
19.5
18.3
17.3
16.2
15.1
13.7
12.9
11.9
10.3
23.6
22.1
21.0
20.2
18.8
17.7
16.7
15.6
14.5
13.1
12.3
11.3
9.7
23.0
21.4
20.4
19.6
18.2
17.1
16.0
15.0
13.9
12.5
11.7
10.6
9.1
22.4
20.8
19.8
19.0
17.6
16.5
15.4
14.4
13.2
11.9
11.1
10.0
8.5
21.7
20.2
19.2
18.4
17.0
15.9
14.8
13.8
12.6
11.3
10.4
9.4
7.9
21.1
19.6
18.6
17.8
16.4
15.3
14.2
13.2
12.0
10.7
9.8
8.8
7.3
20.5
19.0
18.0
17.2
15.8
14.7
13.6
12.6
11.4
10.1
9.2
8.2
6.7
19.9
18.4
17.4
16.5
15.2
14.1
13.0
12.0
10.8
9.5
8.6
7.6
6.1
19.3
17.8
16.8
15.9
14.6
13.5
12.4
11.3
10.2
8.9
8.0
7.0
5.5
18.7
17.2
16.2
15.3
14.0
12.8
11.8
10.7
9.6
8.2
7.4
6.4
4.9
18.1
16.6
15.6
14.7
13.4
12.2
11.2
10.1
9.0
7.6
6.8
5.8
4.3
554
Table A37
Normative data for the Animals category stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
25.4
24.0
23.0
22.2
21.0
19.9
18.9
17.9
16.8
15.5
14.7
13.8
12.4
25.1
23.7
22.7
21.9
20.6
19.6
18.6
17.6
16.5
15.2
14.4
13.5
12.0
24.8
23.3
22.4
21.6
20.3
19.2
18.2
17.2
16.2
14.9
14.1
13.1
11.7
24.4
23.0
22.0
21.2
20.0
18.9
17.9
16.9
15.8
14.6
13.8
12.8
11.4
24.1
22.7
21.7
20.9
19.6
18.6
17.6
16.6
15.5
14.2
13.4
12.5
11.0
23.8
22.3
21.4
20.6
19.3
18.2
17.2
16.3
15.2
13.9
13.1
12.2
10.7
23.4
22.0
21.1
20.3
19.0
17.9
16.9
15.9
14.8
13.6
12.8
11.8
10.4
23.1
21.7
20.7
19.9
18.7
17.6
16.6
15.6
14.5
13.2
12.5
11.5
10.1
22.8
21.4
20.4
19.6
18.3
17.3
16.3
15.3
14.2
12.9
12.1
11.2
9.7
22.5
21.0
20.1
19.3
18.0
16.9
15.9
14.9
13.9
12.6
11.8
10.8
9.4
22.1
20.7
19.7
18.9
17.7
16.6
15.6
14.6
13.5
12.3
11.5
10.5
9.1
21.8
20.4
19.4
18.6
17.3
16.3
15.3
14.3
13.2
11.9
11.1
10.2
8.8
21.5
20.0
19.1
18.3
17.0
15.9
15.0
14.0
12.9
11.6
10.8
9.9
8.4
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
23.0
21.5
20.6
19.8
18.5
17.4
16.4
15.4
14.4
13.1
12.3
11.3
9.9
22.6
21.2
20.2
19.4
18.2
17.1
16.1
15.1
14.0
12.8
12.0
11.0
9.6
22.3
20.9
19.9
19.1
17.8
16.8
15.8
14.8
13.7
12.4
11.6
10.7
9.2
22.0
20.5
19.6
18.8
17.5
16.4
15.4
14.4
13.4
12.1
11.3
10.4
8.9
21.6
20.2
19.3
18.5
17.2
16.1
15.1
14.1
13.0
11.8
11.0
10.0
8.6
21.3
19.9
18.9
18.1
16.9
15.8
14.8
13.8
12.7
11.4
10.6
9.7
8.3
21.0
19.6
18.6
17.8
16.5
15.5
14.5
13.5
12.4
11.1
10.3
9.4
7.9
20.7
19.2
18.3
17.5
16.2
15.1
14.1
13.1
12.1
10.8
10.0
9.0
7.6
20.3
18.9
17.9
17.1
15.9
14.8
13.8
12.8
11.7
10.5
9.7
8.7
7.3
20.0
18.6
17.6
16.8
15.5
14.5
13.5
12.5
11.4
10.1
9.3
8.4
7.0
19.7
18.2
17.3
16.5
15.2
14.1
13.1
12.2
11.1
9.8
9.0
8.1
6.6
19.3
17.9
17.0
16.2
14.9
13.8
12.8
11.8
10.8
9.5
8.7
7.7
6.3
19.0
17.6
16.6
15.8
14.6
13.5
12.5
11.5
10.4
9.1
8.4
7.4
6.0
555
Table A38
Normative data for the Animals category stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
29.0
27.2
26.1
25.2
23.6
22.4
21.2
20.0
18.7
17.2
16.3
15.1
13.4
28.5
26.8
25.7
24.7
23.2
21.9
20.7
19.5
18.3
16.7
15.8
14.7
13.0
28.0
26.3
25.2
24.2
22.7
21.5
20.3
19.1
17.8
16.3
15.3
14.2
12.5
27.6
25.9
24.7
23.8
22.3
21.0
19.8
18.6
17.3
15.8
14.9
13.7
12.0
27.1
25.4
24.3
23.3
21.8
20.5
19.3
18.2
16.9
15.4
14.4
13.3
11.6
26.7
24.9
23.8
22.9
21.4
20.1
18.9
17.7
16.4
14.9
14.0
12.8
11.1
26.2
24.5
23.4
22.4
20.9
19.6
18.4
17.2
16.0
14.5
13.5
12.4
10.7
25.7
24.0
22.9
21.9
20.4
19.2
18.0
16.8
15.5
14.0
13.0
11.9
10.2
25.3
23.6
22.4
21.5
20.0
18.7
17.5
16.3
15.0
13.5
12.6
11.4
9.7
24.8
23.1
22.0
21.0
19.5
18.2
17.1
15.9
14.6
13.1
12.1
11.0
9.3
24.4
22.7
21.5
20.6
19.1
17.8
16.6
15.4
14.1
12.6
11.7
10.5
8.8
23.9
22.2
21.1
20.1
18.6
17.3
16.1
14.9
13.7
12.2
11.2
10.1
8.4
23.4
21.7
20.6
19.6
18.1
16.9
15.7
14.5
13.2
11.7
10.7
9.6
7.9
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
23.5
21.8
20.7
19.7
18.2
16.9
15.8
14.6
13.3
11.8
10.8
9.7
8.0
23.1
21.4
20.2
19.3
17.8
16.5
15.3
14.1
12.8
11.3
10.4
9.2
7.5
22.6
20.9
19.8
18.8
17.3
16.0
14.8
13.7
12.4
10.9
9.9
8.8
7.1
22.1
20.4
19.3
18.4
16.8
15.6
14.4
13.2
11.9
10.4
9.5
8.3
6.6
21.7
20.0
18.8
17.9
16.4
15.1
13.9
12.7
11.5
9.9
9.0
7.9
6.2
21.2
19.5
18.4
17.4
15.9
14.6
13.5
12.3
11.0
9.5
8.5
7.4
5.7
20.8
19.1
17.9
17.0
15.5
14.2
13.0
11.8
10.5
9.0
8.1
6.9
5.2
20.3
18.6
17.5
16.5
15.0
13.7
12.5
11.4
10.1
8.6
7.6
6.5
4.8
19.8
18.1
17.0
16.1
14.5
13.3
12.1
10.9
9.6
8.1
7.2
6.0
4.3
19.4
17.7
16.5
15.6
14.1
12.8
11.6
10.4
9.2
7.6
6.7
5.6
3.9
18.9
17.2
16.1
15.1
13.6
12.3
11.2
10.0
8.7
7.2
6.2
5.1
3.4
18.5
16.8
15.6
14.7
13.2
11.9
10.7
9.5
8.2
6.7
5.8
4.6
2.9
18.0
16.3
15.2
14.2
12.7
11.4
10.2
9.1
7.8
6.3
5.3
4.2
2.5
556
Table A39
Normative data for the Animals category stratified by age and education levels for GUATEMALA
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
31.9
30.2
29.1
28.2
26.7
25.4
24.2
23.0
21.7
20.2
19.3
18.2
16.5
31.7
30.0
28.8
27.9
26.4
25.1
23.9
22.7
21.5
19.9
19.0
17.9
16.2
31.4
29.7
28.5
27.6
26.1
24.8
23.6
22.4
21.2
19.7
18.7
17.6
15.9
31.1
29.4
28.3
27.3
25.8
24.5
23.3
22.2
20.9
19.4
18.4
17.3
15.6
30.8
29.1
28.0
27.0
25.5
24.2
23.1
21.9
20.6
19.1
18.2
17.0
15.3
30.5
28.8
27.7
26.7
25.2
24.0
22.8
21.6
20.3
18.8
17.9
16.7
15.0
30.2
28.5
27.4
26.5
24.9
23.7
22.5
21.3
20.0
18.5
17.6
16.5
14.8
29.9
28.2
27.1
26.2
24.7
23.4
22.2
21.0
19.8
18.2
17.3
16.2
14.5
29.7
28.0
26.8
25.9
24.4
23.1
21.9
20.7
19.5
18.0
17.0
15.9
14.2
29.4
27.7
26.5
25.6
24.1
22.8
21.6
20.5
19.2
17.7
16.7
15.6
13.9
29.1
27.4
26.3
25.3
23.8
22.5
21.4
20.2
18.9
17.4
16.4
15.3
13.6
28.8
27.1
26.0
25.0
23.5
22.3
21.1
19.9
18.6
17.1
16.2
15.0
13.3
28.5
26.8
25.7
24.7
23.2
22.0
20.8
19.6
18.3
16.8
15.9
14.7
13.0
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
26.2
24.5
23.4
22.4
20.9
19.6
18.5
17.3
16.0
14.5
13.6
12.4
10.7
25.9
24.2
23.1
22.1
20.6
19.4
18.2
17.0
15.7
14.2
13.3
12.1
10.4
25.6
23.9
22.8
21.9
20.3
19.1
17.9
16.7
15.4
13.9
13.0
11.9
10.2
25.3
23.6
22.5
21.6
20.1
18.8
17.6
16.4
15.2
13.6
12.7
11.6
9.9
25.1
23.4
22.2
21.3
19.8
18.5
17.3
16.1
14.9
13.4
12.4
11.3
9.6
24.8
23.1
21.9
21.0
19.5
18.2
17.0
15.9
14.6
13.1
12.1
11.0
9.3
24.5
22.8
21.7
20.7
19.2
17.9
16.8
15.6
14.3
12.8
11.8
10.7
9.0
24.2
22.5
21.4
20.4
18.9
17.7
16.5
15.3
14.0
12.5
11.6
10.4
8.7
23.9
22.2
21.1
20.2
18.6
17.4
16.2
15.0
13.7
12.2
11.3
10.1
8.4
23.6
21.9
20.8
19.9
18.4
17.1
15.9
14.7
13.5
11.9
11.0
9.9
8.2
23.4
21.7
20.5
19.6
18.1
16.8
15.6
14.4
13.2
11.7
10.7
9.6
7.9
23.1
21.4
20.2
19.3
17.8
16.5
15.3
14.2
12.9
11.4
10.4
9.3
7.6
22.8
21.1
20.0
19.0
17.5
16.2
15.1
13.9
12.6
11.1
10.1
9.0
7.3
557
Table A40
Normative data for the Animals category stratified by age and education levels for HONDURAS
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
28.6
27.1
26.1
25.3
24.0
22.8
21.8
20.7
19.6
18.3
17.4
16.4
14.9
28.2
26.7
25.7
24.9
23.5
22.4
21.3
20.3
19.2
17.8
17.0
16.0
14.5
27.8
26.3
25.3
24.4
23.1
22.0
20.9
19.9
18.7
17.4
16.6
15.6
14.0
27.3
25.8
24.8
24.0
22.6
21.5
20.5
19.4
18.3
17.0
16.1
15.1
13.6
26.9
25.4
24.4
23.5
22.2
21.1
20.0
19.0
17.9
16.5
15.7
14.7
13.2
26.4
24.9
23.9
23.1
21.8
20.6
19.6
18.5
17.4
16.1
15.2
14.2
12.7
26.0
24.5
23.5
22.7
21.3
20.2
19.1
18.1
17.0
15.6
14.8
13.8
12.3
25.6
24.1
23.1
22.2
20.9
19.8
18.7
17.7
16.5
15.2
14.4
13.4
11.8
25.1
23.6
22.6
21.8
20.4
19.3
18.3
17.2
16.1
14.8
13.9
12.9
11.4
24.7
23.2
22.2
21.3
20.0
18.9
17.8
16.8
15.6
14.3
13.5
12.5
11.0
24.2
22.7
21.7
20.9
19.6
18.4
17.4
16.3
15.2
13.9
13.0
12.0
10.5
23.8
22.3
21.3
20.5
19.1
18.0
16.9
15.9
14.8
13.4
12.6
11.6
10.1
23.4
21.9
20.9
20.0
18.7
17.5
16.5
15.5
14.3
13.0
12.2
11.1
9.6
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
23.8
22.3
21.3
20.5
19.2
18.0
17.0
15.9
14.8
13.5
12.6
11.6
10.1
23.4
21.9
20.9
20.1
18.7
17.6
16.5
15.5
14.4
13.0
12.2
11.2
9.7
23.0
21.5
20.5
19.6
18.3
17.1
16.1
15.1
13.9
12.6
11.8
10.7
9.2
22.5
21.0
20.0
19.2
17.8
16.7
15.7
14.6
13.5
12.1
11.3
10.3
8.8
22.1
20.6
19.6
18.7
17.4
16.3
15.2
14.2
13.0
11.7
10.9
9.9
8.4
21.6
20.1
19.1
18.3
17.0
15.8
14.8
13.7
12.6
11.3
10.4
9.4
7.9
21.2
19.7
18.7
17.9
16.5
15.4
14.3
13.3
12.2
10.8
10.0
9.0
7.5
20.8
19.3
18.3
17.4
16.1
14.9
13.9
12.9
11.7
10.4
9.6
8.5
7.0
20.3
18.8
17.8
17.0
15.6
14.5
13.5
12.4
11.3
9.9
9.1
8.1
6.6
19.9
18.4
17.4
16.5
15.2
14.1
13.0
12.0
10.8
9.5
8.7
7.7
6.2
19.4
17.9
16.9
16.1
14.8
13.6
12.6
11.5
10.4
9.1
8.2
7.2
5.7
19.0
17.5
16.5
15.7
14.3
13.2
12.1
11.1
10.0
8.6
7.8
6.8
5.3
18.6
17.1
16.1
15.2
13.9
12.7
11.7
10.7
9.5
8.2
7.3
6.3
4.8
558
Table A41
Normative data for the Animals category stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
29.5
27.8
26.7
25.8
24.3
23.0
21.8
20.7
19.4
17.9
17.0
15.9
14.2
29.1
27.4
26.3
25.3
23.8
22.6
21.4
20.2
19.0
17.5
16.6
15.4
13.7
28.6
27.0
25.8
24.9
23.4
22.1
21.0
19.8
18.5
17.0
16.1
15.0
13.3
28.2
26.5
25.4
24.5
23.0
21.7
20.5
19.4
18.1
16.6
15.7
14.6
12.9
27.8
26.1
25.0
24.0
22.5
21.3
20.1
18.9
17.7
16.2
15.2
14.1
12.4
27.3
25.6
24.5
23.6
22.1
20.8
19.7
18.5
17.2
15.7
14.8
13.7
12.0
26.9
25.2
24.1
23.2
21.7
20.4
19.2
18.1
16.8
15.3
14.4
13.2
11.6
26.5
24.8
23.7
22.7
21.2
20.0
18.8
17.6
16.4
14.9
13.9
12.8
11.1
26.0
24.3
23.2
22.3
20.8
19.5
18.4
17.2
15.9
14.4
13.5
12.4
10.7
25.6
23.9
22.8
21.8
20.3
19.1
17.9
16.7
15.5
14.0
13.1
11.9
10.3
25.1
23.5
22.3
21.4
19.9
18.6
17.5
16.3
15.0
13.6
12.6
11.5
9.8
24.7
23.0
21.9
21.0
19.5
18.2
17.0
15.9
14.6
13.1
12.2
11.1
9.4
24.3
22.6
21.5
20.5
19.0
17.8
16.6
15.4
14.2
12.7
11.7
10.6
8.9
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
27.5
25.8
24.7
23.7
22.2
21.0
19.8
18.6
17.4
15.9
14.9
13.8
12.1
27.0
25.3
24.2
23.3
21.8
20.5
19.4
18.2
16.9
15.4
14.5
13.4
11.7
26.6
24.9
23.8
22.9
21.4
20.1
18.9
17.8
16.5
15.0
14.1
12.9
11.3
26.2
24.5
23.4
22.4
20.9
19.7
18.5
17.3
16.1
14.6
13.6
12.5
10.8
25.7
24.0
22.9
22.0
20.5
19.2
18.1
16.9
15.6
14.1
13.2
12.1
10.4
25.3
23.6
22.5
21.5
20.1
18.8
17.6
16.5
15.2
13.7
12.8
11.6
10.0
24.8
23.2
22.0
21.1
19.6
18.4
17.2
16.0
14.8
13.3
12.3
11.2
9.5
24.4
22.7
21.6
20.7
19.2
17.9
16.7
15.6
14.3
12.8
11.9
10.8
9.1
24.0
22.3
21.2
20.2
18.7
17.5
16.3
15.1
13.9
12.4
11.4
10.3
8.6
23.5
21.9
20.7
19.8
18.3
17.0
15.9
14.7
13.4
11.9
11.0
9.9
8.2
23.1
21.4
20.3
19.4
17.9
16.6
15.4
14.3
13.0
11.5
10.6
9.5
7.8
22.7
21.0
19.9
18.9
17.4
16.2
15.0
13.8
12.6
11.1
10.1
9.0
7.3
22.2
20.5
19.4
18.5
17.0
15.7
14.6
13.4
12.1
10.6
9.7
8.6
6.9
559
Table A42
Normative data for the Animals category stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
22.2
21.3
20.6
20.1
19.3
18.6
17.9
17.3
16.6
15.7
15.2
14.6
13.6
21.9
21.0
20.3
19.8
19.0
18.3
17.6
17.0
16.2
15.4
14.9
14.3
13.3
21.6
20.7
20.0
19.5
18.7
18.0
17.3
16.7
15.9
15.1
14.6
13.9
13.0
21.3
20.4
19.7
19.2
18.4
17.7
17.0
16.3
15.6
14.8
14.3
13.6
12.7
21.0
20.1
19.4
18.9
18.1
17.4
16.7
16.0
15.3
14.5
14.0
13.3
12.4
20.7
19.7
19.1
18.6
17.8
17.0
16.4
15.7
15.0
14.2
13.7
13.0
12.1
20.4
19.4
18.8
18.3
17.5
16.7
16.1
15.4
14.7
13.9
13.4
12.7
11.8
20.1
19.1
18.5
18.0
17.1
16.4
15.8
15.1
14.4
13.6
13.1
12.4
11.5
19.8
18.8
18.2
17.7
16.8
16.1
15.5
14.8
14.1
13.3
12.7
12.1
11.2
19.5
18.5
17.9
17.4
16.5
15.8
15.2
14.5
13.8
13.0
12.4
11.8
10.9
19.2
18.2
17.6
17.1
16.2
15.5
14.9
14.2
13.5
12.7
12.1
11.5
10.6
18.9
17.9
17.3
16.8
15.9
15.2
14.6
13.9
13.2
12.4
11.8
11.2
10.3
18.6
17.6
17.0
16.5
15.6
14.9
14.3
13.6
12.9
12.1
11.5
10.9
10.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.6
16.7
16.1
15.5
14.7
14.0
13.3
12.7
12.0
11.1
10.6
10.0
9.0
17.3
16.4
15.8
15.2
14.4
13.7
13.0
12.4
11.7
10.8
10.3
9.7
8.7
17.0
16.1
15.4
14.9
14.1
13.4
12.7
12.1
11.4
10.5
10.0
9.4
8.4
16.7
15.8
15.1
14.6
13.8
13.1
12.4
11.8
11.0
10.2
9.7
9.1
8.1
16.4
15.5
14.8
14.3
13.5
12.8
12.1
11.5
10.7
9.9
9.4
8.8
7.8
16.1
15.2
14.5
14.0
13.2
12.5
11.8
11.1
10.4
9.6
9.1
8.4
7.5
15.8
14.9
14.2
13.7
12.9
12.2
11.5
10.8
10.1
9.3
8.8
8.1
7.2
15.5
14.6
13.9
13.4
12.6
11.8
11.2
10.5
9.8
9.0
8.5
7.8
6.9
15.2
14.2
13.6
13.1
12.3
11.5
10.9
10.2
9.5
8.7
8.2
7.5
6.6
14.9
13.9
13.3
12.8
11.9
11.2
10.6
9.9
9.2
8.4
7.9
7.2
6.3
14.6
13.6
13.0
12.5
11.6
10.9
10.3
9.6
8.9
8.1
7.6
6.9
6.0
14.3
13.3
12.7
12.2
11.3
10.6
10.0
9.3
8.6
7.8
7.2
6.6
5.7
14.0
13.0
12.4
11.9
11.0
10.3
9.7
9.0
8.3
7.5
6.9
6.3
5.4
560
Table A43
Normative data for the Animals category stratified by age and education levels for PERU
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
29.5
27.9
26.8
25.9
24.4
23.2
22.0
20.9
19.6
18.2
17.2
16.1
14.5
29.2
27.5
26.4
25.5
24.0
22.8
21.7
20.5
19.3
17.8
16.9
15.8
14.1
28.8
27.2
26.1
25.1
23.7
22.4
21.3
20.2
18.9
17.5
16.5
15.4
13.8
28.5
26.8
25.7
24.8
23.3
22.1
20.9
19.8
18.6
17.1
16.2
15.1
13.4
28.1
26.5
25.4
24.4
23.0
21.7
20.6
19.4
18.2
16.7
15.8
14.7
13.1
27.7
26.1
25.0
24.1
22.6
21.4
20.2
19.1
17.9
16.4
15.5
14.4
12.7
27.4
25.7
24.6
23.7
22.3
21.0
19.9
18.7
17.5
16.0
15.1
14.0
12.4
27.0
25.4
24.3
23.4
21.9
20.7
19.5
18.4
17.1
15.7
14.8
13.7
12.0
26.7
25.0
23.9
23.0
21.6
20.3
19.2
18.0
16.8
15.3
14.4
13.3
11.7
26.3
24.7
23.6
22.7
21.2
20.0
18.8
17.7
16.4
15.0
14.1
13.0
11.3
26.0
24.3
23.2
22.3
20.8
19.6
18.5
17.3
16.1
14.6
13.7
12.6
11.0
25.6
24.0
22.9
22.0
20.5
19.3
18.1
17.0
15.7
14.3
13.4
12.3
10.6
25.3
23.6
22.5
21.6
20.1
18.9
17.8
16.6
15.4
13.9
13.0
11.9
10.2
Age (Years)
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
25.8
24.2
23.1
22.2
20.7
19.5
18.3
17.2
15.9
14.5
13.6
12.5
10.8
25.5
23.8
22.7
21.8
20.4
19.1
18.0
16.8
15.6
14.1
13.2
12.1
10.5
25.1
23.5
22.4
21.5
20.0
18.8
17.6
16.5
15.2
13.8
12.9
11.8
10.1
24.8
23.1
22.0
21.1
19.6
18.4
17.3
16.1
14.9
13.4
12.5
11.4
9.8
24.4
22.8
21.7
20.8
19.3
18.1
16.9
15.8
14.5
13.1
12.1
11.0
9.4
24.1
22.4
21.3
20.4
18.9
17.7
16.6
15.4
14.2
12.7
11.8
10.7
9.0
23.7
22.1
21.0
20.0
18.6
17.3
16.2
15.1
13.8
12.4
11.4
10.3
8.7
23.4
21.7
20.6
19.7
18.2
17.0
15.8
14.7
13.5
12.0
11.1
10.0
8.3
23.0
21.4
20.3
19.3
17.9
16.6
15.5
14.3
13.1
11.6
10.7
9.6
8.0
22.6
21.0
19.9
19.0
17.5
16.3
15.1
14.0
12.8
11.3
10.4
9.3
7.6
22.3
20.6
19.5
18.6
17.2
15.9
14.8
13.6
12.4
10.9
10.0
8.9
7.3
21.9
20.3
19.2
18.3
16.8
15.6
14.4
13.3
12.0
10.6
9.7
8.6
6.9
21.6
19.9
18.8
17.9
16.5
15.2
14.1
12.9
11.7
10.2
9.3
8.2
6.6
561
Table A44
Normative data for the Animals category stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
27.9
26.3
25.2
24.3
22.8
21.6
20.4
19.3
18.0
16.6
15.7
14.6
12.9
27.3
25.7
24.6
23.6
22.2
20.9
19.8
18.7
17.4
16.0
15.0
14.0
12.3
26.7
25.0
23.9
23.0
21.6
20.3
19.2
18.1
16.8
15.4
14.4
13.3
11.7
26.1
24.4
23.3
22.4
21.0
19.7
18.6
17.4
16.2
14.7
13.8
12.7
11.1
25.5
23.8
22.7
21.8
20.4
19.1
18.0
16.8
15.6
14.1
13.2
12.1
10.5
24.9
23.2
22.1
21.2
19.7
18.5
17.4
16.2
15.0
13.5
12.6
11.5
9.9
24.3
22.6
21.5
20.6
19.1
17.9
16.8
15.6
14.4
12.9
12.0
10.9
9.3
23.6
22.0
20.9
20.0
18.5
17.3
16.2
15.0
13.8
12.3
11.4
10.3
8.7
23.0
21.4
20.3
19.4
17.9
16.7
15.5
14.4
13.2
11.7
10.8
9.7
8.0
22.4
20.8
19.7
18.8
17.3
16.1
14.9
13.8
12.6
11.1
10.2
9.1
7.4
21.8
20.2
19.1
18.2
16.7
15.5
14.3
13.2
12.0
10.5
9.6
8.5
6.8
21.2
19.6
18.5
17.6
16.1
14.9
13.7
12.6
11.3
9.9
9.0
7.9
6.2
20.6
19.0
17.9
17.0
15.5
14.3
13.1
12.0
10.7
9.3
8.4
7.3
5.6
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
26.7
25.1
24.0
23.1
21.6
20.4
19.2
18.1
16.8
15.4
14.5
13.4
11.7
26.1
24.5
23.4
22.4
21.0
19.8
18.6
17.5
16.2
14.8
13.9
12.8
11.1
25.5
23.9
22.8
21.8
20.4
19.1
18.0
16.9
15.6
14.2
13.2
12.1
10.5
24.9
23.2
22.1
21.2
19.8
18.5
17.4
16.2
15.0
13.6
12.6
11.5
9.9
24.3
22.6
21.5
20.6
19.2
17.9
16.8
15.6
14.4
12.9
12.0
10.9
9.3
23.7
22.0
20.9
20.0
18.6
17.3
16.2
15.0
13.8
12.3
11.4
10.3
8.7
23.1
21.4
20.3
19.4
17.9
16.7
15.6
14.4
13.2
11.7
10.8
9.7
8.1
22.5
20.8
19.7
18.8
17.3
16.1
15.0
13.8
12.6
11.1
10.2
9.1
7.5
21.8
20.2
19.1
18.2
16.7
15.5
14.3
13.2
12.0
10.5
9.6
8.5
6.9
21.2
19.6
18.5
17.6
16.1
14.9
13.7
12.6
11.4
9.9
9.0
7.9
6.2
20.6
19.0
17.9
17.0
15.5
14.3
13.1
12.0
10.8
9.3
8.4
7.3
5.6
20.0
18.4
17.3
16.4
14.9
13.7
12.5
11.4
10.1
8.7
7.8
6.7
5.0
19.4
17.8
16.7
15.8
14.3
13.1
11.9
10.8
9.5
8.1
7.2
6.1
4.4
563

DOI:10.3233/NRE-151280
IOS Press
Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Test

(M-WCST): Normative data for the Latin
American Spanish speaking adult population
J.C. Arango-Lasprillaa,b, , D. Riverab , M. Longonic , C.P. Sarachod , M.T. Garzae , A. Aliagaf ,
W. Rodrguezg , Y. Rodrguez-Agudeloh , B. Rabagoi , M. Sutterj , S. Schebelak , M. Luna1 ,
N. Ocampo-Barbam , J. Galarza-del-Angeln , M.L. Bringaso , L. Esenarrop , C. Martnezq ,
P. Garca-Eganr and P.B. Perrinj
a IKERBASQUE,
Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain

c Clnica de rehabilitaci
e Facultad de Psicologa Universidad Aut
f Servicio M
g Ponce Health Sciences University, Ponce, Puerto Rico
h Instituto Nacional de Neurologa y Neurociruga MVS, Mexico City, Mexico
i Instituto Vocacional Enrique Daz de Le
j Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
k Instituto de Prevenci
l Universidad Dr. Jos
m Fundaci
n Universidad Aut
o International center for neurological Restoration CIREN, Havana, Cuba
q Departamento de Medicina de Rehabilitaci
on, Nacional Autonoma de Honduras, Tegucigalpa, Honduras
r Departamento de Psicologa, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala
b Faculty
Abstract.
OBJECTIVE: To generate normative data on the Modified Card Sorting Test (M-WCST) across 11 countries in Latin America,
with country-specific adjustments for gender, age, and education, where appropriate.
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Puerto Rico. Each subject was administered the M-WCST as part of a larger
neuropsychological battery. A standardized five-step statistical procedure was used to generate the norms.
RESULTS: The final multiple linear regression models explained between 233% of the variance in M-WCST scores. Although
t-tests showed significant differences between men and women from seven different countries on the M-WCST, the effect sizes
were small. As a result, gender-adjusted norms were not generated.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first normative multicenter study conducted in in Latin America aiming to create norms for the
M-WCST; this study will have important implications for the future of neuropsychology in the region.
Keywords: Normative data, Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, reference values, Latin America, executive function
Address

for Science, Bilbao, Spain. Tel.: +34 804 859 4329;

jcarango@deusto.es.
E-mail:
564
J.C. Arango-Lasprilla et al. / Normative data for the Latin American Spanish speaking adult population
1. Introduction
The Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
(M-WCST; Nelson, 1976), an adaptation of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST; Berg, 1948; Grant
& Berg, 1948), is a widely used neuropsychological
test for assessing higher-order cognitive functioning,
or executive functioning, that is associated with the
frontal lobes of the brain. For successful completion of
the M-WCST, the use of abstract reasoning, strategic
planning, organized searching, integration of external
feedback, mental flexibility, and impulse control are
required (Nelson, 1976). Inability to perform such
tasks on the M-WCST indicates executive dysfunction.
The original WCST consists of two sets of 64
response cards and four stimulus cards on which the
stimulus cards depict a red triangle, two green stars,
three yellow crosses, and four blue circles, respectively.
The response cards, which have similar patterns but
vary in color, geometric shape, and number, are then
used to match each card to the four stimuli cards. The
individual is given feedback for each turn regarding
the correctness of their response. However, the WCST
included some ambiguous stimuli that could be classified into more than one category, making the nature of
the deficits unclear, and leading to participant frustration (Nelson, 1976; de Zubicaray & Ashton, 1996).
The M-WCST consists of two sets of 24 response
cards, and overcomes the limitations of the WCST
by removing the ambiguous stimuli, thus making the
test less susceptible to floor effects, especially in
older adults and those in rehabilitation settings (Greve,
Biachini, Hartley, & Adams, 1999). Individuals are
asked to produce six consecutive successful card sorts
to complete a category and are told when the target category is changed, after which they must identify the
new rule by sorting the cards properly (Nelson, 1976).
The test provides information on aspects of problem
solving, such as how many categories are successfully
achieved, number of perseverative errors (i.e., failure
to utilize negative feedback to change sorting strategy), and number of non-perseverative errors. With
these modifications, the M-WCST is considered a completely separate measure from the WCST (de Zubicaray
& Ashton, 1996). Accordingly, only studies utilizing
the M-WCST will be summarized.
The M-WCST has been used as a measure of
cognitive deficits and frontal lobe functioning in clinical studies with myriad populations. Such studies
have evaluated individuals with dementia (Nedjam,
Devouche, Dalla Barba, 2004; Traykov et al., 2005);
Alzheimer disease (Bondi, Monsch, Butters, Salmon,

& Paulsen, 1993; Paolo, Axelrod, Troster, Blackwell, & Koller, 1996); Parkinsons disease (Petrova,
Raycheva, Zhelev, & Traykov, 2010); Huntingtons
disease (Peinemann et al., 2005; Snowden, Craufurd,
Griffiths, Thompson, & Neary, 2001); temporal and
frontal lobe epilepsy (Giovagnoli, 2001); traumatic
brain injury (Fork et al., 2005); frontal lobe lesions of
various etiologies (Nelson, 1976; Van den Broek, Bradshaw, & Szabadi, 1993); amnesia of various etiologies
(Hunkin, Parkin, & Longmore, 1994); schizophrenia
(Chan et al., 2011); chronic alcoholism (Joyce & Robbins, 1991); anorexia nervosa (Fassino et al., 2001);
and psychopathy (Pham, Vanderstukken, Philippot, &
Vanderlinden, 2003).
Demographic variables such as age, education, sex,
and intellectual ability have been significantly associated with performance on the M-WCST. The number
and percent of perseverative errors (de Zubicaray,
Smith, Chalk, & Semple, 1998), number of nonperseverative errors, and number of categories achieved
(Lineweaver, Bondi, Thomas, & Salmon, 1999) have
been positively associated with age. Additionally,
Axelrod & Henry (1992) demonstrated an increase in
perseverative errors after age 60, and Crawford, Bryan,
Luszcs, Obonsawin, & Stewart, (2000) found declined
performance in those aged 60 to 75 compared to 18 to
60 year olds. Years of education have been negatively
associated with non-perseverative errors (de Zubicaray
et al., 1998), perseverative errors (Obonsawin et al.,
1999), and positively related to number of categories
achieved (de Zubicaray et al., 1998; Lineweaver et al.,
1999). However, Plumet, Gil, & Gaonach, (2005)
found that education no longer had an effect on distractive errors after age 70, and attentional focus on sorting
rules were more affected by age than education. Total
number of errors on the M-WCST (Bird, Papadopoulou,
Ricciardelli, Rossor, & Cipolotti, 2004), number of
categories completed (Bird et al., 2004; Obonsawin
et al., 1999), number and percent of perseverative errors
(Obonsawin et al., 1999) have been significantly associated with IQ. Lineweaver et al. (1999) found that sex is
associated with non-perseverative errors, such that men
make more of these errors than women, but generally
there are no sex differences for the M-WCST (Caffarra,
Vezzadini, Dieci, Zonato, & Venneri, 2010; Obonsawin
et al., 1999).
Normative data have been accumulated for the
M-WCST in various populations. In a review of the
M-WCST, de Zubicaray & Ashton (1996) compiled a
summary of healthy control data before any norma-
tive studies had been conducted. Normative data for

healthy English-speaking adults have been obtained by
Obonsawin et al. (1999) from 146 individuals between
the ages of 16 and 75 years, and by Lineweaver and colleagues (1999) from 229 individuals between the ages
of 45 and 91. In Italy, norms have also been developed
for adults between the ages of 20 and 90 years (Caffarra
et al., 2004), and for children between the ages of 4
and 13 years (Cianchett, Corona, Foscoliano, Contu, &
Sannio-Fancello, 2007). Additionally, normative data
for the M-WCST were developed in 465 healthy Chinese individuals between the ages of 16 and 75 (Wang
et al., 2011).
To date, there have been no normative data developed for Latin America on the M-WCST despite
its wide use in the region. While norms have been
developed for Latinos in the United States on the
WCST (Rey, Feldman, Rivas-Vazquez, Levin, & Benton, 1999), none are available for the M-WCST.
Because the M-WCST is considered its own measure of executive functioning (de Zubicaray & Ashton,
1996), scores should not be compared to norms of the
WCST. Normative studies on the M-WCST to date
have largely ignored the effects of race and ethnicity (e.g., Lineweaver et al., 1999; Obonsawin et al.,
1999). It is imperative to develop norms specifically
for the Latin American population to accurately assess
deficits in executive functioning of the general population, and in the future, elderly and rehabilitation
populations in order to identify significant executive
dysfunction and implement appropriate treatment interventions.
565

scored 90 on the Barthel Index (Mahoney, & Barthel,
1965).
consent. Twenty-three participants were excluded from
the analyses, with a final sample of 3,954 participants.
elsewhere (Guàrdia-Olmos, Pero-Cebollero, Rivera, &
Arango-Lasprilla, 2015). The multi-center study was
approved by the Ethics Committee of the coordinating
site, the University of Deusto, Spain.
The M-WCST consists of four stimulus cards and 48
response cards. Each card varies in shape (cross, circle,
triangle or star), color (red, blue, yellow or green), and
number (one to four). The participants first response
is always considered right, and during the administration, the examiner informs whether the choice is correct
or not until the subject correctly classifies six consecutive cards to complete a category. Then, the examiner
indicates that the rules have changed and to try to find
another rule. If the second category chosen differs from
that which was chosen in the first is considered correct.
The test continues until all six categories are classified
or until the whole volume has been used (Schretlen,
2010; Greve, 2001; Nelson, 1976). The test allows for
calculation of the number of categories, perseverations,
and total errors.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The detailed statistical analyses used to generate

the normative data for this test are described in
Guàrdia-Olmos, et al. (2015). In summary, the data
manipulation process for each country-specific dataset
involved five-steps: a) t tests for independent samples
and effect sizes (r) were conducted to determine
gender effects. If the effect size was larger than 0.3,
gender was included in the model with gender dummy
coded and female as the reference group (male = 1 and
female = 0). b) A multivariable regression model was
used to specify the predictive model including gender
(if effect size was larger than 0.3), age as a continuous
variable, and education as a dummy coded variable
with 1 if the participant had >12 years of education
566
Table 1
Effect of gender in the M-WCST numbers of categories
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Argentinaa
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
5.8 (0.5)
5.6 (1.0)
4.4 (1.8)
4.4 (1.7)
5.5 (1.1)
5.1 (1.4)
4.7 (1.5)
4.6 (1.6)
4.1 (2.1)
3.4 (2.1)
4.1 (2.0)
4.7 (1.7)
3.9 (1.9)
3.1 (2.1)
4.8 (1.6)
4.5 (1.8)
5.1 (0.9)
4.8 (0.9)
4.3 (1.7)
4.7 (1.6)
5.2 (1.4)
5.1 (1.6)
2.62
306.4
0.23
Bolivia
Chilea
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemalaa
Honduras
Mexicoa
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
a Value
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.009
0.148
272
0.815
0.014
2.44
317.5
0.015
0.136
0.84
304
0.400
0.048
2.39
255
0.018
0.148
2.50
181.7
0.013
0.182
2.66
182
0.008
0.194
3.54
910.5
<0.001
0.116
2.94
261
0.004
0.179
1.60
241
0.112
0.102
0.69
288
0.493
0.040
p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001.
and 0 if participants had 112 years of education. If

gender, age and/or education were not statistically
education (if statistically significant in the multivariate
model), !and/or gender (if effect#size was greater than
0.3)
y"i = 0 + (Age Agei + (Educ Educi ) +
(Gender Genderi )]; c) residual scores were calculated
based on this final model (ei = yi y"i ); d) using the
SD (residual) value provided by the regression model,
residuals were standardized: z = ei /SDe , with SDe
(residual) = the standard deviation of the residuals in
the normative sample; and e) standardized residuals
were converted to percentile values (Strauss et al.,
applied to M-WCST number of categories correct,
perseverative errors, and total errors.
Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and

Paraguay, however, none of these four countries had an
effect size larger than 0.3. Table 1 shows the results of
the gender analyses by country on M-WCST numbers
of correct categories. As shown in Table 1, the effect
sizes for all countries were less than 0.3, and therefore
gender was not taken into account to generate the normative data for M-WCST number of correct categories
scores for any of the countries in the study.
The final eleven M-WCST numbers of correct categories multivariate linear regression models for each
country are shown in Table 2. In all countries, except
Bolivia, and Chile, the M-WCST numbers of correct
categories increased for those with more than 12 years
of education (see Table 2), and, in all countries except
Guatemala, M-WSCT number of correct categories
amount of variance explained in M-WCST numbers of
correct categories ranged from 7% (in Argentina) to
33% (in Peru).
3. Results
3.2. Number of perseverative errors
3.1. Number of categories correct

Regarding the effect of gender on M-WCST numbers of categories correct, the t-tests showed significant
differences between men and women for Argentina,
Regarding the effect of gender on M-WCST number

of perseverative errors, the t-tests showed significant
differences between men and women in the countries
of Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, and
567
Table 2
Final multiple linear regression models for M-WCST categories scores
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
Guatemala
El Salvador
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
5.753
0.006
0.352
5.793
0.025
6.229
0.018
5.785
0.024
0.616
3.924
1.422
4.269
0.018
2.047
4.950
0.038
1.129
5.792
0.026
0.658
5.754
0.017
0.555
5.256
0.033
1.143
6.369
0.029
0.412
0.135
0.002
0.094
0.274
0.005
0.207
0.004
0.240
0.004
0.192
0.149
0.242
0.357
0.006
0.295
0.401
0.007
0.321
0.133
0.002
0.111
0.216
0.004
0.145
0.257
0.004
0.186
0.278
0.005
0.170
42.597
2.459
3.741
21.163
5.465
30.077
4.969
24.071
5.834
3.210
26.273
5.886
11.970
3.113
6.935
12.330
5.201
3.513
43.577
11.461
5.935
26.607
4.583
3.837
20.482
7.589
6.155
22.911
6.156
2.428
<0.001
0.014
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.016
0.067
0.828
0.099
1.656
0.072
1.238
0.134
1.415
0.142
1.705
0.194
1.916
0.214
1.808
0.129
1.628
0.186
0.819
0.328
1.358
0.161
1.388
Peru. Table 3 shows the results of the gender analysis by country on M-WCST number of perseverative
errors. As shown in Table 3, the effect sizes for all
countries were less than 0.3, and therefore gender was
not taken into account to generate M-WCST number of
perseverative errors normative data.
The final eleven multivariate linear regression models for the M-WCST number of perseverative errors
for each country are shown in Table 4. In all countries, except Bolivia and Chile, the M-WCST number
of perseverative errors decreased for those with more
than 12 years of education (see Table 4) and, except
Honduras and Guatemala, M-WCST number of perseverative errors increased in a linear fashion as a function
of age. The amount of variance explained in M-WCST
number of perseverative errors ranged from 3% (in
Chile) to 32% (in Paraguay).
ences between men and women for Chile, Mexico, and

Paraguay. Table 5 shows the results of the gender analysis by country on M-WCST number of total errors. As
shown in Table 5, the effect sizes for all countries were
less than 0.3, and therefore gender was not taken into
account to generate M-WCST number of total errors
normative data.
The final eleven multivariate linear regression models for the M-WCST number of total errors for each
country are shown in Table 6. In all countries, except
Bolivia and Chile, the M-WCST number of total errors
decreased for those with more than 12 years of education (see Table 6) and, except Guatemala and Honduras,
increased in a linear fashion as a function of age. The
amount of variance explained in M-WCST number
of total errors ranged from 2% (in Chile) to 33% (in
Paraguay).
3.3. Number of total errors
4. Normative procedure
Regarding the effect of gender on M-WCST number

of total errors, the t-tests showed significant differ-
Norms (e.g., a percentile score) for the M-WCST

different scores were established using the five-step
568
Table 3
Effect of gender in the M-WCST Perseveration errors
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentinaa
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
3.7 (2.6)
3.7 (5.0)
7.1 (7.7)
6.9 (6.8)
1.7 (3.2)
3.1 (5.3)
4.6 (6.0)
5.8 (7.3)
6.5 (6.7)
7.5 (6.3)
7.0 (9.0)
4.5 (5.9)
5.6 (4.7)
8.0 (7.0)
4.1 (5.8)
5.3 (7.1)
5.5 (3.0)
6.9 (2.8)
5.1 (6.5)
3.4 (3.8)
3.5 (6.9)
3.7 (7.1)
0.08
306.7
0.934
0.005
0.25
272
0.801
0.015
3.05
308.4
0.003
0.171
1.51
303
0.132
0.086
1.19
255
0.236
0.074
2.28
150.6
0.024
0.183
2.47
182
0.014
0.180
3.21
1,004.4
0.001
0.101
3.78
261
<0.001
0.228
2.27
118.6
0.025
0.204
0.29
288
0.772
0.017
Bolivia
Chilea
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemalaa
Honduras
Mexicoa
Paraguay
Perua
Puerto Rico
a Value
p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001.
Table 4
Final multiple linear regression models for M-WCST Perseveration errors
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
3.384
0.036
2.468
0.970
0.108
0.453
0.037
1.748
0.075
2.069
4.663
0.062
5.031
6.847
3.255
7.750
2.568
0.092
0.103
2.048
3.351
0.066
2.707
1.339
0.096
2.351
0.139
0.095
2.252
0.684
0.012
0.476
1.114
0.019
0.760
0.013
1.107
0.019
0.882
1.111
0.018
0.920
0.644
1.043
0.530
1.084
0.513
0.009
0.428
0.651
0.011
0.436
0.823
0.014
0.595
1.325
0.022
0.808
4.945
2.943
5.183
0.870
5.813
0.596
2.884
1.579
3.972
2.345
4.197
3.413
5.470
10.625
3.122
14.621
2.369
0.180
11.874
4.785
5.143
5.888
6.216
1.628
6.910
3.949
0.105
4.310
2.787
<0.001
0.003
<0.001
0.385
<0.001
0.552
0.004
0.115
0.001
0.020
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
0.019
0.857
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.105
<0.001
<0.001
0.916
<0.001
0.006
0.113
4.196
0.110
6.744
0.025
4.546
0.070
6.508
0.149
5.969
0.044
7.358
0.030
6.254
0.125
6.282
0.320
2.469
0.241
4.352
0.108
6.614
569
Table 5
Effect of gender in the M-WCST total errors
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentinaa
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
6.8 (4.4)
7.0 (6.7)
14.5 (11.2)
14.4 (11.1)
6.0 (6.5)
8.9 (9.2)
12.0 (9.6)
13.0 (9.8)
15.1 (11.8)
17.9 (10.9)
13.9 (11.7)
10.5 (9.4)
14.2 (8.7)
15.9 (10.2)
10.8 (10.4)
13.2 (11.4)
11.0 (6.0)
14.0 (5.6)
13.4 (10.0)
11.1 (9.3)
9.2 (9.8)
9.7 (10.2)
0.30
263.48
0.762
0.019
0.04
272
0.966
0.003
3.31
317.88
0.001
0.182
0.93
304
0.354
0.053
1.94
255
0.054
0.120
2.24
174.3
0.03
0.167
1.15
182
0.252
0.085
3.73
924.42
<0.001
0.122
4.06
261
<0.001
0.244
1.82
241
0.070
0.116
0.46
288
0.647
0.027
Bolivia
Chilea
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemalaa
Honduras
Mexicoa
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
a Value
p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001.
procedure described above. To facilitate the understanding of the procedure to obtain the percentile associated
with a score on this test, an example will be given. Suppose you need to find the percentile score for a Mexican
man, who is 50 years old and has 15 years of education.
He has completed four categories on the M-WCST. The
steps to obtain the percentile for this score are: a) Check
Table 1 to determine if the effect size of gender in the
country of interest (Mexico) on this test and task (MWCST numbers of categories corrects) is greater than
0.3 by country. The column labelled r in Table 1 indicates the effect size. In this example, the effect size is
0.116, which is not greater than 0.3. For Mexicans on
this test, gender does not influence scores to a sufficient
degree to take it into account when determining the
percentile. b) Find Mexico in Table 2, which provides
the final regression models by country for M-WCST
numbers of correct categories. Use the B weights to
create an equation that will allow you to obtain the
predicted M-WCST numbers of correct categories.
The corresponding B weights are multiplied by the
actual age and dichotomized education scores and
added to a constant in order to calculate the predicted
value. In this case, the predicted M-WCST numbers of categories
corrects would be calculated using
!
the equation y"i = 5.792 + (0.026 Agei ) + (0.658
Dichotomized Educational Level i )] (the values have
been rounded for presentation in the formula). The sub-
script notation i indicate the person of interest. The

persons age is 50, but the education variable is not
continuous in the model. Years of education is split
into either 1 to 12 years (and assigned a 0) or more
than 12 years (and assigned a 1) in the model. Since
our hypothetical person in the example has 15 years of
education, his educational level value is 1. Thus the predicted value is 5.792 + (0.026 50) + (0.658 1) =
5.792 + (1.292) + 0.658 = 5.159). c). In order to
calculate the residual value (indicated with an e in the
equation), we subtract the actual value from the predicted value we just calculated (ei = yi y"i ). In this
case, it would be ei = 4 5.159 = 1.159. d) Next,
consult the SDe column in Table 2 to obtain the countryspecific SDe (residual) value. For Mexico it is 1.628.
Using this value, we can transform the residual value
to a standardized z score using the equation (ei /SDe ). In
this case, we have (1.159)/1.628 = 0.712. This is
the standardized z score for a Mexican man aged 50 and
15 years of education and four categories completed in
the M-WCST. e) The last step is to look-up the tables in
the statistical reference books (e.g. Strauss et al., 2006)
or use a trusted online calculator like the one available at
corresponds to the 23th percentile. Please remember to
570
use the appropriate tables that correspond to each test

when performing these calculations. If the percentile
for the others M-WCST scores is desired, Tables 36
must be used.
Guàrdia-Olmos, et al., 2015) and created tables that
in the Appendix. In order to obtain an approximate
percentile for the above example (converting a raw
score of four categories for a Mexican man who is 50
years old and has 15 years of education) using the simplified normative tables provided, the following steps
are recommended. (1) First, identify the appropriate
table ensuring the specific country and test. In this
case, the table for M-WCST numbers of categories corrects for Mexico can be found in Table A8. (2) Note
if the title of the table indicates that it is only to be
used for one specific gender. In this case, gender is
not specified. Thus Table A8 is used for both males
and females. (3) Next, the table is divided based on
educational level (1 to 12 vs. more than 12 years of
education). Since this man has 15 years of education,
he falls into the more than 12 years of education category. These data can be found in the top section of
the table. (4) Determine the age range most appropriate for the individual. In this case, 50 falls into the
column 4852 years of age. (5) Read down the age
range column to find the approximate location of the
raw score the person obtained on the test. Reading
down the 4852 column, the score of four obtained
by this Mexican man corresponds to an approximate
percentile of 20.
method (20th) is slightly different from the more exact
5. Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to generate normative data on the M-WCST across 11 countries in
Latin America, with country-specific adjustments for
gender, age, and education, where appropriate. The final
733% of the variance in M-WCST number of categories correct, 332% of the variance in number of
perseverative errors, and 233% of the variance in
number of total errors. Although there were a number
of gender differences across various M-WCST scores
in different countries, all effect sizes were small, and
therefore gender-adjusted norms were not generated for
any country. These findings tend to concur with the previous literature. Although one study found men to make
more perseverative errors than women (Lineweaver
et al., 1999), most studies have found no gender differences in performance on the M-WCST (Caffarra et al.,
2010; Obonsawin et al., 1999). In light of the previous
literature, the results from the current study suggest that
gender should not be taken into account in calculating
percentiles for the M-WCST in Latin America.
The various M-WCST scores generally increased
linearly as a function of education in most countries.
However, this was not true for number of categories
correct, number of perseverative errors, or number of
total errors in Chile and Bolivia. This general pattern
of findings corroborated previous research which has
found higher education to be negatively associated with
non-perseverative errors (de Zubicaray et al., 1998)
and perseverative errors (Obonsawin et al., 1999), as
well as positively associated with number of categories
correct (de Zubicaray et al., 1998; Lineweaver et al.,
1999). When considering this previous research, it is
suggested that neuropsychologists in Latin America use
the education-adjusted norms generated for each country when administering the M-WCST in that country,
except in Chile and Bolivia on the various M-WCST
score categories which showed no effect of education. Because there are likely large differences in the
quality of education throughout different countries in
Latin America, the current datas education adjustments
will be useful when administering the M-WCST across
many different Latin American countries.
M-WCST scores worsened with increasing age in
all countries except for on the number of perseverative errors and number of total errors in Honduras and
Guatemala. Previous studies have found that higher age
is associated with a greater number and percent of perseverative errors (Axelrod & Henry, 1992; de Zubicaray
571
Table 6
Final multiple linear regression models for M-WCST total errors
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
6.676
0.052
3.999
0.970
0.108
0.453
0.037
6.351
0.132
3.626
13.621
0.100
11.424
14.863
7.505
7.750
2.568
3.675
0.182
4.018
4.670
0.167
4.024
6.362
0.195
4.496
1.283
0.189
2.940
0.918
0.016
0.639
1.114
0.019
0.760
0.013
1.567
0.027
1.250
1.875
0.031
1.552
0.871
1.410
0.530
1.084
0.842
0.014
0.702
1.282
0.022
0.857
1.563
0.026
1.132
1.831
0.031
1.117
7.269
3.189
6.257
0.870
5.813
0.596
2.884
4.053
4.919
2.901
7.264
3.255
7.360
17.054
5.323
14.621
2.369
4.365
12.740
5.721
3.644
7.537
4.697
4.069
7.375
3.973
0.701
6.183
2.632
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
0.385
<0.001
0.552
0.004
<0.001
<0.001
0.004
<0.001
0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.019
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.484
0.001
0.009
0.149
5.631
0.110
6.744
0.025
4.546
0.103
9.225
0.212
10.073
0.119
9.951
0.030
6.254
0.146
10.312
0.330
4.856
0.260
8.271
0.166
9.144
et al., 1998) and number of non-perseverative errors,

as well as inversely with number of categories correct
(Lineweaver et al., 1999). When considering the previous findings, those from the current study suggest
that M-WCST corrections for age in Latin America
should be made in all countries except in Honduras
and Guatemala on the M-WCST score categories that
showed no age effect.
This study has several limitations and perhaps
as a result, directions for future research. First, all
participants in this study spoke Spanish as a primary
language, but data were not collected on bilingualism.
Because M-WCST performance could potentially
differ for people who speak secondary languages,
future research would benefit from examining effects of
bilingualism on performance. Data collection occurred
in specific cities or regions of the countries in Latin
America instead of nationally. The current study is the
largest neuropsychological normative study conducted
to date in Latin America for the M-WCST, or in any
global region, and thus it should be seen as a first

step for larger and nationally representative normative
studies. The sample was limited in that although many
participants had fewer than 12 years of education,
illiterate individuals were ineligible to participate
and the current norms may not generalize to illiterate
adults. In the same manner, participants with a history
of neurological conditions and children were not sampled, so future studies should be conducted with these
populations.
Second, neuropsychologists should be careful about
using the M-WCST norms generated in this study for
people in countries other than those from which data
were collected. Future studies need to create M-WCST
norms in other countries in Latin America including
Ecuador, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Panama. Despite
this limitation, the current M-WCST norms may be
more accurate in Latin American countries not a part
of this study than other norms currently in use. This
generalizability is a critical area for future research.
Third, the M-WCST is a common instrument in Latin
America, but other instruments should be normed following similar procedures in order to improve their use
572
in this region. Future studies should similarly examine

the psychometric properties and ecological validity of
the M-WCST, as well as other common assessment
tools in Latin America. Researchers should also create
instruments within Latin American cultures with good
ecological validity, because the M-WCST was created
in a Western culture different from the various cultures
in Latin America. Future studies should create assessments within local cultures, not just translate and norm
tests from other countries.
Despite these limitations, no studies have yet
produced M-WCST norms in Spanish-speaking populations. This study was the first to generate M-WCST
norms across 11 countries in Latin America with nearly
4,000 participants. It was the largest, most comprehensive M-WCST normative study to date in any global
region, and its norms will likely affect the standard of
neuropsychological assessment with the M-WCST in
Latin America unlike any study before it.
References
Axelrod, B. N., & Henry R. R. (1992). Age-related performance on
the Wisconsin card sorting, similarities, and controlled oral word
association tests. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6(1), 16-26.
Berg, E. A. (1948). A simple objective technique for measuring flexibility in thinking. Journal of General Psychology, 39(1), 15-22.
Bird, C. M., Papadopoulou, K., Ricciardelli, P., Rossor, M. N., &
Cipolotti, L. (2004). Monitoring cognitive changes: Psychometric properties of six cognitive tests. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 43(2), 197-210.
Bondi, M. W., Monsch, A. U., Butters, N., Salmon, D. P.,& Paulsen,
J. (1993). Utility of a modified version of the Wisconsin Card
Sorting Test in the detection of dementia of the Alzheimer type.
The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7(2), 161-170.
Caffarra, P., Vezzadini, G., Dieci, F., Zonato, F., & Venneri, A. (2010)
Modified card sorting test: Normative data. Journal of Clinical
Chan, S. K. W., Chan, K. K. S., Lam, M. M. L., Chiu, C. P. Y., Hui,
C. L. M., Wong, G. H. Y., & Chen, E. Y. H. (2011). Clinical
and cognitive correlates of insight in first-episode schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia Research, 135(1), 40-45.
Cianchett, C., Corona, S., Foscoliano, M., Contu, D., & SannioFancello, G. (2007) Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
(M-WCST, MWCST): Normative data in children 4-13 years old,
according to classical and new types of scoring. The Clinical
Crawford, J., Bryan, J., Luszcz, M., Obonsawin, M., & Stewart, L.
(2000). The executive decline hypothesis of cognitive aging: Do
executive deficits qualify as differential deficit and do they mediate age-related memory decline? Aging, Neuropsychology and
Cognition, 7(1), 9-31.
de Zubicaray, G. & Ashton, R. (1996). Nelsons (1976) Modified Card
Sorting Test: A review. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 10(3),
245-254.
de Zubicaray, G. I., Smith, G. A., Chalk, J. B., & Semple, J. (1998)

The Modified Card Sorting Test: Test-retest stability and relationships with demographic variables in a healthy older adult sample.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37(4), 457-466.
Fassino, S., Piero, A., Daga, G. A., Leombruni, P., Mortara, P., &
Rovera, G. G. (2001). Attentional biases and frontal functioning
in anorexia nervosa. International Journal of Eating Disorders,
31(3), 274-283.
189-198.
Fork, M., Bartels, C., Ebert, A. D., Crubich, C., Synowitz, H., &
Wallesch, C. W. (2005) Neuropsychological sequelae of diffuse
traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 19(2), 101-108.
Giovagnoli, A. R. (2001). Relation of sorting impairment to hippocampal damage in temporal lobe epilepsy. Neuropsychologia,
39(2), 140-150.
Grant, D. A., & Berg, E. A. (1948). A behavioral analysis of degree
of reinforcement and ease of shifting to new responses in a Weigltype card sorting problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
38(4), 404-411.
Greve, K. W. (2001). The WCST-64: A standardized short-form of
the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist,
15(2), 228-234.
Greve, K. W., Bianchini, K. J., Hartley, S. M., & Adams, D. (1999).
The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test in stroke rehabilitation: Factor structure and relationship to outcome. Archives of Clinical
493-499.
Hunkin, N., Parkin, A., & Longmore, B. (1994). Aetiological variation in the amnesic syndrome: Comparisons using the list
discrimination task. Neuropsychologia, 32(7), 819-825.
Joyce, E. & Robbins, T. (1991). Frontal lobe function in Korsakoff and
non-Korsakoff alcoholics: Planning and spatial working memory.
Neuropsychologia, 29(8), 709-723.
Lineweaver, T. T., Bondi, M. W., Thomas, R. G., & Salmon, D. P.
(1999). A normative study of Nelsons (1976) modified version
of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test in healthy older adults. The
Clinical Neuropsychologst, 13(3), 328-347.
Nedjam, Z., Devouche, E., & Dalla Barba, G. (2004). Confabulation,
but not executive dysfunction discriminate AD from frontotemporal dementia. European Journal of Neurology, 11(11),
728-733.
Nelson, H. E. (1976). A modified card sorting test sensitive to frontal
lobe defects. Cortex, 12(4), 313-324.
Obonsawin, M. C., Crawford, J. R., Page, J. Chalmers, P., Low, G.,
& Marsch, P. (1999). Performance on the Modified Card Sorting Test by normal, healthy individuals: Relationship to general
intellectual ability and demographic variables. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 38(1), 27-41.
Paolo, A. M., Axelrod, B. N., Troster, A. I., Blackwell, K. T., & Koller,
W. C. (1996). Utility of a Wisconsin Card Sorting Test short form
in persons with Alzheimers and Parkinsons disease. Journal of
Peinemann, A., Schuller, S., Pohl, C., Jahn, T., Weindl, A., &
Kassubek, J. (2005). Executive dysfunction in early stages of
Huntingtons disease is associated with striatal and insular atrophy: A neuropsychological and voxel-based morphometric study.
Journal of Neurological Sciences, 239(1), 11-19.
Petrova, M., Raycheva, M., Zhelev, Y., & Traykov, L. (2010) Executive functions deficit in Parkinsons disease with amnestic mild
cognitive impairment. American Journal of Alzheimers Disease
and Other Dementias, 25(5), 455-460.
Pham, T. H., Vanderstukken, O., Philippot, P., & Vanderlinden, M.
(2003). Selective attention and executive functions deficits among
criminal psychopaths. Aggressive Behavior, 29(5), 393-405.
Plumet, J., Gil, R., & Gaonach, D. (2005). Neuropsychological
assessment of executive functions in women: Effects of age and
education. Neuropsychology, 19(5), 566-577.
Rey, G. J. Feldman, E., Rivas-Vazquez, R., Levin, B. E., & Benton
A. (1999). Neuropsychological test development and normative
data on Hispanics. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14(7),
593-601.
573
Schretlen, D. J. (2010). Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Test:

M-WCST. Professional Manual. PAR.
Snowden, J., Craufurd, D., Griffiths, H., Thompson, J., & Neary,
D. (2001). Longitudinal evaluation of cognitive disorder in
Huntingtons disease. Journal of International Neuropsychological Society, 7(01), 33-44.
Traykov, L., Baudic, S., Raoux, N., Latour, F., Rieu, D., Smagghe, A.,
& Rigaud, A. S. (2005). Patterns of memory impairment and perseverative behavior discriminate early Alzheimers disease from
subcortical vascular dementia. Journal of Neurological Sciences,
229, 75-79.
Van den Broek, M., Bradshaw, C., & Szabadi, E. (1993). Utility of
the modified Wisconsin card sorting test in neuropsychological
assessment. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32(3), 333343.
Wang, Q., Sun, J., Ma, X., Wang, Y., Yao, J., Deng, W., Liu, X.,
Collier, D. A., & Li, T. (2011). Normative data on a battery of
neuropsychological tests in the Han Chinese population. Journal
of Neuropsychology, 5(1), 126-142.
574
Appendix
Table A1
Normative data for the M-WCST Numbers of categories stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.3
5.1
4.9
4.6
6.0
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
4.6
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.2
5.1
4.9
4.6
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.5
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.5
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.1
5.0
4.8
4.5
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.1
4.9
4.7
4.5
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.3
5.1
4.9
4.7
4.4
6.0
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
4.7
4.4
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.0
4.9
4.7
4.4
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.3
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.3
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
4.9
4.8
4.6
4.3
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
4.9
4.8
4.6
4.3
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.2
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.1
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.2
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.2
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.8
4.7
4.5
4.2
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.1
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.1
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.7
4.6
4.4
4.1
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.0
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.0
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.0
6.0
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
6.0
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
3.9
Table A2
Normative data for the M-WCST Numbers of categories stratified by age for BOLIVIA
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.4
3.9
3.6
3.2
2.6
6.0
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.3
3.8
3.4
3.0
2.5
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.7
3.3
2.9
2.3
6.0
5.8
5.3
4.9
4.5
4.1
3.5
3.2
2.8
2.2
6.0
5.7
5.2
4.8
4.4
3.9
3.4
3.1
2.7
2.1
6.0
5.5
5.1
4.7
4.3
3.8
3.3
2.9
2.5
2.0
6.0
5.9
5.4
5.0
4.5
4.1
3.7
3.2
2.8
2.4
1.8
6.0
5.8
5.3
4.8
4.4
4.0
3.6
3.0
2.7
2.3
1.7
6.0
5.7
5.2
4.7
4.3
3.9
3.4
2.9
2.6
2.2
1.6
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.3
2.8
2.4
2.1
1.5
6.0
5.8
5.4
4.9
4.5
4.0
3.6
3.2
2.7
2.3
1.9
1.3
6.0
5.6
5.3
4.8
4.3
3.9
3.5
3.1
2.5
2.2
1.8
1.2
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.2
4.7
4.2
3.8
3.4
2.9
2.4
2.1
1.7
1.1
575
Table A3
Normative data for the M-WCST Numbers of categories stratified by age for CHILE
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.6
4.3
3.8
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.1
4.7
4.5
4.2
3.8
6.0
5.7
5.4
5.1
4.7
4.4
4.1
3.7
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.3
5.0
4.6
4.3
4.0
3.6
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.2
4.9
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.5
6.0
5.7
5.4
5.1
4.8
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.4
6.0
5.7
5.3
5.0
4.7
4.3
4.1
3.8
3.3
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.3
5.0
4.6
4.2
4.0
3.7
3.2
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.2
4.9
4.5
4.1
3.9
3.6
3.1
6.0
5.7
5.4
5.1
4.8
4.4
4.0
3.8
3.5
3.1
6.0
5.6
5.3
5.0
4.7
4.4
4.0
3.7
3.4
3.0
6.0
5.6
5.2
4.9
4.6
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.3
2.9
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.1
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.8
3.5
3.2
2.8
Table A4
Normative data for the M-WCST Numbers of categories stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.2
4.7
4.4
4.1
3.6
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.1
4.6
4.3
4.0
3.5
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.4
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.4
4.1
3.7
3.2
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.1
4.7
4.2
4.0
3.6
3.1
6.0
5.7
5.3
5.0
4.6
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.0
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.2
4.8
4.5
4.0
3.7
3.4
2.9
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.1
4.7
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.3
2.8
6.0
5.7
5.3
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.5
3.1
2.6
6.0
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.5
4.1
3.6
3.4
3.0
2.5
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.1
4.7
4.4
4.0
3.5
3.2
2.9
2.4
6.0
5.8
5.3
4.9
4.6
4.2
3.9
3.4
3.1
2.8
2.3
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.2
4.8
4.5
4.1
3.7
3.3
3.0
2.7
2.2
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.6
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.0
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.2
4.8
4.4
4.0
3.7
3.4
2.9
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.1
4.7
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.3
2.7
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.5
3.1
2.6
6.0
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.5
4.1
3.6
3.4
3.0
2.5
6.0
5.9
5.4
5.1
4.7
4.3
4.0
3.5
3.2
2.9
2.4
6.0
5.8
5.3
4.9
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.4
3.1
2.8
2.3
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.5
4.1
3.7
3.3
3.0
2.6
2.1
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.1
4.7
4.3
4.0
3.6
3.2
2.9
2.5
2.0
6.0
5.7
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.9
3.5
3.0
2.7
2.4
1.9
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.3
4.8
4.5
4.1
3.7
3.4
2.9
2.6
2.3
1.8
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.2
4.7
4.3
4.0
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.5
2.2
1.7
6.0
5.7
5.3
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.9
3.5
3.1
2.7
2.4
2.0
1.5
576
Table A5
Normative data for the M-WCST Numbers of categories stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.3
4.0
3.5
2.8
6.0
5.9
5.4
4.9
4.3
3.9
3.4
2.7
6.0
5.8
5.3
4.8
4.2
3.8
3.3
2.6
6.0
5.7
5.2
4.7
4.1
3.7
3.2
2.5
6.0
5.6
5.1
4.6
4.0
3.6
3.1
2.4
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
3.9
3.5
3.0
2.4
6.0
5.9
5.4
4.9
4.4
3.8
3.4
3.0
2.3
6.0
5.8
5.3
4.8
4.3
3.7
3.3
2.9
2.2
6.0
5.7
5.2
4.8
4.2
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.1
6.0
5.6
5.1
4.7
4.1
3.5
3.1
2.7
2.0
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.6
4.1
3.4
3.1
2.6
1.9
6.0
5.4
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.3
3.0
2.5
1.8
6.0
5.9
5.3
4.9
4.4
3.9
3.3
2.9
2.4
1.7
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.9
5.5
4.9
4.4
3.9
3.4
2.9
2.3
1.9
1.5
0.8
6.0
5.8
5.4
4.8
4.3
3.8
3.3
2.8
2.2
1.8
1.4
0.7
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.7
4.2
3.7
3.2
2.7
2.1
1.7
1.3
0.6
6.0
5.6
5.2
4.6
4.1
3.6
3.2
2.6
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.5
6.0
5.5
5.2
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.1
2.5
1.9
1.6
1.1
0.4
6.0
5.9
5.4
5.1
4.5
3.9
3.5
3.0
2.5
1.8
1.5
1.0
0.3
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.0
4.4
3.8
3.4
2.9
2.4
1.8
1.4
0.9
0.2
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.3
3.8
3.3
2.8
2.3
1.7
1.3
0.8
0.1
6.0
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.2
3.7
3.2
2.7
2.2
1.6
1.2
0.7
6.0
5.5
5.1
4.7
4.1
3.6
3.1
2.6
2.1
1.5
1.1
0.6
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.6
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.4
1.0
0.5
6.0
5.4
4.9
4.5
3.9
3.4
2.9
2.4
1.9
1.3
0.9
0.5
6.0
5.3
4.8
4.4
3.8
3.3
2.8
2.3
1.8
1.2
0.8
0.4
Table A6
Normative data for the M-WCST Numbers of categories stratified by education levels for GUATEMALA
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.7
5.4
4.8
4.3
3.9
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.2
1.7
1.1
6.0
5.8
5.3
4.9
4.5
3.9
3.6
3.2
2.5
577
Table A7
Normative data for the M-WCST Numbers of categories stratified by age and education levels for HONDURAS
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.8
5.3
4.9
4.4
3.8
3.4
3.0
2.4
6.0
5.6
5.1
4.7
4.2
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.2
6.0
5.9
5.4
4.9
4.5
4.0
3.4
3.1
2.6
2.0
6.0
5.7
5.2
4.8
4.3
3.8
3.2
2.9
2.4
1.8
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.6
4.1
3.6
3.0
2.7
2.2
1.6
6.0
5.9
5.3
4.8
4.4
3.9
3.4
2.9
2.5
2.1
1.4
6.0
5.7
5.1
4.6
4.2
3.7
3.2
2.7
2.3
1.9
1.2
6.0
5.9
5.5
4.9
4.4
4.0
3.5
3.1
2.5
2.1
1.7
1.0
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.7
4.3
3.8
3.3
2.9
2.3
1.9
1.5
0.8
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.1
4.6
4.1
3.6
3.2
2.7
2.1
1.7
1.3
0.6
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.4
3.9
3.4
3.0
2.5
1.9
1.5
1.1
0.5
6.0
5.5
5.1
4.8
4.2
3.7
3.2
2.8
2.3
1.7
1.4
0.9
0.3
6.0
5.4
4.9
4.6
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.6
2.1
1.5
1.2
0.7
0.1
Age (Years)
4347
4852
5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.7
5.1
4.6
4.2
3.7
3.3
2.7
2.3
1.9
1.2
6.0
5.9
5.5
4.9
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.1
2.5
2.1
1.7
1.0
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.8
4.3
3.8
3.4
2.9
2.3
1.9
1.5
0.8
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.1
4.6
4.1
3.6
3.2
2.7
2.1
1.7
1.3
0.7
6.0
5.7
5.3
5.0
4.4
3.9
3.4
3.0
2.5
1.9
1.6
1.1
0.5
6.0
5.6
5.1
4.8
4.2
3.7
3.2
2.8
2.3
1.7
1.4
0.9
0.3
6.0
5.4
4.9
4.6
4.0
3.5
3.1
2.6
2.1
1.5
1.2
0.7
0.1
5.8
5.2
4.7
4.4
3.8
3.3
2.9
2.4
1.9
1.3
1.0
0.5
5.6
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.6
3.1
2.7
2.2
1.7
1.2
0.8
0.4
5.4
4.8
4.4
4.0
3.4
2.9
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.6
0.2
5.3
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.2
2.7
2.3
1.8
1.4
0.8
0.4
5.1
4.4
4.0
3.6
3.0
2.6
2.1
1.7
1.2
0.6
0.2
4.9
4.2
3.8
3.4
2.9
2.4
1.9
1.5
1.0
0.4
Table A8
Normative data for the M-WCST Numbers of categories stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.1
4.6
4.2
3.9
3.3
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.0
4.4
4.1
3.7
3.1
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.8
4.3
4.0
3.6
3.0
6.0
5.5
5.1
4.7
4.2
3.9
3.5
2.9
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.0
3.7
3.3
2.7
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.4
3.9
3.6
3.2
2.6
6.0
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.3
3.8
3.5
3.1
2.5
6.0
5.9
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.7
3.3
2.9
2.4
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.5
4.1
3.5
3.2
2.8
2.2
6.0
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.4
3.9
3.4
3.1
2.7
2.1
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.3
2.9
2.6
2.0
6.0
5.9
5.4
4.9
4.5
4.1
3.7
3.1
2.8
2.4
1.8
6.0
5.8
5.2
4.8
4.4
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.7
2.3
1.7
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.4
3.9
3.6
3.2
2.6
6.0
5.6
5.1
4.7
4.3
3.8
3.5
3.1
2.5
6.0
5.9
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.7
3.3
2.9
2.3
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.2
2.8
2.2
6.0
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.4
3.9
3.4
3.1
2.7
2.1
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.3
2.9
2.5
2.0
6.0
5.9
5.3
4.9
4.5
4.1
3.7
3.1
2.8
2.4
1.8
6.0
5.7
5.2
4.8
4.4
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.7
2.3
1.7
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.1
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.4
2.9
2.5
2.2
1.6
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.1
3.7
3.3
2.7
2.4
2.0
1.4
6.0
5.7
5.4
4.8
4.4
4.0
3.6
3.1
2.6
2.3
1.9
1.3
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.2
4.7
4.3
3.9
3.4
3.0
2.5
2.2
1.8
1.2
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.1
4.6
4.1
3.7
3.3
2.9
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.1
578
Table A9
Normative data for the M-WCST Numbers of categories stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
4.6
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.5
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.1
4.9
4.7
4.4
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.0
4.9
4.7
4.4
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
4.9
4.8
4.6
4.3
6.0
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.8
4.7
4.5
4.2
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.1
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.0
6.0
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
4.6
4.4
4.2
3.9
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.5
4.3
4.1
3.8
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
4.7
4.4
4.3
4.1
3.8
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.3
4.2
4.0
3.7
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.1
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.6
Age (Years)
4347
4852
5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.7
4.6
4.4
4.1
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.0
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
3.9
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.1
3.8
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.7
6.0
5.8
5.7
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.3
4.1
3.9
3.6
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.6
5.3
5.1
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.1
4.0
3.8
3.5
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.1
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.0
3.9
3.7
3.4
6.0
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.3
5.9
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.3
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.2
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.2
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.1
5.7
5.4
5.2
5.1
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.0
Table A10
Normative data for the M-WCST Numbers of categories stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.7
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.3
4.0
3.5
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.2
4.9
4.4
4.2
3.8
3.3
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.1
4.7
4.3
4.0
3.7
3.2
6.0
5.6
5.2
4.9
4.5
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.0
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.1
4.7
4.4
3.9
3.7
3.3
2.9
6.0
5.6
5.3
4.9
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.5
3.2
2.7
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.1
4.8
4.4
4.0
3.6
3.3
3.0
2.5
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.6
4.2
3.9
3.4
3.2
2.9
2.4
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.1
4.8
4.4
4.1
3.7
3.3
3.0
2.7
2.2
6.0
5.7
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.0
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.2
4.8
4.4
4.1
3.8
3.4
3.0
2.7
2.4
1.9
6.0
5.7
5.3
5.1
4.6
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.5
2.2
1.7
6.0
5.5
5.2
4.9
4.5
4.1
3.8
3.4
3.1
2.6
2.4
2.0
1.5
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.6
4.3
3.9
3.5
3.2
2.9
2.4
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.1
4.8
4.4
4.1
3.7
3.3
3.0
2.7
2.2
6.0
5.7
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.1
2.9
2.5
2.0
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.2
4.8
4.4
4.1
3.8
3.4
3.0
2.7
2.4
1.9
6.0
5.7
5.4
5.1
4.6
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.5
2.2
1.7
6.0
5.5
5.2
4.9
4.5
4.1
3.8
3.4
3.1
2.6
2.4
2.0
1.5
5.8
5.3
5.0
4.7
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.3
2.9
2.5
2.2
1.9
1.4
5.7
5.2
4.9
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.4
3.1
2.7
2.3
2.0
1.7
1.2
5.5
5.0
4.7
4.4
4.0
3.6
3.3
2.9
2.6
2.1
1.9
1.5
1.1
5.3
4.9
4.5
4.3
3.8
3.5
3.1
2.8
2.4
2.0
1.7
1.4
0.9
5.2
4.7
4.4
4.1
3.7
3.3
3.0
2.6
2.2
1.8
1.5
1.2
0.7
5.0
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.5
3.1
2.8
2.4
2.1
1.6
1.4
1.0
0.6
4.8
4.4
4.0
3.8
3.3
3.0
2.6
2.3
1.9
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.4
579
Table A11
Normative data for the M-WCST Numbers of categories stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.0
4.8
4.4
3.9
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.6
4.3
3.8
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.5
4.1
3.6
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.1
4.6
4.3
4.0
3.5
6.0
5.6
5.3
4.9
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.4
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.2
4.8
4.3
4.1
3.7
3.2
6.0
5.7
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.1
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.2
4.9
4.5
4.0
3.8
3.4
2.9
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.1
4.7
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.3
2.8
6.0
5.6
5.3
4.9
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.5
3.2
2.7
6.0
5.5
5.1
4.8
4.4
4.1
3.6
3.3
3.0
2.5
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.3
3.9
3.5
3.2
2.9
2.4
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.2
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.8
3.3
3.1
2.7
2.2
Age (Years)
4347
4852
5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.1
4.6
4.4
4.0
3.5
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.4
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.2
4.8
4.3
4.1
3.7
3.2
6.0
5.7
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.1
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.2
4.9
4.5
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.0
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.1
4.7
4.4
3.9
3.6
3.3
2.8
6.0
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.5
3.2
2.7
6.0
5.5
5.1
4.8
4.5
4.1
3.6
3.4
3.0
2.5
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.0
4.7
4.3
3.9
3.5
3.2
2.9
2.4
6.0
5.7
5.2
4.9
4.5
4.2
3.8
3.3
3.1
2.7
2.2
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.1
4.7
4.4
4.0
3.7
3.2
2.9
2.6
2.1
6.0
5.7
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.9
3.5
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.0
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.3
4.8
4.4
4.1
3.7
3.4
2.9
2.6
2.3
1.8
Table A12
Normative data for the M-WCST Perseveration errors stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.6
1.6
2.7
3.8
5.2
6.0
7.0
8.5
0.8
1.8
2.9
4.0
5.3
6.2
7.2
8.7
0.9
2.0
3.0
4.2
5.5
6.4
7.4
8.9
0.0
1.1
2.2
3.2
4.4
5.7
6.5
7.5
9.1
0.2
1.3
2.3
3.4
4.5
5.9
6.7
7.7
9.2
0.3
1.5
2.5
3.6
4.7
6.1
6.9
7.9
9.4
0.5
1.7
2.7
3.8
4.9
6.2
7.1
8.1
9.6
0.7
1.8
2.9
3.9
5.1
6.4
7.3
8.3
9.8
0.9
2.0
3.1
4.1
5.2
6.6
7.4
8.4
9.9
1.1
2.2
3.2
4.3
5.4
6.8
7.6
8.6
10.1
0.0
1.2
2.4
3.4
4.5
5.6
6.9
7.8
8.8
10.3
0.1
1.4
2.6
3.6
4.7
5.8
7.1
8.0
9.0
10.5
0.3
1.6
2.7
3.8
4.8
6.0
7.3
8.1
9.2
10.7
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.6
1.9
3.1
4.1
5.1
6.3
7.6
8.5
9.5
11.0
0.0
0.8
2.1
3.2
4.3
5.3
6.5
7.8
8.6
9.7
11.2
0.1
0.9
2.3
3.4
4.5
5.5
6.6
8.0
8.8
9.8
11.3
0.3
1.1
2.5
3.6
4.6
5.7
6.8
8.2
9.0
10.0
11.5
0.5
1.3
2.6
3.8
4.8
5.9
7.0
8.3
9.2
10.2
11.7
0.6
1.5
2.8
3.9
5.0
6.0
7.2
8.5
9.4
10.4
11.9
0.8
1.7
3.0
4.1
5.2
6.2
7.4
8.7
9.5
10.5
12.1
0.0
1.0
1.8
3.2
4.3
5.4
6.4
7.5
8.9
9.7
10.7
12.2
0.2
1.2
2.0
3.4
4.5
5.5
6.6
7.7
9.1
9.9
10.9
12.4
0.3
1.4
2.2
3.5
4.7
5.7
6.8
7.9
9.2
10.1
11.1
12.6
0.5
1.5
2.4
3.7
4.8
5.9
6.9
8.1
9.4
10.3
11.3
12.8
0.7
1.7
2.5
3.9
5.0
6.1
7.1
8.3
9.6
10.4
11.4
13.0
0.9
1.9
2.7
4.1
5.2
6.3
7.3
8.4
9.8
10.6
11.6
13.1
580
Table A13
Normative data for the M-WCST Perseveration errors stratified by age for BOLIVIA
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
0.0
1.4
3.1
4.8
6.6
8.8
10.1
11.8
14.2
0.2
2.0
3.7
5.4
7.2
9.3
10.7
12.3
14.7
0.7
2.5
4.2
5.9
7.7
9.9
11.2
12.8
15.3
1.2
3.1
4.8
6.4
8.3
10.4
11.8
13.4
15.8
0.0
1.8
3.6
5.3
7.0
8.8
11.0
12.3
13.9
16.4
0.2
2.3
4.1
5.8
7.5
9.3
11.5
12.8
14.5
16.9
0.7
2.9
4.7
6.4
8.1
9.9
12.0
13.4
15.0
17.4
0.0
1.2
3.4
5.2
6.9
8.6
10.4
12.6
13.9
15.5
18.0
0.4
1.8
3.9
5.8
7.5
9.1
11.0
13.1
14.5
16.1
18.5
1.0
2.3
4.5
6.3
8.0
9.7
11.5
13.7
15.0
16.6
19.1
1.5
2.9
5.0
6.8
8.5
10.2
12.0
14.2
15.5
17.2
19.6
0.4
2.1
3.4
5.6
7.4
9.1
10.8
12.6
14.7
16.1
17.7
20.1
1.0
2.6
3.9
6.1
7.9
9.6
11.3
13.1
15.3
16.6
18.2
20.7
Table A14
Normative data for the M-WCST Perseveration errors stratified by age for CHILE
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
0.1
1.2
2.3
3.6
5.0
5.9
7.0
8.7
0.3
1.4
2.5
3.8
5.2
6.1
7.2
8.8
0.4
1.6
2.7
3.9
5.4
6.3
7.4
9.0
0.6
1.8
2.9
4.1
5.6
6.5
7.6
9.2
0.8
2.0
3.1
4.3
5.8
6.7
7.8
9.4
1.0
2.1
3.3
4.5
6.0
6.9
8.0
9.6
0.0
1.2
2.3
3.5
4.7
6.1
7.1
8.1
9.8
0.1
1.4
2.5
3.7
4.9
6.3
7.2
8.3
10.0
0.3
1.6
2.7
3.8
5.1
6.5
7.4
8.5
10.2
0.5
1.8
2.9
4.0
5.3
6.7
7.6
8.7
10.3
0.7
1.9
3.1
4.2
5.4
6.9
7.8
8.9
10.5
0.9
2.1
3.3
4.4
5.6
7.1
8.0
9.1
10.7
1.1
2.3
3.5
4.6
5.8
7.3
8.2
9.3
10.9
581
Table A15
Normative data for the M-WCST Perseveration errors stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1.2
2.8
4.6
6.7
8.0
9.5
11.9
0.0
1.6
3.2
4.9
7.0
8.3
9.9
12.2
0.3
1.9
3.6
5.3
7.4
8.7
10.3
12.6
0.7
2.3
3.9
5.7
7.8
9.1
10.6
13.0
1.1
2.7
4.3
6.1
8.2
9.5
11.0
13.4
0.0
1.4
3.1
4.7
6.5
8.5
9.8
11.4
13.7
0.1
1.8
3.5
5.1
6.8
8.9
10.2
11.8
14.1
0.4
2.2
3.8
5.5
7.2
9.3
10.6
12.2
14.5
0.8
2.6
4.2
5.8
7.6
9.7
11.0
12.5
14.9
1.2
3.0
4.6
6.2
8.0
10.0
11.4
12.9
15.3
1.6
3.3
5.0
6.6
8.3
10.4
11.7
13.3
15.6
2.0
3.7
5.3
7.0
8.7
10.8
12.1
13.7
16.0
0.2
2.3
4.1
5.7
7.3
9.1
11.2
12.5
14.0
16.4
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1.6
3.3
4.9
6.6
8.7
10.0
11.6
13.9
0.2
2.0
3.6
5.3
7.0
9.1
10.4
12.0
14.3
0.6
2.4
4.0
5.6
7.4
9.5
10.8
12.3
14.7
1.0
2.8
4.4
6.0
7.8
9.9
11.2
12.7
15.1
1.4
3.1
4.8
6.4
8.1
10.2
11.5
13.1
15.4
1.8
3.5
5.1
6.8
8.5
10.6
11.9
13.5
15.8
0.1
2.1
3.9
5.5
7.1
8.9
11.0
12.3
13.8
16.2
0.4
2.5
4.3
5.9
7.5
9.3
11.4
12.7
14.2
16.6
0.8
2.9
4.6
6.3
7.9
9.7
11.7
13.0
14.6
16.9
1.2
3.3
5.0
6.7
8.3
10.0
12.1
13.4
15.0
17.3
0.3
1.6
3.6
5.4
7.0
8.7
10.4
12.5
13.8
15.4
17.7
0.6
1.9
4.0
5.8
7.4
9.0
10.8
12.9
14.2
15.7
18.1
1.0
2.3
4.4
6.2
7.8
9.4
11.2
13.2
14.6
16.1
18.5
Table A16
Normative data for the M-WCST Perseveration errors stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.9
2.4
4.0
5.9
7.1
8.5
10.7
1.2
2.7
4.3
6.2
7.4
8.8
11.0
1.5
3.0
4.6
6.5
7.7
9.1
11.3
0.3
1.8
3.3
4.9
6.8
8.0
9.4
11.6
0.6
2.1
3.6
5.2
7.1
8.3
9.7
11.9
0.9
2.4
3.9
5.5
7.4
8.6
10.1
12.2
1.2
2.7
4.2
5.8
7.7
8.9
10.4
12.5
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.1
8.0
9.2
10.7
12.8
0.2
1.9
3.3
4.8
6.4
8.4
9.6
11.0
13.1
0.5
2.2
3.7
5.1
6.8
8.7
9.9
11.3
13.4
0.9
2.5
4.0
5.5
7.1
9.0
10.2
11.6
13.8
1.2
2.8
4.3
5.8
7.4
9.3
10.5
11.9
14.1
1.5
3.1
4.6
6.1
7.7
9.6
10.8
12.2
14.4
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.9
2.8
4.4
5.9
7.4
9.0
10.9
12.1
13.5
15.7
1.2
3.1
4.7
6.2
7.7
9.3
11.2
12.4
13.8
16.0
0.3
1.5
3.4
5.0
6.5
8.0
9.6
11.5
12.7
14.2
16.3
0.6
1.8
3.7
5.3
6.8
8.3
9.9
11.8
13.0
14.5
16.6
0.9
2.1
4.0
5.6
7.1
8.6
10.2
12.2
13.3
14.8
16.9
1.2
2.4
4.3
6.0
7.4
8.9
10.5
12.5
13.7
15.1
17.2
0.1
1.5
2.7
4.7
6.3
7.8
9.2
10.9
12.8
14.0
15.4
17.5
0.4
1.9
3.1
5.0
6.6
8.1
9.6
11.2
13.1
14.3
15.7
17.9
0.7
2.2
3.4
5.3
6.9
8.4
9.9
11.5
13.4
14.6
16.0
18.2
1.0
2.5
3.7
5.6
7.2
8.7
10.2
11.8
13.7
14.9
16.3
18.5
1.4
2.8
4.0
5.9
7.5
9.0
10.5
12.1
14.0
15.2
16.6
18.8
1.7
3.1
4.3
6.2
7.8
9.3
10.8
12.4
14.3
15.5
16.9
19.1
2.0
3.4
4.6
6.5
8.1
9.6
11.1
12.7
14.6
15.8
17.3
19.4
582
Table A17
Normative data for the M-WCST Perseveration errors stratified by education levels for GUATEMALA
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.7
3.0
5.0
6.8
8.7
10.7
13.0
14.5
16.3
18.9
1.8
3.6
5.4
7.4
9.8
11.2
13.0
15.7
Table A18
Normative data for the M-WCST Perseveration errors stratified by education levels for HONDURAS
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1.2
2.5
4.5
6.2
7.8
9.3
11.0
13.0
14.3
15.8
18.0
1.9
3.6
5.2
6.7
8.4
10.4
11.7
13.2
15.4
583
Table A19
Normative data for the M-WCST Perseveration errors stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1.5
3.2
5.2
6.5
8.0
10.2
0.4
2.0
3.7
5.7
7.0
8.5
10.7
1.0
2.5
4.2
6.2
7.5
9.0
11.3
1.5
3.0
4.7
6.8
8.0
9.5
11.8
0.4
2.0
3.6
5.3
7.3
8.5
10.0
12.3
0.9
2.5
4.1
5.8
7.8
9.0
10.5
12.8
1.5
3.0
4.6
6.3
8.3
9.6
11.1
13.3
0.3
2.0
3.5
5.1
6.8
8.8
10.1
11.6
13.8
0.8
2.5
4.1
5.6
7.3
9.3
10.6
12.1
14.4
1.3
3.0
4.6
6.1
7.8
9.9
11.1
12.6
14.9
1.8
3.5
5.1
6.7
8.4
10.4
11.6
13.1
15.4
0.3
2.3
4.0
5.6
7.2
8.9
10.9
12.1
13.6
15.9
0.8
2.9
4.6
6.1
7.7
9.4
11.4
12.7
14.2
16.4
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.4
2.0
3.5
5.2
7.3
8.5
10.0
12.3
0.9
2.5
4.1
5.8
7.8
9.0
10.5
12.8
1.4
3.0
4.6
6.3
8.3
9.5
11.0
13.3
0.3
2.0
3.5
5.1
6.8
8.8
10.1
11.6
13.8
0.8
2.5
4.0
5.6
7.3
9.3
10.6
12.1
14.3
1.3
3.0
4.6
6.1
7.8
9.8
11.1
12.6
14.9
1.8
3.5
5.1
6.6
8.3
10.3
11.6
13.1
15.4
0.3
2.3
4.0
5.6
7.2
8.9
10.9
12.1
13.6
15.9
0.8
2.8
4.5
6.1
7.7
9.4
11.4
12.6
14.1
16.4
0.1
1.3
3.4
5.1
6.6
8.2
9.9
11.9
13.2
14.7
16.9
0.6
1.9
3.9
5.6
7.1
8.7
10.4
12.4
13.7
15.2
17.4
1.1
2.4
4.4
6.1
7.7
9.2
10.9
12.9
14.2
15.7
18.0
0.1
1.6
2.9
4.9
6.6
8.2
9.7
11.4
13.4
14.7
16.2
18.5
Table A20
Normative data for the M-WCST Perseveration errors stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.7
1.4
2.0
2.6
3.3
4.0
4.5
5.1
6.0
0.2
1.0
1.7
2.3
2.9
3.6
4.4
4.9
5.5
6.4
0.1
0.6
1.4
2.0
2.6
3.3
3.9
4.7
5.2
5.8
6.7
0.4
0.9
1.7
2.4
3.0
3.6
4.3
5.0
5.5
6.1
7.0
0.1
0.7
1.2
2.0
2.7
3.3
3.9
4.6
5.4
5.9
6.5
7.4
0.5
1.1
1.6
2.4
3.0
3.6
4.3
4.9
5.7
6.2
6.8
7.7
0.8
1.4
1.9
2.7
3.3
4.0
4.6
5.3
6.0
6.5
7.1
8.0
0.3
1.1
1.7
2.2
3.0
3.7
4.3
4.9
5.6
6.4
6.9
7.5
8.3
0.6
1.5
2.1
2.6
3.3
4.0
4.6
5.2
5.9
6.7
7.2
7.8
8.7
0.9
1.8
2.4
2.9
3.7
4.3
5.0
5.6
6.2
7.0
7.5
8.1
9.0
1.2
2.1
2.7
3.2
4.0
4.7
5.3
5.9
6.6
7.4
7.9
8.5
9.3
1.6
2.5
3.1
3.6
4.3
5.0
5.6
6.2
6.9
7.7
8.2
8.8
9.7
1.9
2.8
3.4
3.9
4.7
5.3
6.0
6.6
7.2
8.0
8.5
9.1
10.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.6
1.5
2.1
2.6
3.4
4.1
4.7
5.3
6.0
6.8
7.2
7.8
8.7
1.0
1.9
2.4
2.9
3.7
4.4
5.0
5.6
6.3
7.1
7.6
8.2
9.1
1.3
2.2
2.8
3.3
4.1
4.7
5.3
6.0
6.6
7.4
7.9
8.5
9.4
1.6
2.5
3.1
3.6
4.4
5.1
5.7
6.3
7.0
7.8
8.2
8.8
9.7
2.0
2.8
3.4
3.9
4.7
5.4
6.0
6.6
7.3
8.1
8.6
9.2
10.1
2.3
3.2
3.8
4.3
5.1
5.7
6.3
7.0
7.6
8.4
8.9
9.5
10.4
2.6
3.5
4.1
4.6
5.4
6.1
6.7
7.3
8.0
8.7
9.2
9.8
10.7
3.0
3.8
4.4
4.9
5.7
6.4
7.0
7.6
8.3
9.1
9.6
10.2
11.1
3.3
4.2
4.8
5.3
6.1
6.7
7.3
8.0
8.6
9.4
9.9
10.5
11.4
3.6
4.5
5.1
5.6
6.4
7.1
7.7
8.3
9.0
9.7
10.2
10.8
11.7
4.0
4.8
5.4
5.9
6.7
7.4
8.0
8.6
9.3
10.1
10.6
11.2
12.1
4.3
5.2
5.8
6.3
7.1
7.7
8.3
9.0
9.6
10.4
10.9
11.5
12.4
4.6
5.5
6.1
6.6
7.4
8.1
8.7
9.3
10.0
10.7
11.2
11.8
12.7
584
Table A21
Normative data for the M-WCST Perseveration errors stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.9
2.0
3.2
4.6
5.4
6.5
8.0
0.3
1.4
2.5
3.7
5.0
5.9
7.0
8.5
0.8
1.9
3.0
4.1
5.5
6.4
7.4
9.0
0.1
1.3
2.4
3.4
4.6
6.0
6.9
7.9
9.5
0.6
1.7
2.8
3.9
5.1
6.5
7.4
8.4
10.0
1.1
2.2
3.3
4.4
5.6
7.0
7.8
8.9
10.5
0.1
1.5
2.7
3.8
4.9
6.1
7.4
8.3
9.4
10.9
0.6
2.0
3.2
4.3
5.4
6.5
7.9
8.8
9.8
11.4
0.2
1.1
2.5
3.7
4.8
5.8
7.0
8.4
9.3
10.3
11.9
0.7
1.6
3.0
4.1
5.2
6.3
7.5
8.9
9.8
10.8
12.4
0.1
1.2
2.1
3.5
4.6
5.7
6.8
8.0
9.4
10.2
11.3
12.9
0.6
1.7
2.5
3.9
5.1
6.2
7.3
8.5
9.9
10.7
11.8
13.3
1.1
2.2
3.0
4.4
5.6
6.7
7.8
8.9
10.3
11.2
12.2
13.8
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1.0
2.2
3.3
4.3
5.5
6.9
7.8
8.8
10.4
0.1
1.5
2.7
3.7
4.8
6.0
7.4
8.3
9.3
10.9
0.6
2.0
3.1
4.2
5.3
6.5
7.9
8.7
9.8
11.4
0.2
1.0
2.4
3.6
4.7
5.8
7.0
8.4
9.2
10.3
11.8
0.7
1.5
2.9
4.1
5.2
6.3
7.4
8.8
9.7
10.8
12.3
0.1
1.1
2.0
3.4
4.6
5.7
6.8
7.9
9.3
10.2
11.2
12.8
0.6
1.6
2.5
3.9
5.1
6.1
7.2
8.4
9.8
10.7
11.7
13.3
1.1
2.1
3.0
4.4
5.5
6.6
7.7
8.9
10.3
11.2
12.2
13.8
1.5
2.6
3.5
4.8
6.0
7.1
8.2
9.4
10.8
11.6
12.7
14.2
0.5
2.0
3.1
3.9
5.3
6.5
7.6
8.7
9.8
11.2
12.1
13.2
14.7
0.9
2.5
3.5
4.4
5.8
7.0
8.1
9.2
10.3
11.7
12.6
13.6
15.2
1.4
3.0
4.0
4.9
6.3
7.5
8.5
9.6
10.8
12.2
13.1
14.1
15.7
1.9
3.5
4.5
5.4
6.8
7.9
9.0
10.1
11.3
12.7
13.6
14.6
16.2
Table A22
Normative data for the M-WCST Perseveration errors stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1.2
3.0
5.1
6.4
8.0
10.4
1.6
3.4
5.5
6.9
8.5
10.8
0.5
2.1
3.9
6.0
7.3
8.9
11.3
0.9
2.6
4.4
6.5
7.8
9.4
11.8
1.4
3.1
4.9
7.0
8.3
9.9
12.3
0.2
1.9
3.5
5.3
7.4
8.8
10.4
12.7
0.7
2.4
4.0
5.8
7.9
9.2
10.8
13.2
1.2
2.8
4.5
6.3
8.4
9.7
11.3
13.7
1.7
3.3
5.0
6.8
8.9
10.2
11.8
14.2
0.4
2.1
3.8
5.4
7.2
9.3
10.7
12.3
14.6
0.8
2.6
4.3
5.9
7.7
9.8
11.1
12.7
15.1
1.3
3.1
4.7
6.4
8.2
10.3
11.6
13.2
15.6
1.8
3.6
5.2
6.9
8.7
10.8
12.1
13.7
16.1
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.1
1.8
3.4
5.2
7.3
8.6
10.2
12.6
0.6
2.2
3.9
5.7
7.8
9.1
10.7
13.1
1.1
2.7
4.4
6.2
8.3
9.6
11.2
13.6
1.5
3.2
4.8
6.6
8.7
10.1
11.7
14.0
0.2
2.0
3.7
5.3
7.1
9.2
10.5
12.1
14.5
0.7
2.5
4.1
5.8
7.6
9.7
11.0
12.6
15.0
1.2
3.0
4.6
6.3
8.1
10.2
11.5
13.1
15.5
1.7
3.4
5.1
6.7
8.5
10.6
12.0
13.6
15.9
2.1
3.9
5.6
7.2
9.0
11.1
12.4
14.0
16.4
0.5
2.6
4.4
6.0
7.7
9.5
11.6
12.9
14.5
16.9
1.0
3.1
4.9
6.5
8.2
10.0
12.1
13.4
15.0
17.4
0.1
1.4
3.6
5.3
7.0
8.6
10.4
12.5
13.9
15.5
17.8
0.6
1.9
4.0
5.8
7.5
9.1
10.9
13.0
14.3
15.9
18.3
585
Table A23
Normative data for the M-WCST total errors stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.8
2.3
3.7
5.1
6.6
8.4
9.6
10.9
13.0
1.1
2.6
4.0
5.4
6.9
8.7
9.8
11.2
13.2
1.3
2.8
4.2
5.6
7.2
9.0
10.1
11.4
13.5
1.6
3.1
4.5
5.9
7.4
9.2
10.4
11.7
13.7
1.8
3.4
4.8
6.2
7.7
9.5
10.6
12.0
14.0
0.3
2.1
3.6
5.0
6.4
8.0
9.8
10.9
12.2
14.3
0.6
2.4
3.9
5.3
6.7
8.2
10.0
11.1
12.5
14.5
0.8
2.6
4.1
5.5
7.0
8.5
10.3
11.4
12.8
14.8
1.1
2.9
4.4
5.8
7.2
8.7
10.5
11.7
13.0
15.0
0.2
1.3
3.1
4.7
6.1
7.5
9.0
10.8
11.9
13.3
15.3
0.5
1.6
3.4
4.9
6.3
7.7
9.3
11.1
12.2
13.5
15.6
0.7
1.9
3.7
5.2
6.6
8.0
9.5
11.3
12.4
13.8
15.8
1.0
2.1
3.9
5.4
6.8
8.3
9.8
11.6
12.7
14.1
16.1
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.5
1.9
3.0
4.8
6.3
7.7
9.1
10.6
12.4
13.6
14.9
17.0
0.8
2.1
3.2
5.1
6.6
8.0
9.4
10.9
12.7
13.8
15.2
17.2
1.0
2.4
3.5
5.3
6.8
8.2
9.6
11.2
13.0
14.1
15.4
17.5
1.3
2.6
3.8
5.6
7.1
8.5
9.9
11.4
13.2
14.4
15.7
17.7
1.6
2.9
4.0
5.8
7.4
8.8
10.2
11.7
13.5
14.6
16.0
18.0
1.8
3.2
4.3
6.1
7.6
9.0
10.4
11.9
13.8
14.9
16.2
18.3
2.1
3.4
4.6
6.4
7.9
9.3
10.7
12.2
14.0
15.1
16.5
18.5
0.3
2.3
3.7
4.8
6.6
8.1
9.5
11.0
12.5
14.3
15.4
16.8
18.8
0.6
2.6
3.9
5.1
6.9
8.4
9.8
11.2
12.7
14.5
15.7
17.0
19.0
0.8
2.9
4.2
5.3
7.1
8.7
10.1
11.5
13.0
14.8
15.9
17.3
19.3
1.1
3.1
4.5
5.6
7.4
8.9
10.3
11.7
13.3
15.1
16.2
17.5
19.6
1.4
3.4
4.7
5.9
7.7
9.2
10.6
12.0
13.5
15.3
16.4
17.8
19.8
1.6
3.6
5.0
6.1
7.9
9.4
10.8
12.3
13.8
15.6
16.7
18.1
20.1
Table A24
Normative data for the M-WCST total errors stratified by age for BOLIVIA
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
1.4
3.1
4.8
6.6
8.8
10.1
11.8
14.2
0.2
2.0
3.7
5.4
7.2
9.3
10.7
12.3
14.7
0.7
2.5
4.2
5.9
7.7
9.9
11.2
12.8
15.3
1.2
3.1
4.8
6.4
8.3
10.4
11.8
13.4
15.8
1.8
3.6
5.3
7.0
8.8
11.0
12.3
13.9
16.4
0.2
2.3
4.1
5.8
7.5
9.3
11.5
12.8
14.5
16.9
0.7
2.9
4.7
6.4
8.1
9.9
12.0
13.4
15.0
17.4
1.2
3.4
5.2
6.9
8.6
10.4
12.6
13.9
15.5
18.0
0.4
1.8
3.9
5.8
7.5
9.1
11.0
13.1
14.5
16.1
18.5
1.0
2.3
4.5
6.3
8.0
9.7
11.5
13.7
15.0
16.6
19.1
1.5
2.9
5.0
6.8
8.5
10.2
12.0
14.2
15.5
17.2
19.6
0.4
2.1
3.4
5.6
7.4
9.1
10.8
12.6
14.7
16.1
17.7
20.1
1.0
2.6
3.9
6.1
7.9
9.6
11.3
13.1
15.3
16.6
18.2
20.7
586
Table A25
Normative data for the M-WCST total errors stratified by age for CHILE
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
0.1
1.2
2.3
3.6
5.0
5.9
7.0
8.7
0.3
1.4
2.5
3.8
5.2
6.1
7.2
8.8
0.4
1.6
2.7
3.9
5.4
6.3
7.4
9.0
0.6
1.8
2.9
4.1
5.6
6.5
7.6
9.2
0.8
2.0
3.1
4.3
5.8
6.7
7.8
9.4
1.0
2.1
3.3
4.5
6.0
6.9
8.0
9.6
1.2
2.3
3.5
4.7
6.1
7.1
8.1
9.8
0.1
1.4
2.5
3.7
4.9
6.3
7.2
8.3
10.0
0.3
1.6
2.7
3.8
5.1
6.5
7.4
8.5
10.2
0.5
1.8
2.9
4.0
5.3
6.7
7.6
8.7
10.3
0.7
1.9
3.1
4.2
5.4
6.9
7.8
8.9
10.5
0.9
2.1
3.3
4.4
5.6
7.1
8.0
9.1
10.7
1.1
2.3
3.5
4.6
5.8
7.3
8.2
9.3
10.9
Table A26
Normative data for the M-WCST total errors stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.6
3.1
5.4
7.7
10.2
13.1
15.0
17.2
20.5
1.2
3.7
6.0
8.3
10.8
13.8
15.6
17.8
21.2
1.9
4.4
6.7
9.0
11.5
14.4
16.3
18.5
21.8
2.6
5.1
7.4
9.7
12.2
15.1
17.0
19.2
22.5
0.3
3.2
5.7
8.0
10.3
12.8
15.8
17.6
19.8
23.1
0.9
3.9
6.4
8.7
11.0
13.5
16.4
18.3
20.5
23.8
1.6
4.5
7.0
9.3
11.7
14.1
17.1
18.9
21.2
24.5
0.4
2.3
5.2
7.7
10.0
12.3
14.8
17.8
19.6
21.8
25.1
1.1
2.9
5.9
8.4
10.7
13.0
15.5
18.4
20.3
22.5
25.8
1.7
3.6
6.5
9.0
11.3
13.6
16.1
19.1
20.9
23.1
26.5
0.2
2.4
4.2
7.2
9.7
12.0
14.3
16.8
19.7
21.6
23.8
27.1
0.8
3.1
4.9
7.9
10.3
12.7
15.0
17.5
20.4
22.2
24.5
27.8
1.5
3.7
5.6
8.5
11.0
13.3
15.6
18.1
21.1
22.9
25.1
28.4
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1.2
4.2
6.7
9.0
11.3
13.8
16.7
18.6
20.8
24.1
0.1
1.9
4.9
7.4
9.7
12.0
14.5
17.4
19.3
21.5
24.8
0.7
2.6
5.5
8.0
10.3
12.6
15.1
18.1
19.9
22.1
25.5
1.4
3.2
6.2
8.7
11.0
13.3
15.8
18.7
20.6
22.8
26.1
2.1
3.9
6.8
9.3
11.6
14.0
16.4
19.4
21.2
23.5
26.8
0.5
2.7
4.6
7.5
10.0
12.3
14.6
17.1
20.1
21.9
24.1
27.4
1.2
3.4
5.2
8.2
10.7
13.0
15.3
17.8
20.7
22.6
24.8
28.1
1.8
4.0
5.9
8.8
11.3
13.6
15.9
18.4
21.4
23.2
25.4
28.8
2.5
4.7
6.5
9.5
12.0
14.3
16.6
19.1
22.0
23.9
26.1
29.4
3.1
5.4
7.2
10.2
12.6
15.0
17.3
19.8
22.7
24.6
26.8
30.1
0.5
3.8
6.0
7.9
10.8
13.3
15.6
17.9
20.4
23.4
25.2
27.4
30.7
1.2
4.5
6.7
8.5
11.5
14.0
16.3
18.6
21.1
24.0
25.9
28.1
31.4
1.8
5.1
7.3
9.2
12.1
14.6
16.9
19.2
21.7
24.7
26.5
28.8
32.1
587
Table A27
Normative data for the M-WCST total errors stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1.7
4.2
6.7
9.4
12.7
14.7
17.1
20.7
2.2
4.7
7.2
9.9
13.1
15.2
17.6
21.2
2.7
5.2
7.7
10.4
13.6
15.7
18.1
21.7
0.4
3.2
5.7
8.2
10.9
14.1
16.2
18.6
22.2
0.9
3.7
6.2
8.7
11.4
14.6
16.7
19.1
22.7
1.4
4.2
6.7
9.2
11.9
15.1
17.2
19.6
23.2
1.9
4.7
7.2
9.7
12.4
15.6
17.7
20.1
23.7
2.4
5.2
7.7
10.2
12.9
16.1
18.1
20.6
24.2
2.9
5.7
8.2
10.7
13.4
16.6
18.6
21.1
24.7
0.2
3.4
6.2
8.7
11.2
13.9
17.1
19.1
21.6
25.2
0.7
3.9
6.6
9.2
11.7
14.4
17.6
19.6
22.1
25.7
1.2
4.4
7.1
9.7
12.2
14.9
18.1
20.1
22.6
26.2
1.7
4.9
7.6
10.2
12.7
15.4
18.6
20.6
23.1
26.7
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
2.7
5.1
7.2
10.4
13.1
15.6
18.1
20.9
24.1
26.1
28.5
32.1
3.2
5.6
7.6
10.9
13.6
16.1
18.6
21.3
24.6
26.6
29.0
32.6
0.1
3.7
6.1
8.1
11.4
14.1
16.6
19.1
21.8
25.1
27.1
29.5
33.1
0.6
4.2
6.6
8.6
11.9
14.6
17.1
19.6
22.3
25.6
27.6
30.0
33.6
1.1
4.7
7.1
9.1
12.4
15.1
17.6
20.1
22.8
26.1
28.1
30.5
34.1
1.6
5.2
7.6
9.6
12.9
15.6
18.1
20.6
23.3
26.6
28.6
31.0
34.6
2.1
5.7
8.1
10.1
13.4
16.1
18.6
21.1
23.8
27.1
29.1
31.5
35.1
2.6
6.2
8.6
10.6
13.9
16.6
19.1
21.6
24.3
27.6
29.6
32.0
35.6
3.1
6.7
9.1
11.1
14.4
17.1
19.6
22.1
24.8
28.1
30.1
32.5
36.1
3.6
7.2
9.6
11.6
14.9
17.6
20.1
22.6
25.3
28.6
30.6
33.0
36.6
4.1
7.7
10.1
12.1
15.4
18.1
20.6
23.1
25.8
29.1
31.1
33.5
37.1
4.6
8.2
10.6
12.6
15.8
18.6
21.1
23.6
26.3
29.5
31.6
34.0
37.6
5.1
8.7
11.1
13.1
16.3
19.1
21.6
24.1
26.8
30.0
32.1
34.5
38.1
Table A28
Normative data for the M-WCST total errors stratified by education levels for GUATEMALA
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
2.1
4.5
6.5
9.7
12.4
14.9
17.4
20.0
23.2
25.2
27.6
31.2
2.2
4.9
7.4
9.8
12.5
15.7
17.7
20.1
23.7
588
Table A29
Normative data for the M-WCST total errors stratified by education levels for HONDURAS
Percentile
1.0
4.4
6.7
8.6
11.6
14.1
16.5
18.9
21.4
24.4
26.3
28.6
32.0
1.5
3.4
6.4
8.9
11.3
13.7
16.2
19.2
21.1
23.4
26.8
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
Table A30
Normative data for the M-WCST total errors stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.7
3.3
5.9
8.7
12.0
14.0
16.5
20.2
1.6
4.2
6.8
9.6
12.9
14.9
17.4
21.1
2.5
5.1
7.7
10.5
13.8
15.8
18.3
22.0
0.7
3.4
6.0
8.6
11.4
14.7
16.7
19.2
22.9
1.6
4.4
6.9
9.5
12.3
15.6
17.7
20.1
23.8
2.5
5.3
7.8
10.4
13.2
16.5
18.6
21.0
24.8
0.1
3.4
6.2
8.8
11.3
14.1
17.4
19.5
22.0
25.7
1.0
4.3
7.1
9.7
12.2
15.0
18.3
20.4
22.9
26.6
1.9
5.2
8.0
10.6
13.1
15.9
19.2
21.3
23.8
27.5
0.8
2.8
6.1
8.9
11.5
14.1
16.8
20.1
22.2
24.7
28.4
1.7
3.7
7.0
9.8
12.4
15.0
17.8
21.1
23.1
25.6
29.3
0.1
2.6
4.6
7.9
10.7
13.3
15.9
18.7
22.0
24.0
26.5
30.2
1.0
3.5
5.5
8.8
11.6
14.2
16.8
19.6
22.9
24.9
27.4
31.1
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
2.0
4.7
7.3
9.9
12.7
16.0
18.0
20.5
24.2
2.9
5.6
8.2
10.8
13.6
16.9
18.9
21.4
25.1
0.5
3.8
6.6
9.1
11.7
14.5
17.8
19.9
22.3
26.0
1.4
4.7
7.5
10.0
12.6
15.4
18.7
20.8
23.2
27.0
0.2
2.3
5.6
8.4
11.0
13.5
16.3
19.6
21.7
24.2
27.9
1.1
3.2
6.5
9.3
11.9
14.4
17.2
20.5
22.6
25.1
28.8
2.0
4.1
7.4
10.2
12.8
15.3
18.1
21.4
23.5
26.0
29.7
0.5
3.0
5.0
8.3
11.1
13.7
16.3
19.0
22.3
24.4
26.9
30.6
1.4
3.9
5.9
9.2
12.0
14.6
17.2
20.0
23.3
25.3
27.8
31.5
2.3
4.8
6.8
10.1
12.9
15.5
18.1
20.9
24.2
26.2
28.7
32.4
3.2
5.7
7.7
11.0
13.8
16.4
19.0
21.8
25.1
27.1
29.6
33.3
0.4
4.1
6.6
8.7
12.0
14.7
17.3
19.9
22.7
26.0
28.0
30.5
34.2
1.3
5.0
7.5
9.6
12.9
15.6
18.2
20.8
23.6
26.9
29.0
31.4
35.1
589
Table A31
Normative data for the M-WCST total errors stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1.5
2.8
4.0
5.2
6.5
8.1
9.0
10.2
12.0
0.8
2.3
3.6
4.8
6.0
7.4
8.9
9.9
11.0
12.8
0.6
1.6
3.1
4.5
5.7
6.9
8.2
9.7
10.7
11.9
13.6
0.3
1.5
2.4
4.0
5.3
6.5
7.7
9.0
10.6
11.6
12.7
14.5
1.1
2.3
3.3
4.8
6.1
7.3
8.6
9.9
11.4
12.4
13.6
15.3
0.2
2.0
3.1
4.1
5.7
7.0
8.2
9.4
10.7
12.3
13.2
14.4
16.1
1.0
2.8
4.0
4.9
6.5
7.8
9.0
10.2
11.5
13.1
14.1
15.2
17.0
1.9
3.6
4.8
5.8
7.3
8.6
9.9
11.1
12.4
13.9
14.9
16.1
17.8
2.7
4.5
5.6
6.6
8.2
9.5
10.7
11.9
13.2
14.8
15.7
16.9
18.7
3.6
5.3
6.5
7.4
9.0
10.3
11.5
12.7
14.0
15.6
16.6
17.7
19.5
4.4
6.1
7.3
8.3
9.8
11.1
12.4
13.6
14.9
16.4
17.4
18.6
20.3
5.2
7.0
8.1
9.1
10.7
12.0
13.2
14.4
15.7
17.3
18.2
19.4
21.2
6.1
7.8
9.0
10.0
11.5
12.8
14.0
15.2
16.6
18.1
19.1
20.3
22.0
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.1
1.8
3.0
3.9
5.5
6.8
8.0
9.2
10.5
12.1
13.1
14.2
16.0
0.9
2.6
3.8
4.8
6.3
7.6
8.9
10.1
11.4
12.9
13.9
15.1
16.8
1.7
3.5
4.6
5.6
7.2
8.5
9.7
10.9
12.2
13.8
14.7
15.9
17.7
2.6
4.3
5.5
6.4
8.0
9.3
10.5
11.7
13.1
14.6
15.6
16.7
18.5
3.4
5.1
6.3
7.3
8.8
10.2
11.4
12.6
13.9
15.4
16.4
17.6
19.3
4.2
6.0
7.2
8.1
9.7
11.0
12.2
13.4
14.7
16.3
17.3
18.4
20.2
5.1
6.8
8.0
9.0
10.5
11.8
13.0
14.3
15.6
17.1
18.1
19.3
21.0
5.9
7.7
8.8
9.8
11.3
12.7
13.9
15.1
16.4
18.0
18.9
20.1
21.8
6.7
8.5
9.7
10.6
12.2
13.5
14.7
15.9
17.2
18.8
19.8
20.9
22.7
7.6
9.3
10.5
11.5
13.0
14.3
15.5
16.8
18.1
19.6
20.6
21.8
23.5
8.4
10.2
11.3
12.3
13.9
15.2
16.4
17.6
18.9
20.5
21.4
22.6
24.4
9.3
11.0
12.2
13.1
14.7
16.0
17.2
18.4
19.7
21.3
22.3
23.4
25.2
10.1
11.8
13.0
14.0
15.5
16.8
18.1
19.3
20.6
22.1
23.1
24.3
26.0
Table A32
Normative data for the M-WCST total errors stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1.5
3.7
5.8
7.8
10.1
12.7
14.4
16.4
19.3
2.4
4.7
6.7
8.8
11.0
13.7
15.3
17.3
20.3
0.8
3.4
5.6
7.7
9.8
12.0
14.7
16.3
18.3
21.3
0.1
1.7
4.4
6.6
8.7
10.8
13.0
15.6
17.3
19.3
22.3
1.1
2.7
5.4
7.6
9.7
11.7
14.0
16.6
18.3
20.3
23.2
0.1
2.0
3.7
6.3
8.6
10.6
12.7
14.9
17.6
19.2
21.2
24.2
1.0
3.0
4.7
7.3
9.5
11.6
13.7
15.9
18.6
20.2
22.2
25.2
2.0
4.0
5.6
8.3
10.5
12.6
14.7
16.9
19.5
21.2
23.2
26.2
3.0
5.0
6.6
9.3
11.5
13.6
15.6
17.9
20.5
22.2
24.2
27.1
1.0
4.0
5.9
7.6
10.2
12.5
14.5
16.6
18.8
21.5
23.1
25.1
28.1
1.9
4.9
6.9
8.6
11.2
13.4
15.5
17.6
19.8
22.5
24.1
26.1
29.1
2.9
5.9
7.9
9.5
12.2
14.4
16.5
18.6
20.8
23.4
25.1
27.1
30.1
3.9
6.9
8.9
10.5
13.2
15.4
17.5
19.5
21.8
24.4
26.1
28.0
31.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1.7
3.3
6.0
8.2
10.3
12.3
14.6
17.2
18.9
20.8
23.8
0.6
2.6
4.3
6.9
9.2
11.2
13.3
15.5
18.2
19.8
21.8
24.8
1.6
3.6
5.3
7.9
10.1
12.2
14.3
16.5
19.2
20.8
22.8
25.8
2.6
4.6
6.2
8.9
11.1
13.2
15.3
17.5
20.1
21.8
23.8
26.8
0.6
3.6
5.6
7.2
9.9
12.1
14.2
16.2
18.5
21.1
22.8
24.7
27.7
1.6
4.5
6.5
8.2
10.8
13.1
15.1
17.2
19.4
22.1
23.7
25.7
28.7
2.5
5.5
7.5
9.2
11.8
14.0
16.1
18.2
20.4
23.1
24.7
26.7
29.7
3.5
6.5
8.5
10.1
12.8
15.0
17.1
19.2
21.4
24.0
25.7
27.7
30.6
4.5
7.5
9.5
11.1
13.8
16.0
18.1
20.1
22.4
25.0
26.7
28.6
31.6
5.5
8.4
10.4
12.1
14.7
17.0
19.0
21.1
23.3
26.0
27.6
29.6
32.6
6.4
9.4
11.4
13.1
15.7
17.9
20.0
22.1
24.3
27.0
28.6
30.6
33.6
7.4
10.4
12.4
14.0
16.7
18.9
21.0
23.1
25.3
27.9
29.6
31.6
34.5
8.4
11.4
13.4
15.0
17.7
19.9
22.0
24.0
26.3
28.9
30.6
32.5
35.5
590
Table A33
Normative data for the M-WCST total errors stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
2.1
4.4
6.9
9.8
11.6
13.8
17.1
0.8
3.1
5.3
7.8
10.7
12.6
14.8
18.1
1.7
4.0
6.3
8.8
11.7
13.5
15.7
19.0
0.2
2.7
4.9
7.2
9.7
12.6
14.5
16.6
19.9
1.1
3.6
5.9
8.2
10.6
13.6
15.4
17.6
20.9
2.1
4.5
6.8
9.1
11.6
14.5
16.3
18.5
21.8
0.1
3.0
5.5
7.8
10.1
12.5
15.5
17.3
19.5
22.8
1.0
4.0
6.4
8.7
11.0
13.5
16.4
18.2
20.4
23.7
0.2
2.0
4.9
7.4
9.7
11.9
14.4
17.3
19.2
21.4
24.7
1.1
2.9
5.9
8.3
10.6
12.9
15.4
18.3
20.1
22.3
25.6
2.0
3.9
6.8
9.3
11.5
13.8
16.3
19.2
21.1
23.3
26.5
0.8
3.0
4.8
7.7
10.2
12.5
14.8
17.2
20.2
22.0
24.2
27.5
1.7
3.9
5.8
8.7
11.1
13.4
15.7
18.2
21.1
22.9
25.1
28.4
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
0.3
2.8
5.1
7.3
9.8
12.7
14.6
16.8
20.1
1.2
3.7
6.0
8.3
10.8
13.7
15.5
17.7
21.0
2.2
4.7
6.9
9.2
11.7
14.6
16.5
18.6
21.9
0.2
3.1
5.6
7.9
10.2
12.6
15.6
17.4
19.6
22.9
1.1
4.1
6.5
8.8
11.1
13.6
16.5
18.3
20.5
23.8
0.3
2.1
5.0
7.5
9.8
12.1
14.5
17.5
19.3
21.5
24.8
1.2
3.0
6.0
8.4
10.7
13.0
15.5
18.4
20.2
22.4
25.7
2.1
4.0
6.9
9.4
11.7
13.9
16.4
19.3
21.2
23.4
26.7
0.9
3.1
4.9
7.8
10.3
12.6
14.9
17.4
20.3
22.1
24.3
27.6
1.8
4.0
5.9
8.8
11.3
13.5
15.8
18.3
21.2
23.1
25.2
28.5
2.8
5.0
6.8
9.7
12.2
14.5
16.8
19.2
22.2
24.0
26.2
29.5
0.4
3.7
5.9
7.8
10.7
13.1
15.4
17.7
20.2
23.1
24.9
27.1
30.4
1.4
4.7
6.9
8.7
11.6
14.1
16.4
18.7
21.1
24.1
25.9
28.1
31.4
591

DOI:10.3233/NRE-151281
IOS Press
Stroop Color-Word Interference Test:

D. Riveraa , P.B. Perrinb , L.F. Stevensc , M.T. Garzad , C. Weile , C.P. Sarachof , W. Rodrguezg ,
Y. Rodrguez-Agudeloh , B. Rabagoi , G. Weilerj , C. Garca de la Cadenak , M. Longonil ,
C. Martnezm , N. Ocampo-Barban , A. Aliagao , J. Galarza-del-Angelp , A. Guerraq ,
L. Esenarror and J.C. Arango-Lasprillas,a,
a Faculty

of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA
c Hunter Holmes McGuire Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Richmond, VA, USA
d Facultad de Psicologa Universidad Aut
e Universidad Dr. Jos
f CETYS Universidad, Mexicali, Mexico
j Instituto de Prevenci
k Departamento de Psicologa, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala
l Clnica de rehabilitaci
m Departamento de Medicina de Rehabilitaci
n Fundaci
o Servicio M
p Universidad Aut
q Departamento de Psicologa, Universidad de Camag
r Instituto de Neuropsicologa y Demencias, Lima, Peru
s IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain
b Department
Abstract.
OBJECTIVE: To generate normative data on the Stroop Test across 11 countries in Latin America, with country-specific
adjustments for gender, age, and education, where appropriate.
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and, Puerto Rico. Each subject was administered the Stroop Test, as part of a
larger neuropsychological battery. A standardized five-step statistical procedure was used to generate the norms.
Address

Ph.D., IKERBASQUE Research Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Deusto, IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for
Science, Bilbao, Spain. Tel.: +34 804 859 4329; E-mail: jcarango@
deusto.es.
592
D. Rivera et al. / Normative data for the Latin American Spanish speaking adult population
RESULTS: The final multiple linear regression models explained 1436% of the variance in Stroop Word scores, 1241% of
the variance in the Stoop Color, 1436% of the variance in the Stroop Word-Color scores, and 415% of the variance in Stroop
Interference scores. Although t-tests showed significant differences between men and women on the Stroop test, none of the
countries had an effect size larger than 0.3. As a result, gender-adjusted norms were not generated.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first normative multicenter study conducted in Latin America to create norms for the Stoop Test
in a Spanish-Speaking sample. This study will therefore have important implications for the future of neuropsychology research
and practice throughout the region.
Keywords: Normative data, Stroop Color-Word Interference Test, reference values, Latin America, selective attention,
executive function
1. Introduction
The Stroop Test is an executive functioning measure
of selective attention, cognitive flexibility, cognitive
inhibition, and information processing speed (Bryan &
Luszcz, 2000; Rosselli et al., 2002; Strauss, Sherman, &
Spreen, 2006; Van der Elst, Van Boxtel, Van Breukelen,
& Jolles, 2006). The test was originally developed by
John Ridley Stoop in 1935, and since then several versions of the Stroop Test have been created and are
commercially available (Strauss et al., 2006), including
the Victoria version (Regard, 1981), the Comalli version
(Comalli, Wapner, & Werner, 1962), and the Golden
version (Golden, 1978; Golden & Freshwater, 2002).
Stroop tasks are also included in the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (Delis, Kaplan, & Kramer, 2001)
and the Cognitive Assessment System (Naglieri & Das,
1997) batteries (Strauss et al., 2006). These different
versions tend to vary on number of items, number of
colors used, and use of colored patches/dots vs. colored
Xs (Strauss et al., 2006).
Various psychological mechanisms have been found
to underlie the Stroop task, including information processing speed, working memory, semantic activation,
and the ability to strengthen one response characteristic
(Strauss et al., 2006). Areas of the brain involved in this
task include the inferior frontal, dorsolateral prefrontal,
and anterior cingulated cortices (Egner & Hirsch, 2005;
Harrison et al., 2005; Peterson et al., 1999). Increased
Stroop interference has been observed in a variety of
patient illness groups believed to have executive dysfunction (for full review see Strauss et al., 2006), including schizophrenia (Moritz, Birkner, & Kloss, 2002),
Parkinsons disease (Hanes, Andrewes, Smith, & Pantelis, 1996), Huntingtons disease (Snowden, Craufurd,
Griffiths, Thompson, & Neary, 2001), Friedreichs
ataxia (White, Lalonde, & Boetz-Marquard, 2000),
prenatal exposure to alcohol (Connor, Sampson, Bookstein, Barr, & Streissguth, 2000), chronic alcoholism
(Dao-Castellana et al., 1998), Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection (Castellon, Hinkin, &
Myers, 2000), benign focal childhood epilepsy

(Chevalier, Metz-Lutz, & Segalowitz, 2000), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD; Homack
& Riccio, 2004), and Alzheimer disease (Bondi et al.,
2002). Increased interference can be observed among
individuals with head injury when utilizing a more
challenging version of the Stroop task (Bohnen, Jolles,
Twijnstra, 1992).
Several demographic variables have also been shown
to be associated with Stroop scores (see Strauss et al.,
2006; Pena-Casanova et al., 2009 for reviews). Generally, studies indicate that aging is associated with slower
speed of color naming and increased interference (e.g.,
Moering, Schinka, Mortimer, & Graves, 2004); women
tend to do better on color-naming but gender differences are equivocal for interference (Strauss et al.,
2006); education has a modest relation to interference
(e.g., Steinberg, Bieliauskas, Smith, & Ivnik, 2005),
and members of minority race/ethnicity perform more
poorly than Caucasians (Moering et al., 2004; Rosselli
et al., 2002).
Many studies provide normative data for the Golden
version of the Stroop. The standardization sample
was originally based on individuals aged 1590 years,
but sample characteristics were not clearly described
(Strauss et al., 2006). Normative data also exist from
a sample of 356 community-dwelling, independentlyfunctioning Caucasian individuals over the age of 55
(Ivnik, Malec, Smith, & Tangalos, 1996) and a sample
of 303 community-dwelling African American individuals aged 5694 years (Lucas et al., 2005). Tables for
both of these normative samples are provided by Strauss
and colleagues as well (2006). Moering and colleagues
(2004) also provide normative data for 236 African
Americans aged 6084 years. Metanorms based on
a compilation of six datasets are also provided for
the interference condition only, by Mitrushina, Boone,
Razani and DElia, (2005).
Several studies also provide normative data for the
different languages in which the Stroop has been
translated, such as for the Italian (Barbarotto et al.,
1998), Hebrew (Ingraham, Chard, Wood, & Mirsky,

1988), Korean (Seol et al., 2008), and Greek (Zalonis
et al., 2009) versions. Normative data also exist for
the Spanish version of the Stroop for residents of the
Madrid region of Spain and Spanish-speakers from
the US-Mexico border (Artiola, Hermosillo, Heaton,
& Pardee, 1999); older Catalan adults in Spain (LlinasRegla, Vilalta-Franch, Lopez-Pousa, Calvo-Perxas, &
Garre-Olmo, 2013); a group of English monolinguals,
Spanish-English bilinguals, and Spanish monolinguals
in Florida (Rosselli et al., 2002); and monolingual
Latino men (Lopez, Salazar, Villasenor, Saucedo, &
Pena, 2003). Pena-Casanova and colleagues (2009) also
published age and education adjusted Stroop norms on
community-dwelling Spaniards, aged 5090 years.
Although there are many normative studies for the
Stroop test that focus on various European and Asian
countries, there are no normative data for Latin American countries. Therefore, the purpose of the current
study was to provide normative data on the Stroop Test
across 11 countries in Latin America, with countryspecific adjustments for gender, age, and education,
where appropriate.
2. Method
593

The Stroop Color and Word test consists of three
pages, each with 100 components randomly organized
into five columns. The subject has 45 seconds to read
aloud, as quickly as possible, the columns from left to
right. The sheet on words is formed by the words Red,
Green, and Blue in black ink, and the score is the
number of words read correctly. For the sheet on colors, there are groups of four Xs (XXXX) printed in
blue, green, and red. The score is the number of elements properly named. Finally, the last list consists of
the three words of the first printed page in the colors of
the second, with words being incongruent with the color
of the ink. The task is to name the ink color, inhibiting
the reading of the word, and the score is the number
of correctly named elements. Finally, an Interference
Index is calculated with the formula: WC [(WxC) /
(P + W)], and indicates the degree to which the person
has control over interference (Golden, 2007).
2.1. Participants
(PHQ-9, Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001), and
h) scored 90 on the Barthel Index (Mahoney &
Barthel, 1965).
consent. 62 participants were excluded from the
analyses, with a final sample of 3915 participants.

A multivariate regression model was used to specify the predictive model including gender (if effect
1 if the participants had >12 years of education
and 0 if participants had 112 years of education.
594
Table 1
Effect of gender in the Stroop-Word
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentinaa
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
94.5 (18.1)
96.5 (14.2)
69.6 (26.4)
70.4 (27.7)
79.1 (24.4)
78.9 (23.5)
83.5 (24.4)
86.6 (23.8)
70.8 (26.7)
68.8 (22.0)
81.9 (22.9)
84.6 (21.3)
73.3 (25.4)
60.9 (24.4)
84.9 (22.9)
83.1 (21.3)
78.1 (15.6)
75.2 (12.4)
96.7 (18.2)
90.6 (21.2)
86.5 (20.6)
88.1 (21.1)
0.93
145.1
0.355
0.077
0.24
264
0.813
0.015
0.09
313
0.931
0.005
1.12
297
0.264
0.065
0.61
169.4
0.540
0.047
0.88
206
0.382
0.061
3.27
181
0.001
0.236
1.35
796.1
0.178
0.048
1.69
261
0.092
0.104
2.25
239
0.025
0.144
0.63
291
0.532
0.037
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvadora
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexicoa
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
a Value
p < 0.05, p < 0.01.
than 0.3) [yi = 0 + (Age . Age i ) + (Educ . Educ i ) +
(Gender . Gender i )]; c) residual scores were calculated
based on this final model (ei = yi y i ); d) using the
residuals were standardized: z = ei /SDe , with SDe ,
with SDe (residual) = the standard deviation of the
residuals in the normative sample; and e) standardized
residuals were converted to percentile values (Strauss
et al., 2006). Using each countrys dataset, these steps
were applied to Stroop Word, Color, Word-Color, and
Interference scores. In certain countries, there was no
effect of gender, nor age, nor education on the scores. In
these cases, the normative data were generated directly
using the raw scores.
3. Results
3.1. Stroop Word
Regarding the effect of gender on Stroop Word, the
women in Guatemala, and Peru; however, none of these
two countries had an effect size larger than 0.3. Table 1
shows the results of the gender analyses by country on
Stroop Word. As shown in Table 1, the effect sizes for
all countries were less than 0.3, and therefore gender

was not taken into account to generate Stroop Word
The final eleven Stroop Word multivariate linear
regression models for each country are shown in
Table 2. In all countries the Stroop Word score increased
for those with more than 12 years of education (see
Table 2) and, in all countries Stroop Word score
amount of variance explained in Stroop Word scores
ranged from 14% (in Argentina) to 36% (in Chile).
3.2. Stroop Color
Regarding the effect of gender on Stroop Color, the
women in the countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and
Mexico; however, none of these three countries had an
effect size larger than 0.3. Table 3 shows the results
of the gender analysis by country on Stroop Color. As
account to generate Stroop Color normative data for any
of the countries in the study.
The final eleven Stroop Color multivariate linear
Table 4. In all countries, except Peru, the Stroop Color
595
Table 2
Final multiple linear regression models for Stroop-Word
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
103.486
0.235
5.908
104.713
0.662
12.184
105.001
0.544
16.139
114.730
0.616
13.756
76.632
0.220
24.956
99.526
0.408
14.069
88.953
0.573
17.728
107.696
0.494
9.063
86.433
0.242
14.975
104.045
0.409
10.152
107.949
0.473
7.654
2.342
0.042
1.630
3.876
0.063
3.634
3.563
0.057
2.617
3.404
0.058
2.727
3.961
0.065
3.322
4.526
0.079
2.820
4.637
0.084
3.714
1.535
0.026
1.269
2.968
0.051
1.984
3.333
0.056
2.406
3.581
0.060
2.200
44.183
5.642
3.626
27.018
10.530
3.353
29.466
9.481
6.168
33.703
10.547
5.044
19.346
3.386
7.511
21.990
5.164
4.989
19.181
6.796
4.773
70.155
18.994
7.140
29.120
4.698
7.547
31.215
7.320
4.219
30.142
7.945
3.479
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.140
14.344
0.338
22.115
0.359
19.091
0.326
19.770
0.229
20.976
0.203
19.642
0.324
20.887
0.267
18.723
0.330
11.248
0.266
17.447
0.248
18.083
score increased for those with more than 12 years of

education (see Table 4) in all countries Stroop Color
score decreased in a linear fashion as a function of
age. The amount of variance explained in Stroop Color
scores ranged from 14% (in Guatemala) to 42% (in
Chile).
The final eleven Stroop Word-Color multivariate linear regression models for each country are shown in
Table 6. In all countries the Stroop Word-Color score
increased for those with more than 12 years of education
(see Table 6) and decreased in a linear fashion as a function of age. The amount of variance explained in Stroop
Word-Color scores ranged from 16% (in Guatemala) to
43% (in Chile).
3.3. Stroop Word-Color
3.4. Stroop Interference
Regarding the effect of gender on Stroop WordColor, the t-tests showed significant differences
between men and women in the countries of Chile,
Honduras, and Mexico, however, none of these countries had an effect size larger than 0.3. Table 5 shows
the results of the gender analysis by country on Stroop
Word-Color. As shown in Table 5, the effect sizes for all
not taken into account to generate Stroop Word-Color
Regarding the effect of gender on Stroop Interference, the t-tests showed significant differences between
men and women in Chile, Cuba, Mexico, and Puerto
Rico, however, none of these four countries had an
effect size larger than 0.3. Table 7 shows the results of
the gender analysis by country on Stroop Interference.
As shown in Table 7, the effect sizes for all countries
were less than 0.3, and therefore gender was not taken
into account to generate Stroop Interference normative
data for any of the countries in the study.
596
Table 3
Effect of gender in the Stroop-Color
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentina
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
66.3 (13.8)
67.5 (14.6)
52.3 (21.6)
54.8 (22.5)
58.3 (18.2)
55.2 (16.5)
59.8 (19.0)
61.1 (20.3)
52.9 (20.9)
49.1 (17.0)
55.4 (17.3)
60.7 (16.1)
54.6 (18.2)
47.3 (17.0)
63.5 (19.2)
60.4 (16.5)
62.6 (13.7)
61.7 (12.1)
71.3 (15.5)
68.3 (15.9)
61.5 (15.4)
63.9 (15.4)
0.68
317
0.449
0.038
0.89
265
0.373
0.055
1.55
314
0.123
0.087
0.56
298
0.573
0.033
1.57
243
0.119
0.100
2.30
206
0.023
0.158
2.72
181
0.007
0.198
2.83
743.1
0.005
0.103
0.60
261
0.548
0.037
1.40
239
0.164
0.090
1.35
291
0.179
0.079
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexicoa
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
a Value
p < 0.05, p < 0.01.
The final seven Stroop Interference multivariate linear regression models for each country are shown in
Table 8. El Salvador, Peru, and Puerto Rico, the Stroop
Interference score increased for those with more than 12
years of education (see Table 8), and Argentina, Chile,
Mexico, and Paraguay decreased in a linear fashion as
a function of age. Cuba, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Honduras did not show effect to age, and education level.
The amount of variance explained in Stroop Interference scores ranged from 4% (El Salvador) to 15% (in
Puerto Rico).
Norms (e.g., a percentile score) for the Stroop
Word-Color test different scores were established
using the five-step procedure described above. To
facilitate the understanding of the procedure to obtain
the percentile associated with a score on this test, an
example will be given. Suppose you need to find the
percentile score for a Peruvian man, who is 50 years old
and has 14 years of education. He has a score of 80 on
Stroop Word. The steps to obtain the percentile for this
score are: a) Check Table 1 to determine if the effect
size of gender in the country of interest (Peru) on this
test and time point (Stroop Word) is greater than 0.3
by country. The column labelled r in Table 1 indicates
the effect size. In this example, the effect size is 0.144,

which is not greater than 0.3. For Peruvian on this test,
gender does not influence scores to a sufficient degree
to take it into account when determining the percentile.
b) Find Peru in Table 2, which provides the final
regression models by country for Stroop Word scores.
Use the B weights to create an equation that will allow
you to obtain the predicted Stroop Word score. The
case, the predicted Stroop Word score would be calculated using the equation [yi = 104.045 + (0.409
Agei ) + (10.152 Dichotomized Educational Level i )]
(the values have been rounded for presentation in
the formula). The subscript notation i indicate the
person of interest. The persons age is 50, but the
education variable is not continuous in the model.
Years of education is split into either 1 to 12 years
(and assigned a 0) or more than 12 years (and
assigned a 1) in the model. Since our hypothetical
person in the example has 14 years of education, his
educational level value is 1. Thus the predicted value
is y i = 104.045 + (0.409 50) + (10.152 1) =
104.045 20.463 + 10.152 = 93.733. c) In order to
calculate the residual value (indicated with an e in
the equation), we subtract the actual value from the
597
Table 4
Final multiple linear regression models for Stroop-Color
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
74.954
0.254
7.082
85.904
0.606
9.302
77.268
0.431
12.053
84.940
0.495
7.793
62.283
0.251
10.865
73.428
0.335
6.781
72.485
0.504
8.223
83.657
0.444
5.360
70.177
0.195
12.156
83.744
0.329
83.497
0.446
4.501
2.094
0.037
1.457
2.986
0.048
2.775
2.463
0.040
1.801
2.862
0.049
2.286
3.259
0.054
2.734
3.549
0.062
2.211
3.130
0.057
2.507
1.192
0.020
0.987
2.892
0.050
1.933
2.162
0.045
2.465
0.041
1.514
35.802
6.817
4.862
28.766
12.507
3.352
31.372
10.880
6.693
29.676
10.070
3.409
19.108
4.695
3.974
20.690
5.413
3.066
23.162
8.863
3.280
70.158
21.997
5.432
24.270
3.889
6.289
38.730
7.350
33.879
10.899
2.973
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
0.202
12.821
0.409
17.046
0.415
13.195
0.284
16.655
0.144
17.260
0.161
15.402
0.371
14.095
0.306
14.574
0.254
10.957
0.184
14.265
0.347
12.444
predicted value we just calculated (ei = yi y i ). In

this case, it would be ei = 80 93.201 = 13.733.
d) Next, consult the SDe column in Table 2 to
obtain the country-specific SDe (residual) value.
For Mexico it is 17.477. Using this value, we can
transform the residual value to a standardized z
score using the equation (ei /SDe . In this case, we
have (13.733)/1 + 17.447 = 0.787. This is the
standardized z score for a Peruvian man aged 50 and
14 years of education and a score of 80 on Stroop
Word. e) The last step is to look-up the tables in the
calculator, you would enter the z score and choose
a one-sided test and note the percent of area after
hitting the submit button. In this case, the probability
of 0.787 corresponds to the 22th percentile. Please
remember to use the appropriate tables that correspond
to each test (Stroop Word, Color, Word-Color, and
Interference) when performing these calculations. If

the percentile for the Stroop Color, Word-Color, and
Interference scores is desired, Tables 38 must be used.
Guàrdia-Olmos et al., 2015) and created tables that
of 80 for a Peruvian man who is 50 years old and has
14 years of education using the simplified normative
598
Table 5
Effect of gender in the Stroop Word-Color
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentina
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
39.4 (10.3)
39.1 (11.2)
31.0 (15.3)
33.6 (17.2)
35.3 (16.6)
31.6 (13.7)
36.2 (14.6)
34.7 (14.7)
30.8 (13.4)
27.9 (11.4)
32.5 (13.8)
33.6 (11.8)
33.5 (10.9)
28.4 (10.3)
39.7 (16.5)
35.2 (13.3)
32.2 (10.8)
29.9 (9.9)
41.4 (14.1)
38.9 (13.7)
39.0 (15.2)
37.5 (13.4)
0.27
317
0.790
0.015
1.23
265
0.220
0.075
2.09
247.83
0.037
0.132
0.84
298
0.399
0.049
1.79
243
0.075
0.114
0.62
206
0.534
0.043
3.13
181
0.002
0.227
4.96
707.15
<0.001
0.183
1.73
261
0.084
0.107
1.35
239
0.177
0.087
0.89
291
0.372
0.052
Bolivia
Chilea
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexicoa
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
a Value
p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001.
tables provided, the following steps are recommended.

(1) First, identify the appropriate table ensuring the
specific country and test. In this case, the table for
Stroop Word scores for Peru can be found in Table A10.
(2) Note if the title of the table indicates that it is only
to be used for one specific gender. In this case, gender
is not specified. Thus Table A10 is used for both males
and females. (3) Next, the table is divided based on
educational level (1 to 12 vs. >12 years of education).
Since this man has 14 years of education, he falls into
the >12 years of education category. These data can
be found in the top section of the table. (4) Determine
the age range most appropriate for the individual. In
this case, 50 fall into the column 4852 years of age.
80 obtained by this Peruvian man corresponds to an
one (22nd) obtained following the individual conversion steps above because the table method is based on an
age range (e.g., individuals aged 4852) instead of the
exact age (individuals aged 50). If the exact score is not
listed in the column, you must estimate the percentile
value from the listed raw scores.
4. Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to generate normative data on the Stroop across 11 countries in Latin
1436% of the variance in Stroop Word scores, 1241%
of the variance Stroop Color scores, 1436% of the
variance in Stroop Word-Color scores, and 415% of
the variance in Stroop Interference scores. Although
several gender differences emerged on different Stroop
scores in several countries, all of the effect sizes were
small, so gender-adjusted norms were not generated.
The only previous research on gender differences in
Stroop performance found that women performed better on color-naming but that gender differences were
equivocal for interference (Strauss et al., 2006). In the
current study, gender differences flipped flopped in different countries for the Stroop Color, and generally
gender differences were equivocal in the current study
as well. When considering the prior literature, the current study suggests that gender-adjustments should not
be made in calculating percentiles for the Stroop in
Latin America.
All four Stroop scores increased linearly as a function
of education in the vast majority of countries. How-
599
Table 6
Final multiple linear regression models for Stroop Word-Color
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
47.375
0.250
6.079
50.566
0.338
4.958
49.782
0.357
12.098
50.088
0.293
3.753
38.050
0.200
10.197
43.348
0.239
6.041
39.063
0.212
5.969
54.458
0.361
5.489
37.968
0.179
13.052
52.222
0.339
3.700
59.779
0.459
3.580
1.485
0.026
1.033
2.547
0.041
2.367
2.133
0.034
1.560
2.289
0.039
1.828
2.010
0.033
1.686
2.676
0.047
1.667
2.094
0.038
1.677
0.995
0.017
0.822
2.094
0.036
1.400
2.219
0.037
1.602
2.167
0.036
1.332
31.904
9.466
5.883
19.851
8.179
2.095
23.335
10.401
7.756
21.882
7.465
2.053
18.935
6.072
6.050
16.201
5.111
3.623
18.655
5.559
3.559
54.732
21.438
6.675
18.129
4.936
9.322
23.534
9.105
2.310
27.581
12.735
2.688
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.037
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.041
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.022
<0.001
<0.001
0.008
0.309
9.094
0.227
14.540
0.426
11.430
0.173
13.320
0.246
10.641
0.163
11.612
0.231
9.431
0.306
12.144
0.405
7.936
0.296
11.615
0.408
10.944
ever, there was no effect of education for Stroop Color

in Guatemala or for Stroop Interference in Peru, Honduras, Puerto Rico, or El Salvador. These general effects
of education are in line with previous research showing that education is positively associated with Stroop
performance (Steinberg et al., 2005). It is therefore
important that neuropsychologists in Latin America
use the education-adjusted norms for each country on
the Stroop, except in Guatemala for the Stroop Color
or in Peru, Honduras, Puerto Rico, and El Salvador
for the Stroop Interference. There are likely substantial differences in education quality across countries in
Latin America, and therefore the current studys Stroop
education adjustments are important to use in the appropriate Latin American countries.
Stroop scores consistently decreased with increasing
age in all countries in the current study. This finding is
in line with previous research documenting aging to be
associated with slower speed of Stroop color naming
and increased interference (Moering et al., 2004). In
light of the prior findings, the current study suggests that

Stroop corrections for age in Latin America be made
consistently, given the robust age effect identified.
This study has several limitations and directions for
future research. First, neuropsychologists need to exercise caution in using the Stroop norms from the current
study when performing assessments in countries other
than those in which data were collected. An extremely
important direction for future research involves creating
Stroop norms in other countries in Latin America that
were not included in the current study, such as Ecuador,
Uruguay, Venezuela, and Panama. Although this is an
important limitation, the Stroop norms from this study
may be more accurate in other Latin American countries than the norms that neuropsychologists in those
countries are currently using. This generalizability is
extremely important to examine in future research.
600
Table 7
Effect of gender in the Stroop-Interference
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentina
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
0.7 (8.6)
0.4 (7.4)
1.8 (12.4)
3.1 (11.6)
2.0 (10.2)
0.7 (8.6)
1.7 (9.9)
0.8 (10.6)
1.0 (8.3)
0.3 (9.0)
0.1 (9.5)
1.5 (9.1)
2.5 (6.0)
2.1 (7.2)
3.7 (11.1)
0.5 (10.0)
2.4 (7.9)
3.8 (7.9)
0.8 (10.9)
0.4 (9.5)
3.3 (11.3)
0.8 (10.4)
1.11
317
0.270
0.062
0.91
265
0.363
0.056
2.48
251.0
0.014
0.155
2.10
298
0.036
0.121
1.12
243
0.264
0.072
1.04
206
0.299
0.072
0.44
181
0.663
0.032
5.08
1,279
1.40
261
0.162
0.086
0.30
239
0.761
0.020
2.03
291
0.043
0.118
Bolivia
Chilea
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
a Value
<0.001
0.141
p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001.
Table 8
Final multiple linear regression models for Stroop-Interference
Country
Argentina
Chile
El Salvador
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
4.053
0.121
2.686
5.355
0.112
5.191
4.509
0.078
7.736
0.125
2.021
0.570
0.073
6.412
7.622
0.162
13.414
0.227
1.174
0.021
0.817
1.618
0.026
1.183
1.569
0.026
0.826
0.014
0.683
1.921
0.033
1.284
1.434
0.030
1.717
0.032
3.451
5.801
3.288
3.310
4.320
4.389
2.874
2.928
9.366
8.955
2.957
0.296
2.196
4.993
5.314
5.465
7.813
7.154
0.001
<0.001
0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.004
0.004
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
0.767
0.029
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.137
7.192
0.145
8.666
0.043
8.571
0.072
10.095
0.150
7.280
0.116
9.463
0.151
9.990
Second, participants in this study spoke Spanish as

their primary language, but it is unknown whether they
spoke additional secondary languages. Stroop performance could differ in bilingual individuals from Latin
America, and future research should study potential
effects of bilingualism on performance. Participants
were recruited from specific cities or regions of countries as opposed to nationally within those countries.
This study is the largest neuropsychological normative
study conducted to date in Latin America for the Stroop,

or in any global region, so it should be considered a first
step in the direction of larger, nationally representative
normative studies. The sample was limited also in that
although a good number of participants had fewer than
12 years of education, those who were unable to read
were excluded, and as a result, these norms may not
apply to illiterate adults. Similarly, participants with a
history of neurological conditions and children did not
participate in the study; future studies should collect

data from these distinct populations.
Third, administration of the Stroop is extremely
common in Latin America for neuropsychological
assessment, but other common instruments need to
be normed in the same manner to improve their
use in this region as well. In the same vein, future
research should examine the ecological validity and
psychometric properties of the Stroop and other common neuropsychological instruments in Latin America.
Researchers need to create instruments within Latin
American cultures that have high ecological validity,
as the Stroop was created in a Western culture that
potentially differs in important ways from the diverse
cultures in Latin America. Future studies would benefit from developing assessments within local cultures,
instead of simply translating and norming instruments
developed in other cultural contexts.
Although these limitations are present, only limited
studies have produced Stroop norms in Spanishspeaking populations such as Spanish-speakers from
the US-Mexico border (Artiola et al., 1999), Spain
(Llinas-Regla et al., 2013; Pena-Casanova et al., 2009),
or Florida (Rosselli et al., 2002). As a result, this study
was the first to create Stroop norms across 11 countries in Latin America with nearly 4,000 participants.
It was the largest, most comprehensive Stroop normative study in any global region conducted to date, and
its norms have the potential to have lasting effects on
the standard of neuropsychological assessment with the
Stroop in Latin America unlike any study before it.
References
Artiola, L., Hermosillo, D., Heaton, R., & Pardee, R. E. (1999).
Manual de normas y procedimientos para la batera neuropsicologica en espa`nol. Tucson, AZ: mPress.
Barbarotto, R., Laiacona, M., Frosio, R., Vecchio, M., Farinato, A. &
Capitani, E. (1998). A normative study on visual reaction times
and two Stroop color-word tests. Italian Journal of Neurological
Sciences, 19(3), 161-170.
Bohnen, N., Jolles, J., & Twijnstra, A. (1992). Modification of
the Stroop Color Word Test improves differentiation between
patients with mild head injury and matched controls. The Clinical
Bondi, M. W., Serody, A. B., Chan, A. S., Eberson-Schumate, S.
C., Delis, D. C., Hansen, L. A., & Salmon, D. P. (2002). Cognitive and neuropathologic correlates of Stroop Color-Word Test
performance in Alzheimers disease. Neuropsychology, 16(3),
335-343.
Bryan, J., & Luszcz, M. A. (2000). Measurement of executive function: Considerations for detecting adult age differences. Journal
601
Castellon, S. A., Hinkin, C. H., & Myers, H. F. (2000). Neuropsychiatric disturbance is associated with executive dysfunction in
HIV-1 infection. Journal of the International Neuropsychological
Society, 6(03), 336-347.
Chevalier, H., Metz-Lutz, M.-N., & Segalowitz, S. J. (2000). Impulsivity and control of inhibition in benign focal childhood epilepsy.
Brain and Cognition, 43(1-3), 86-90.
Comalli Jr., P. E., Wapner, S., & Werner, H. (1962). Interference
effects of Stroop Color-Word Test in childhood, adulthood, and
aging. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 100(1), 47-53.
Connor, P. D., Sampson, P. D., Bookstein, F. L., Barr, H. M., &
Streissguth, A. P. (2000). Direct and indirect effects of parental
alcohol damage on executive function. Developmental Neuropsychology, 18(3), 331-354.
Dao-Castellana, M. H., Samson, Y., Legaugt, F., Martinot, J. L.,
Aubin, H. J., Crouzel, C., Feldman, L., Barrucand, D., Rancurel,
G., Feline, A., & Syrota, A. (1998). Frontal dysfunction in neurologically normal chronic alcoholic subjects: Metabolic and
neuropsychological findings. Psychological Medicine, 28(05),
1039-1048.
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2001). Delis-Kaplan
Executive Function System. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corporation.
Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). The neural correlates and functional
integration of cognitive control in a Stroop task. Neuroimage,
24(2), 539-547.
189-198.
Golden, C. J. (2007). Stroop, Test de Colores y Palabras: Manual (5
Edicicion). Madrid: Tea Ediciones, S.A.
Golden, C. J., & Freshwater, S. M. (2002). Stroop Color and Word
Test: Revised examiners manual. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting Co.
493-499.
Hanes, K. R., Andrewes, D. G., Smith, D. J., & Pantelis, C. (1996).
A brief assessment of executive control dysfunction: Discriminant validity and homogeneity of planning, set shift, and fluency
measures. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11(3), 185-191.
Hanninen, T., Hallikainen, M., Koivisto, K., Partanen, K., Laakso, M.
P., Riekkinen, P. J., & Soininen, H. (1997). Decline of frontal lobe
functions in subjects with age-associated memory impairment.
Neurology, 48(1), 148-153.
Harrison, B. J., Shaw, M., Yucel, M., Purcell, R., Brewer, W. J.,
Strother, S. C., et al., (2005). Functional connectivity during
Stroop task performance. Neuroimage, 24(1), 181-191.
Homack, S., & Riccio, C. A. (2004). A meta-analysis of the
sensitivity and specificity of the Stroop Color and Word Test
with children. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19(6), 725743.
Ingraham, L. J., Chard, F., Wood, M., & Mirsky, A. F. (1988). An
Hebrew language version of the Stroop test. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 67(1), 187-192.
Ivnik, R. J., Malec, J. F., Smith, G. E., & Tangalos, E. G. (1996).
Neuropsychological test norms above age 55: COWAT, BNT,
MAE token, WRAT-R reading, AMNART, Stroop, TMT, and
JLO. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 10(3), 262-278.
602

Llinas-Regla, J., Vilalta-Franch, J., Lopez-Pousa, S., Calvo-Perxas,
L., & Garre-Olmo, J. (2013). Demographically adjusted norms for
Catalan older adults on the Stroop Color and Word Test. Archives
of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28(3), 282-296.
Lopez, E., Salazar, X. F., Villasenor, T., Saucedo, C., & Pena, R.
(2003). Validez y datos normativos de las pruebas de nominacion en personas con educacion limitada. In Poster presented
at The Congress of the Sociedad Lationoamericana de Neuropsicologa, Montreal, Canada.
Lucas, J. A., Ivnik, R. J., Smith, G. E., Ferman, T. J., Willis, F. B.,
Petersen, R. C., & Graff-Radford, N. R. (2005). Mayos Older
African Americans Normative Studies: Norms for Boston Naming test, Controlled Oral Word Association, Category Fluency,
Animal Naming, Token Test, WRAT-3 Reading, Trail Making
Test, Stroop Test, and Judgment of Line Orientation. The Clinical
Mitrushina, M. M., Boone, K. B., Razani, J., & DElia, L. F. (2005).
Handbook of normative data for neuropsychological assessment
(2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Moering, R. G., Schinka, J. A., Mortimer, J. A., & Graves,
A. B. (2004). Normative data for elderly African Americans
for the Stroop Color and Word Test. Archives of Clinical
Moritz, S., Birkner, C., & Kloss, M. (2002). Executive functioning in obsessive-compulsive disorder, unipolar depression, and
schizophrenia. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 17(5),
477-783.
Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Cognitive assessment systems
interpretive handbook. Itaska, IL: Riverside.
Pena-Casanova, J., Quinones-Ubeda,

S., Gramunt-Fombuena, N.,
Quintana, M., Aguilar, M., Molinunevo, J. L., Serradell, M.,
et al. (2009). Spanish multicenter normative studies (NEURONORMA Project): Norms for the Stroop Color-Word
Interference Test and the Tower of London-Drexel. Archives of
Peterson, B. S., Skudlarksi, P., Gatenby, J. C., Zhang, H., Anderson,
A. W., & Gore, J. C. (1999). An fMRI study of Stroop colorword interference: Evidence for cingulated subregions subserving
multiple distributed attentional systems. Biological Psychiatry,
45(10), 1237-1258.
Regard, M. (1981). Cognitive rigidity and flexibility: A neuropsychological study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Victoria.
Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Santisi, M. N., del Rosario Arecco,

M., Salvatierra, J., Conde, A., et al. (2002). Stroop effect
in SpanishEnglish bilinguals. Journal of the International
Seol, E. H., Lee, D. Y., Choo, I. H., Kim, S. G., Kim, K. W., Youn,
J. C., Jhoo, J. H., & Woo, J. I. (2008). Normative study of the
Stroop Color and Word Test in an educationally diverse elderly
population. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 23(10),
1020-1027.
Snowden, J., Craufurd, D., Griffiths, H., Thompson, J., & Neary,
D. (2001). Longitudinal evaluation of cognitive disorder in
Huntingtons disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 7(01), 33-44.
Steinberg, B. A., Bieliauskas, L. A., Smith, G. E., & Ivnik, R. J.
(2005). Mayos Older Americans Normative Studies: Age- and
IQ- adjusted norms for the Trail Making Test, the Stroop Test,
and MAE Controlled Oral Word Association Test. The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 19(3-4), 329-377.
Strauss, E., Sherman, E., & Spreen, O. (2006) A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary
(3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Van der Elst, W., Van Boxtel, M. P., Van Breukelen, G. J., & Jolles,
J. (2006). The stroop color-word test: Influence of age, sex, and
education; and normative data for a large sample across the adult
age range. Assessment, 13(1), 62-79.
White, M., Lalonde, R., & Boetz-Marquard, T. (2000). Neuropsychologic and neuropsychiatric characteristics of patients with
Friedreichs ataxia. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 102(4), 222226.
Zalonis, I., Christidi, F., Bonakis, A., Kararizou, E., Triantafyllou,
N. I., Paraskevas, G., Kapaki, E., & Vasilopoulos, D. (2009). The
Stroop effect in Greek healthy population: Normative data for the
Stroop Neuropsychological Screening Test. Archives of Clinical
603
Appendix
Table A1
Normative data for the Stroop-Word stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
128.2
123.0
119.6
116.7
112.1
108.3
104.7
101.1
97.2
92.6
89.8
86.3
81.2
127.0
121.9
118.4
115.6
111.0
107.1
103.5
99.9
96.1
91.5
88.6
85.2
80.0
125.9
120.7
117.3
114.4
109.8
105.9
102.3
98.7
94.9
90.3
87.4
84.0
78.8
124.7
119.5
116.1
113.2
108.6
104.7
101.2
97.6
93.7
89.1
86.2
82.8
77.6
123.5
118.3
114.9
112.0
107.4
103.6
100.0
96.4
92.5
87.9
85.1
81.6
76.5
122.3
117.2
113.7
110.9
106.3
102.4
98.8
95.2
91.3
86.8
83.9
80.4
75.3
121.2
116.0
112.5
109.7
105.1
101.2
97.6
94.0
90.2
85.6
82.7
79.3
74.1
120.0
114.8
111.4
108.5
103.9
100.0
96.5
92.9
89.0
84.4
81.5
78.1
72.9
118.8
113.6
110.2
107.3
102.7
98.9
95.3
91.7
87.8
83.2
80.4
76.9
71.8
117.6
112.5
109.0
106.1
101.6
97.7
94.1
90.5
86.6
82.1
79.2
75.7
70.6
116.4
111.3
107.8
105.0
100.4
96.5
92.9
89.3
85.5
80.9
78.0
74.6
69.4
115.3
110.1
106.7
103.8
99.2
95.3
91.7
88.2
84.3
79.7
76.8
73.4
68.2
114.1
108.9
105.5
102.6
98.0
94.2
90.6
87.0
83.1
78.5
75.7
72.2
67.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
122.3
117.1
113.7
110.8
106.2
102.4
98.8
95.2
91.3
86.7
83.9
80.4
75.3
121.1
116.0
112.5
109.7
105.1
101.2
97.6
94.0
90.1
85.6
82.7
79.2
74.1
120.0
114.8
111.3
108.5
103.9
100.0
96.4
92.8
89.0
84.4
81.5
78.1
72.9
118.8
113.6
110.2
107.3
102.7
98.8
95.3
91.7
87.8
83.2
80.3
76.9
71.7
117.6
112.4
109.0
106.1
101.5
97.7
94.1
90.5
86.6
82.0
79.2
75.7
70.6
116.4
111.3
107.8
104.9
100.4
96.5
92.9
89.3
85.4
80.8
78.0
74.5
69.4
115.2
110.1
106.6
103.8
99.2
95.3
91.7
88.1
84.3
79.7
76.8
73.4
68.2
114.1
108.9
105.5
102.6
98.0
94.1
90.5
87.0
83.1
78.5
75.6
72.2
67.0
112.9
107.7
104.3
101.4
96.8
93.0
89.4
85.8
81.9
77.3
74.5
71.0
65.8
111.7
106.6
103.1
100.2
95.7
91.8
88.2
84.6
80.7
76.1
73.3
69.8
64.7
110.5
105.4
101.9
99.1
94.5
90.6
87.0
83.4
79.6
75.0
72.1
68.7
63.5
109.4
104.2
100.8
97.9
93.3
89.4
85.8
82.3
78.4
73.8
70.9
67.5
62.3
108.2
103.0
99.6
96.7
92.1
88.2
84.7
81.1
77.2
72.6
69.7
66.3
61.1
Table A2
Normative data for the Stroop-Word stratified by age and education levels for BOLIVIA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
139.9
132.0
126.6
122.2
115.1
109.2
103.7
98.1
92.2
85.1
80.7
75.3
67.4
136.6
128.6
123.3
118.9
111.8
105.9
100.3
94.8
88.8
81.8
77.3
72.0
64.1
133.3
125.3
120.0
115.6
108.5
102.6
97.0
91.5
85.5
78.5
74.0
68.7
60.8
130.0
122.0
116.7
112.3
105.2
99.2
93.7
88.2
82.2
75.1
70.7
65.4
57.4
126.7
118.7
113.4
109.0
101.9
95.9
90.4
84.9
78.9
71.8
67.4
62.1
54.1
123.4
115.4
110.1
105.7
98.6
92.6
87.1
81.6
75.6
68.5
64.1
58.8
50.8
120.0
112.1
106.8
102.4
95.3
89.3
83.8
78.3
72.3
65.2
60.8
55.5
47.5
116.7
108.8
103.5
99.0
92.0
86.0
80.5
74.9
69.0
61.9
57.5
52.2
44.2
113.4
105.5
100.2
95.7
88.7
82.7
77.2
71.6
65.7
58.6
54.2
48.9
40.9
110.1
102.2
96.8
92.4
85.3
79.4
73.8
68.3
62.3
55.3
50.8
45.5
37.6
106.8
98.8
93.5
89.1
82.0
76.1
70.5
65.0
59.0
52.0
47.5
42.2
34.3
103.5
95.5
90.2
85.8
78.7
72.8
67.2
61.7
55.7
48.6
44.2
38.9
31.0
100.2
92.2
86.9
82.5
75.4
69.4
63.9
58.4
52.4
45.3
40.9
35.6
27.6
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
127.7
119.8
114.5
110.0
103.0
97.0
91.5
85.9
80.0
72.9
68.5
63.2
55.2
124.4
116.5
111.2
106.7
99.7
93.7
88.2
82.6
76.7
69.6
65.2
59.8
51.9
121.1
113.1
107.8
103.4
96.3
90.4
84.8
79.3
73.3
66.3
61.8
56.5
48.6
117.8
109.8
104.5
100.1
93.0
87.1
81.5
76.0
70.0
63.0
58.5
53.2
45.3
114.5
106.5
101.2
96.8
89.7
83.7
78.2
72.7
66.7
59.6
55.2
49.9
42.0
111.2
103.2
97.9
93.5
86.4
80.4
74.9
69.4
63.4
56.3
51.9
46.6
38.6
107.9
99.9
94.6
90.2
83.1
77.1
71.6
66.1
60.1
53.0
48.6
43.3
35.3
104.6
96.6
91.3
86.9
79.8
73.8
68.3
62.8
56.8
49.7
45.3
40.0
32.0
101.2
93.3
88.0
83.5
76.5
70.5
65.0
59.4
53.5
46.4
42.0
36.7
28.7
97.9
90.0
84.7
80.2
73.2
67.2
61.7
56.1
50.2
43.1
38.7
33.4
25.4
94.6
86.7
81.3
76.9
69.8
63.9
58.3
52.8
46.8
39.8
35.4
30.0
22.1
91.3
83.3
78.0
73.6
66.5
60.6
55.0
49.5
43.5
36.5
32.0
26.7
18.8
88.0
80.0
74.7
70.3
63.2
57.3
51.7
46.2
40.2
33.1
28.7
23.4
15.5
604
Table A3
Normative data for the Stroop-Word stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
141.6
134.7
130.1
126.3
120.2
115.0
110.3
105.5
100.3
94.2
90.4
85.8
79.0
138.9
132.0
127.4
123.6
117.5
112.3
107.5
102.8
97.6
91.5
87.7
83.1
76.2
136.1
129.3
124.7
120.9
114.8
109.6
104.8
100.1
94.9
88.8
85.0
80.4
73.5
133.4
126.5
122.0
118.1
112.0
106.9
102.1
97.3
92.2
86.1
82.3
77.7
70.8
130.7
123.8
119.2
115.4
109.3
104.2
99.4
94.6
89.5
83.4
79.5
75.0
68.1
128.0
121.1
116.5
112.7
106.6
101.4
96.7
91.9
86.7
80.6
76.8
72.2
65.4
125.3
118.4
113.8
110.0
103.9
98.7
94.0
89.2
84.0
77.9
74.1
69.5
62.6
122.5
115.7
111.1
107.3
101.2
96.0
91.2
86.5
81.3
75.2
71.4
66.8
59.9
119.8
113.0
108.4
104.6
98.4
93.3
88.5
83.7
78.6
72.5
68.7
64.1
57.2
117.1
110.2
105.7
101.8
95.7
90.6
85.8
81.0
75.9
69.8
65.9
61.4
54.5
114.4
107.5
102.9
99.1
93.0
87.9
83.1
78.3
73.2
67.0
63.2
58.6
51.8
111.7
104.8
100.2
96.4
90.3
85.1
80.4
75.6
70.4
64.3
60.5
55.9
49.1
109.0
102.1
97.5
93.7
87.6
82.4
77.6
72.9
67.7
61.6
57.8
53.2
46.3
Age (Years)
4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
125.4
118.6
114.0
110.2
104.1
98.9
94.1
89.4
84.2
78.1
74.3
69.7
62.8
122.7
115.8
111.3
107.4
101.3
96.2
91.4
86.6
81.5
75.4
71.6
67.0
60.1
120.0
113.1
108.5
104.7
98.6
93.5
88.7
83.9
78.8
72.7
68.8
64.3
57.4
117.3
110.4
105.8
102.0
95.9
90.7
86.0
81.2
76.0
69.9
66.1
61.5
54.7
114.6
107.7
103.1
99.3
93.2
88.0
83.3
78.5
73.3
67.2
63.4
58.8
51.9
111.8
105.0
100.4
96.6
90.5
85.3
80.5
75.8
70.6
64.5
60.7
56.1
49.2
109.1
102.3
97.7
93.9
87.7
82.6
77.8
73.0
67.9
61.8
58.0
53.4
46.5
106.4
99.5
95.0
91.1
85.0
79.9
75.1
70.3
65.2
59.1
55.2
50.7
43.8
103.7
96.8
92.2
88.4
82.3
77.2
72.4
67.6
62.5
56.3
52.5
47.9
41.1
101.0
94.1
89.5
85.7
79.6
74.4
69.7
64.9
59.7
53.6
49.8
45.2
38.4
98.3
91.4
86.8
83.0
76.9
71.7
66.9
62.2
57.0
50.9
47.1
42.5
35.6
95.5
88.7
84.1
80.3
74.2
69.0
64.2
59.5
54.3
48.2
44.4
39.8
32.9
92.8
85.9
81.4
77.5
71.4
66.3
61.5
56.7
51.6
45.5
41.7
37.1
30.2
Table A4
Normative data for the Stroop-Word stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
148.6
141.5
136.7
132.8
126.4
121.1
116.2
111.2
105.9
99.6
95.6
90.9
83.7
145.5
138.4
133.6
129.7
123.4
118.0
113.1
108.1
102.8
96.5
92.5
87.8
80.7
142.4
135.3
130.6
126.6
120.3
114.9
110.0
105.1
99.7
93.4
89.4
84.7
77.6
139.3
132.2
127.5
123.5
117.2
111.9
106.9
102.0
96.6
90.3
86.4
81.6
74.5
136.3
129.1
124.4
120.4
114.1
108.8
103.8
98.9
93.6
87.2
83.3
78.5
71.4
133.2
126.1
121.3
117.4
111.0
105.7
100.8
95.8
90.5
84.1
80.2
75.4
68.3
130.1
123.0
118.2
114.3
108.0
102.6
97.7
92.7
87.4
81.1
77.1
72.4
65.2
127.0
119.9
115.1
111.2
104.9
99.5
94.6
89.6
84.3
78.0
74.0
69.3
62.2
123.9
116.8
112.1
108.1
101.8
96.4
91.5
86.6
81.2
74.9
70.9
66.2
59.1
120.8
113.7
109.0
105.0
98.7
93.4
88.4
83.5
78.1
71.8
67.9
63.1
56.0
117.8
110.6
105.9
102.0
95.6
90.3
85.3
80.4
75.1
68.7
64.8
60.0
52.9
114.7
107.6
102.8
98.9
92.5
87.2
82.3
77.3
72.0
65.7
61.7
57.0
49.8
111.6
104.5
99.7
95.8
89.5
84.1
79.2
74.2
68.9
62.6
58.6
53.9
46.8
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
134.8
127.7
123.0
119.0
112.7
107.3
102.4
97.5
92.1
85.8
81.8
77.1
70.0
131.7
124.6
119.9
115.9
109.6
104.3
99.3
94.4
89.0
82.7
78.8
74.0
66.9
128.7
121.5
116.8
112.8
106.5
101.2
96.2
91.3
86.0
79.6
75.7
70.9
63.8
125.6
118.5
113.7
109.8
103.4
98.1
93.2
88.2
82.9
76.6
72.6
67.9
60.7
122.5
115.4
110.6
106.7
100.4
95.0
90.1
85.1
79.8
73.5
69.5
64.8
57.7
119.4
112.3
107.6
103.6
97.3
91.9
87.0
82.1
76.7
70.4
66.4
61.7
54.6
116.3
109.2
104.5
100.5
94.2
88.9
83.9
79.0
73.6
67.3
63.4
58.6
51.5
113.3
106.1
101.4
97.4
91.1
85.8
80.8
75.9
70.6
64.2
60.3
55.5
48.4
110.2
103.1
98.3
94.4
88.0
82.7
77.8
72.8
67.5
61.1
57.2
52.4
45.3
107.1
100.0
95.2
91.3
84.9
79.6
74.7
69.7
64.4
58.1
54.1
49.4
42.2
104.0
96.9
92.1
88.2
81.9
76.5
71.6
66.6
61.3
55.0
51.0
46.3
39.2
100.9
93.8
89.1
85.1
78.8
73.4
68.5
63.6
58.2
51.9
47.9
43.2
36.1
97.8
90.7
86.0
82.0
75.7
70.4
65.4
60.5
55.1
48.8
44.9
40.1
33.0
605
Table A5
Normative data for the Stroop-Word stratified by age and education levels for El SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
131.6
124.0
119.0
114.8
108.1
102.4
97.2
91.9
86.3
79.6
75.4
70.3
62.8
130.5
122.9
117.9
113.7
107.0
101.3
96.1
90.8
85.2
78.5
74.3
69.2
61.7
129.4
121.8
116.8
112.6
105.9
100.2
95.0
89.7
84.1
77.4
73.2
68.1
60.6
128.3
120.7
115.7
111.5
104.8
99.1
93.9
88.6
83.0
76.3
72.1
67.0
59.5
127.2
119.6
114.6
110.4
103.7
98.0
92.8
87.5
81.9
75.2
71.0
65.9
58.4
126.1
118.5
113.5
109.3
102.6
96.9
91.7
86.4
80.8
74.1
69.9
64.8
57.3
125.0
117.4
112.4
108.2
101.5
95.8
90.6
85.3
79.7
73.0
68.8
63.7
56.2
123.9
116.3
111.3
107.1
100.4
94.7
89.5
84.2
78.6
71.9
67.7
62.6
55.1
122.8
115.2
110.2
106.0
99.3
93.6
88.4
83.1
77.5
70.7
66.6
61.5
54.0
121.7
114.1
109.1
104.9
98.2
92.5
87.3
82.0
76.4
69.6
65.5
60.4
52.9
120.6
113.0
108.0
103.8
97.1
91.4
86.2
80.9
75.3
68.5
64.4
59.3
51.8
119.5
111.9
106.9
102.7
96.0
90.3
85.1
79.8
74.2
67.4
63.2
58.2
50.7
118.4
110.8
105.8
101.6
94.9
89.2
84.0
78.7
73.1
66.3
62.1
57.1
49.6
Age (Years)
4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
106.6
99.1
94.0
89.8
83.1
77.5
72.2
67.0
61.3
54.6
50.4
45.4
37.8
105.5
98.0
92.9
88.7
82.0
76.4
71.1
65.9
60.2
53.5
49.3
44.3
36.7
104.4
96.9
91.8
87.6
80.9
75.3
70.0
64.8
59.1
52.4
48.2
43.2
35.6
103.3
95.8
90.7
86.5
79.8
74.2
68.9
63.7
58.0
51.3
47.1
42.1
34.5
102.2
94.7
89.6
85.4
78.7
73.1
67.8
62.6
56.9
50.2
46.0
41.0
33.4
101.1
93.6
88.5
84.3
77.6
72.0
66.7
61.5
55.8
49.1
44.9
39.9
32.3
100.0
92.5
87.4
83.2
76.5
70.9
65.6
60.4
54.7
48.0
43.8
38.8
31.2
98.9
91.4
86.3
82.1
75.4
69.8
64.5
59.3
53.6
46.9
42.7
37.7
30.1
97.8
90.3
85.2
81.0
74.3
68.7
63.4
58.2
52.5
45.8
41.6
36.6
29.0
96.7
89.2
84.1
79.9
73.2
67.6
62.3
57.1
51.4
44.7
40.5
35.5
27.9
95.6
88.1
83.0
78.8
72.1
66.5
61.2
56.0
50.3
43.6
39.4
34.4
26.8
94.5
87.0
81.9
77.7
71.0
65.4
60.1
54.9
49.2
42.5
38.3
33.3
25.7
93.4
85.9
80.8
76.6
69.9
64.2
59.0
53.8
48.1
41.4
37.2
32.2
24.6
Table A6
Normative data for the Stroop-Word stratified by age and education levels for GUATEMALA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
137.7
130.6
125.9
121.9
115.7
110.3
105.4
100.5
95.2
88.9
85.0
80.3
73.2
135.6
128.5
123.8
119.9
113.6
108.3
103.4
98.5
93.2
86.9
83.0
78.3
71.2
133.6
126.5
121.8
117.9
111.6
106.3
101.4
96.4
91.1
84.9
80.9
76.2
69.1
131.5
124.5
119.7
115.8
109.5
104.2
99.3
94.4
89.1
82.8
78.9
74.2
67.1
129.5
122.4
117.7
113.8
107.5
102.2
97.3
92.4
87.1
80.8
76.9
72.1
65.1
127.5
120.4
115.7
111.7
105.5
100.2
95.2
90.3
85.0
78.7
74.8
70.1
63.0
125.4
118.3
113.6
109.7
103.4
98.1
93.2
88.3
83.0
76.7
72.8
68.1
61.0
123.4
116.3
111.6
107.7
101.4
96.1
91.2
86.3
81.0
74.7
70.7
66.0
59.0
121.3
114.3
109.6
105.6
99.3
94.0
89.1
84.2
78.9
72.6
68.7
64.0
56.9
119.3
112.2
107.5
103.6
97.3
92.0
87.1
82.2
76.9
70.6
66.7
61.9
54.9
117.3
110.2
105.5
101.5
95.3
90.0
85.0
80.1
74.8
68.5
64.6
59.9
52.8
115.2
108.1
103.4
99.5
93.2
87.9
83.0
78.1
72.8
66.5
62.6
57.9
50.8
113.2
106.1
101.4
97.5
91.2
85.9
81.0
76.1
70.8
64.5
60.5
55.8
48.8
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
123.6
116.5
111.8
107.9
101.6
96.3
91.4
86.5
81.2
74.9
70.9
66.2
59.2
121.5
114.5
109.8
105.8
99.5
94.2
89.3
84.4
79.1
72.8
68.9
64.2
57.1
119.5
112.4
107.7
103.8
97.5
92.2
87.3
82.4
77.1
70.8
66.9
62.1
55.1
117.5
110.4
105.7
101.8
95.5
90.2
85.3
80.3
75.0
68.8
64.8
60.1
53.0
115.4
108.4
103.6
99.7
93.4
88.1
83.2
78.3
73.0
66.7
62.8
58.1
51.0
113.4
106.3
101.6
97.7
91.4
86.1
81.2
76.3
71.0
64.7
60.7
56.0
49.0
111.3
104.3
99.6
95.6
89.3
84.0
79.1
74.2
68.9
62.6
58.7
54.0
46.9
109.3
102.2
97.5
93.6
87.3
82.0
77.1
72.2
66.9
60.6
56.7
52.0
44.9
107.3
100.2
95.5
91.6
85.3
80.0
75.1
70.1
64.8
58.6
54.6
49.9
42.8
105.2
98.2
93.4
89.5
83.2
77.9
73.0
68.1
62.8
56.5
52.6
47.9
40.8
103.2
96.1
91.4
87.5
81.2
75.9
71.0
66.1
60.8
54.5
50.6
45.8
38.8
101.2
94.1
89.4
85.4
79.2
73.8
68.9
64.0
58.7
52.4
48.5
43.8
36.7
99.1
92.0
87.3
83.4
77.1
71.8
66.9
62.0
56.7
50.4
46.5
41.8
34.7
606
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
129.5
122.0
116.9
112.8
106.1
100.4
95.2
90.0
84.4
77.7
73.5
68.5
61.0
126.6
119.1
114.1
109.9
103.2
97.6
92.4
87.1
81.5
74.8
70.6
65.6
58.1
123.7
116.2
111.2
107.0
100.3
94.7
89.5
84.3
78.6
71.9
67.8
62.7
55.2
120.9
113.4
108.3
104.2
97.5
91.8
86.6
81.4
75.8
69.1
64.9
59.9
52.4
118.0
110.5
105.5
101.3
94.6
89.0
83.8
78.5
72.9
66.2
62.0
57.0
49.5
115.1
107.6
102.6
98.4
91.7
86.1
80.9
75.7
70.0
63.3
59.2
54.2
46.6
112.3
104.8
99.7
95.6
88.9
83.2
78.0
72.8
67.2
60.5
56.3
51.3
43.8
109.4
101.9
96.9
92.7
86.0
80.4
75.2
69.9
64.3
57.6
53.4
48.4
40.9
106.5
99.0
94.0
89.8
83.1
77.5
72.3
67.1
61.4
54.7
50.6
45.6
38.0
103.7
96.2
91.1
87.0
80.3
74.6
69.4
64.2
58.6
51.9
47.7
42.7
35.2
100.8
93.3
88.3
84.1
77.4
71.8
66.6
61.3
55.7
49.0
44.8
39.8
32.3
97.9
90.4
85.4
81.2
74.6
68.9
63.7
58.5
52.8
46.1
42.0
37.0
29.4
95.1
87.6
82.5
78.4
71.7
66.0
60.8
55.6
50.0
43.3
39.1
34.1
26.6
Table A7
Normative data for the Stroop-Word stratified by age and education levels for HONDURAS
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
111.7
104.2
99.2
95.0
88.4
82.7
77.5
72.3
66.6
59.9
55.8
50.8
43.2
108.9
101.4
96.3
92.2
85.5
79.8
74.6
69.4
63.8
57.1
52.9
47.9
40.4
106.0
98.5
93.5
89.3
82.6
77.0
71.8
66.5
60.9
54.2
50.0
45.0
37.5
103.1
95.6
90.6
86.4
79.8
74.1
68.9
63.7
58.0
51.3
47.2
42.2
34.6
100.3
92.8
87.7
83.6
76.9
71.2
66.0
60.8
55.2
48.5
44.3
39.3
31.8
97.4
89.9
84.9
80.7
74.0
68.4
63.2
57.9
52.3
45.6
41.4
36.4
28.9
94.5
87.0
82.0
77.8
71.2
65.5
60.3
55.1
49.4
42.7
38.6
33.6
26.0
91.7
84.2
79.1
75.0
68.3
62.6
57.4
52.2
46.6
39.9
35.7
30.7
23.2
88.8
81.3
76.3
72.1
65.4
59.8
54.6
49.3
43.7
37.0
32.8
27.8
20.3
85.9
78.4
73.4
69.2
62.6
56.9
51.7
46.5
40.8
34.2
30.0
25.0
17.4
83.1
75.6
70.6
66.4
59.7
54.1
48.8
43.6
38.0
31.3
27.1
22.1
14.6
80.2
72.7
67.7
63.5
56.8
51.2
46.0
40.7
35.1
28.4
24.2
19.2
11.7
77.4
69.8
64.8
60.6
54.0
48.3
43.1
37.9
32.2
25.6
21.4
16.4
8.8
Table A8
Normative data for the Stroop-Word stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
137.6
130.8
126.4
122.6
116.6
111.6
106.9
102.2
97.1
91.2
87.4
82.9
76.2
135.1
128.4
123.9
120.1
114.1
109.1
104.4
99.7
94.7
88.7
84.9
80.4
73.7
132.7
125.9
121.4
117.7
111.7
106.6
101.9
97.3
92.2
86.2
82.5
78.0
71.2
130.2
123.4
118.9
115.2
109.2
104.2
99.5
94.8
89.7
83.7
80.0
75.5
68.8
127.7
121.0
116.5
112.7
106.7
101.7
97.0
92.3
87.3
81.3
77.5
73.0
66.3
125.2
118.5
114.0
110.3
104.3
99.2
94.5
89.9
84.8
78.8
75.1
70.6
63.8
122.8
116.0
111.5
107.8
101.8
96.7
92.1
87.4
82.3
76.3
72.6
68.1
61.4
120.3
113.6
109.1
105.3
99.3
94.3
89.6
84.9
79.9
73.9
70.1
65.6
58.9
117.8
111.1
106.6
102.9
96.9
91.8
87.1
82.4
77.4
71.4
67.7
63.2
56.4
115.4
108.6
104.1
100.4
94.4
89.3
84.7
80.0
74.9
68.9
65.2
60.7
54.0
112.9
106.2
101.7
97.9
91.9
86.9
82.2
77.5
72.5
66.5
62.7
58.2
51.5
110.4
103.7
99.2
95.4
89.5
84.4
79.7
75.0
70.0
64.0
60.2
55.8
49.0
108.0
101.2
96.7
93.0
87.0
81.9
77.3
72.6
67.5
61.5
57.8
53.3
46.5
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
128.5
121.8
117.3
113.5
107.6
102.5
97.8
93.1
88.1
82.1
78.3
73.9
67.1
126.1
119.3
114.8
111.1
105.1
100.0
95.4
90.7
85.6
79.6
75.9
71.4
64.6
123.6
116.8
112.4
108.6
102.6
97.6
92.9
88.2
83.1
77.2
73.4
68.9
62.2
121.1
114.4
109.9
106.1
100.1
95.1
90.4
85.7
80.7
74.7
70.9
66.4
59.7
118.6
111.9
107.4
103.7
97.7
92.6
87.9
83.3
78.2
72.2
68.5
64.0
57.2
116.2
109.4
104.9
101.2
95.2
90.2
85.5
80.8
75.7
69.7
66.0
61.5
54.8
113.7
107.0
102.5
98.7
92.7
87.7
83.0
78.3
73.3
67.3
63.5
59.0
52.3
111.2
104.5
100.0
96.3
90.3
85.2
80.5
75.9
70.8
64.8
61.1
56.6
49.8
108.8
102.0
97.5
93.8
87.8
82.7
78.1
73.4
68.3
62.3
58.6
54.1
47.4
106.3
99.6
95.1
91.3
85.3
80.3
75.6
70.9
65.9
59.9
56.1
51.6
44.9
103.8
97.1
92.6
88.9
82.9
77.8
73.1
68.4
63.4
57.4
53.7
49.2
42.4
101.4
94.6
90.1
86.4
80.4
75.3
70.7
66.0
60.9
54.9
51.2
46.7
40.0
98.9
92.2
87.7
83.9
77.9
72.9
68.2
63.5
58.5
52.5
48.7
44.2
37.5
607
Table A9
Normative data for the Stroop-Word stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
115.0
111.0
108.3
106.0
102.4
99.4
96.6
93.8
90.7
87.1
84.9
82.2
78.1
113.8
109.8
107.1
104.8
101.2
98.2
95.4
92.6
89.5
85.9
83.7
81.0
76.9
112.6
108.6
105.9
103.6
100.0
97.0
94.2
91.3
88.3
84.7
82.5
79.8
75.7
111.4
107.3
104.6
102.4
98.8
95.8
93.0
90.1
87.1
83.5
81.3
78.6
74.5
110.2
106.1
103.4
101.2
97.6
94.6
91.7
88.9
85.9
82.3
80.0
77.3
73.3
109.0
104.9
102.2
100.0
96.4
93.3
90.5
87.7
84.7
81.1
78.8
76.1
72.1
107.8
103.7
101.0
98.8
95.2
92.1
89.3
86.5
83.5
79.9
77.6
74.9
70.9
106.6
102.5
99.8
97.6
94.0
90.9
88.1
85.3
82.3
78.7
76.4
73.7
69.7
105.4
101.3
98.6
96.4
92.8
89.7
86.9
84.1
81.1
77.5
75.2
72.5
68.5
104.1
100.1
97.4
95.1
91.6
88.5
85.7
82.9
79.9
76.3
74.0
71.3
67.3
102.9
98.9
96.2
93.9
90.3
87.3
84.5
81.7
78.6
75.0
72.8
70.1
66.0
101.7
97.7
95.0
92.7
89.1
86.1
83.3
80.5
77.4
73.8
71.6
68.9
64.8
100.5
96.5
93.8
91.5
87.9
84.9
82.1
79.3
76.2
72.6
70.4
67.7
63.6
Age (Years)
4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
100.0
96.0
93.3
91.0
87.4
84.4
81.6
78.8
75.8
72.2
69.9
67.2
63.2
98.8
94.8
92.1
89.8
86.2
83.2
80.4
77.6
74.5
70.9
68.7
66.0
61.9
97.6
93.6
90.9
88.6
85.0
82.0
79.2
76.4
73.3
69.7
67.5
64.8
60.7
96.4
92.4
89.7
87.4
83.8
80.8
78.0
75.2
72.1
68.5
66.3
63.6
59.5
95.2
91.2
88.5
86.2
82.6
79.6
76.8
74.0
70.9
67.3
65.1
62.4
58.3
94.0
90.0
87.3
85.0
81.4
78.4
75.6
72.7
69.7
66.1
63.9
61.2
57.1
92.8
88.7
86.0
83.8
80.2
77.2
74.4
71.5
68.5
64.9
62.7
60.0
55.9
91.6
87.5
84.8
82.6
79.0
76.0
73.1
70.3
67.3
63.7
61.4
58.7
54.7
90.4
86.3
83.6
81.4
77.8
74.7
71.9
69.1
66.1
62.5
60.2
57.5
53.5
89.2
85.1
82.4
80.2
76.6
73.5
70.7
67.9
64.9
61.3
59.0
56.3
52.3
88.0
83.9
81.2
79.0
75.4
72.3
69.5
66.7
63.7
60.1
57.8
55.1
51.1
86.8
82.7
80.0
77.8
74.2
71.1
68.3
65.5
62.5
58.9
56.6
53.9
49.9
85.5
81.5
78.8
76.6
73.0
69.9
67.1
64.3
61.3
57.7
55.4
52.7
48.7
Table A10
Normative data for the Stroop-Word stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
134.6
128.3
124.2
120.7
115.1
110.4
106.0
101.6
96.9
91.4
87.9
83.7
77.4
132.6
126.3
122.1
118.6
113.0
108.3
104.0
99.6
94.9
89.3
85.8
81.6
75.4
130.5
124.3
120.1
116.6
111.0
106.3
101.9
97.6
92.8
87.3
83.8
79.6
73.3
128.5
122.2
118.0
114.5
108.9
104.2
99.9
95.5
90.8
85.2
81.7
77.5
71.3
126.4
120.2
116.0
112.5
106.9
102.2
97.8
93.5
88.8
83.2
79.7
75.5
69.2
124.4
118.1
113.9
110.4
104.9
100.1
95.8
91.4
86.7
81.1
77.6
73.4
67.2
122.3
116.1
111.9
108.4
102.8
98.1
93.7
89.4
84.7
79.1
75.6
71.4
65.1
120.3
114.0
109.8
106.3
100.8
96.0
91.7
87.3
82.6
77.0
73.5
69.4
63.1
118.3
112.0
107.8
104.3
98.7
94.0
89.6
85.3
80.6
75.0
71.5
67.3
61.0
116.2
109.9
105.7
102.2
96.7
92.0
87.6
83.2
78.5
72.9
69.4
65.3
59.0
114.2
107.9
103.7
100.2
94.6
89.9
85.5
81.2
76.5
70.9
67.4
63.2
56.9
112.1
105.8
101.6
98.2
92.6
87.9
83.5
79.1
74.4
68.8
65.4
61.2
54.9
110.1
103.8
99.6
96.1
90.5
85.8
81.5
77.1
72.4
66.8
63.3
59.1
52.8
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
124.5
118.2
114.0
110.5
104.9
100.2
95.9
91.5
86.8
81.2
77.7
73.5
67.2
122.4
116.1
112.0
108.5
102.9
98.2
93.8
89.5
84.7
79.2
75.7
71.5
65.2
120.4
114.1
109.9
106.4
100.8
96.1
91.8
87.4
82.7
77.1
73.6
69.4
63.2
118.3
112.1
107.9
104.4
98.8
94.1
89.7
85.4
80.6
75.1
71.6
67.4
61.1
116.3
110.0
105.8
102.3
96.7
92.0
87.7
83.3
78.6
73.0
69.5
65.3
59.1
114.2
108.0
103.8
100.3
94.7
90.0
85.6
81.3
76.6
71.0
67.5
63.3
57.0
112.2
105.9
101.7
98.2
92.7
87.9
83.6
79.2
74.5
68.9
65.4
61.2
55.0
110.1
103.9
99.7
96.2
90.6
85.9
81.5
77.2
72.5
66.9
63.4
59.2
52.9
108.1
101.8
97.6
94.1
88.6
83.9
79.5
75.1
70.4
64.8
61.3
57.2
50.9
106.1
99.8
95.6
92.1
86.5
81.8
77.4
73.1
68.4
62.8
59.3
55.1
48.8
104.0
97.7
93.5
90.1
84.5
79.8
75.4
71.0
66.3
60.7
57.3
53.1
46.8
102.0
95.7
91.5
88.0
82.4
77.7
73.3
69.0
64.3
58.7
55.2
51.0
44.7
99.9
93.6
89.4
86.0
80.4
75.7
71.3
66.9
62.2
56.6
53.2
49.0
42.7
608
Table A11
Normative data for the Stroop-Word stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
135.8
129.3
125.0
121.3
115.5
110.7
106.1
101.6
96.7
91.0
87.3
83.0
76.5
133.4
126.9
122.6
119.0
113.2
108.3
103.8
99.3
94.4
88.6
85.0
80.6
74.1
131.1
124.6
120.2
116.6
110.8
105.9
101.4
96.9
92.0
86.2
82.6
78.3
71.8
128.7
122.2
117.9
114.2
108.5
103.6
99.1
94.5
89.6
83.9
80.2
75.9
69.4
126.3
119.8
115.5
111.9
106.1
101.2
96.7
92.2
87.3
81.5
77.9
73.5
67.0
124.0
117.5
113.1
109.5
103.7
98.8
94.3
89.8
84.9
79.1
75.5
71.2
64.7
121.6
115.1
110.8
107.1
101.4
96.5
92.0
87.4
82.6
76.8
73.1
68.8
62.3
119.2
112.7
108.4
104.8
99.0
94.1
89.6
85.1
80.2
74.4
70.8
66.4
59.9
116.9
110.4
106.0
102.4
96.6
91.7
87.2
82.7
77.8
72.0
68.4
64.1
57.6
114.5
108.0
103.7
100.1
94.3
89.4
84.9
80.3
75.5
69.7
66.1
61.7
55.2
112.2
105.6
101.3
97.7
91.9
87.0
82.5
78.0
73.1
67.3
63.7
59.4
52.8
109.8
103.3
98.9
95.3
89.5
84.7
80.1
75.6
70.7
64.9
61.3
57.0
50.5
107.4
100.9
96.6
93.0
87.2
82.3
77.8
73.2
68.4
62.6
59.0
54.6
48.1
Age (Years)
4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
128.1
121.6
117.3
113.7
107.9
103.0
98.5
94.0
89.1
83.3
79.7
75.3
68.8
125.8
119.3
114.9
111.3
105.5
100.6
96.1
91.6
86.7
80.9
77.3
73.0
66.5
123.4
116.9
112.6
109.0
103.2
98.3
93.8
89.2
84.4
78.6
75.0
70.6
64.1
121.1
114.5
110.2
106.6
100.8
95.9
91.4
86.9
82.0
76.2
72.6
68.2
61.7
118.7
112.2
107.8
104.2
98.4
93.6
89.0
84.5
79.6
73.8
70.2
65.9
59.4
116.3
109.8
105.5
101.9
96.1
91.2
86.7
82.1
77.3
71.5
67.9
63.5
57.0
114.0
107.4
103.1
99.5
93.7
88.8
84.3
79.8
74.9
69.1
65.5
61.2
54.6
111.6
105.1
100.7
97.1
91.3
86.5
81.9
77.4
72.5
66.7
63.1
58.8
52.3
109.2
102.7
98.4
94.8
89.0
84.1
79.6
75.1
70.2
64.4
60.8
56.4
49.9
106.9
100.4
96.0
92.4
86.6
81.7
77.2
72.7
67.8
62.0
58.4
54.1
47.6
104.5
98.0
93.7
90.0
84.2
79.4
74.8
70.3
65.4
59.7
56.0
51.7
45.2
102.1
95.6
91.3
87.7
81.9
77.0
72.5
68.0
63.1
57.3
53.7
49.3
42.8
99.8
93.3
88.9
85.3
79.5
74.6
70.1
65.6
60.7
54.9
51.3
47.0
40.5
Table A12
Normative data for the Stroop-Color stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
98.0
93.4
90.3
87.7
83.6
80.2
77.0
73.7
70.3
66.2
63.6
60.5
55.9
96.7
92.1
89.0
86.5
82.3
78.9
75.7
72.5
69.0
64.9
62.3
59.3
54.7
95.4
90.8
87.7
85.2
81.1
77.6
74.4
71.2
67.7
63.6
61.1
58.0
53.4
94.2
89.6
86.5
83.9
79.8
76.3
73.1
69.9
66.5
62.4
59.8
56.7
52.1
92.9
88.3
85.2
82.6
78.5
75.1
71.9
68.7
65.2
61.1
58.5
55.5
50.8
91.6
87.0
83.9
81.4
77.3
73.8
70.6
67.4
63.9
59.8
57.3
54.2
49.6
90.4
85.7
82.7
80.1
76.0
72.5
69.3
66.1
62.7
58.6
56.0
52.9
48.3
89.1
84.5
81.4
78.8
74.7
71.3
68.1
64.9
61.4
57.3
54.7
51.6
47.0
87.8
83.2
80.1
77.6
73.5
70.0
66.8
63.6
60.1
56.0
53.5
50.4
45.8
86.5
81.9
78.9
76.3
72.2
68.7
65.5
62.3
58.9
54.7
52.2
49.1
44.5
85.3
80.7
77.6
75.0
70.9
67.5
64.2
61.0
57.6
53.5
50.9
47.8
43.2
84.0
79.4
76.3
73.7
69.6
66.2
63.0
59.8
56.3
52.2
49.6
46.6
41.9
82.7
78.1
75.0
72.5
68.4
64.9
61.7
58.5
55.0
50.9
48.4
45.3
40.7
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
90.9
86.3
83.2
80.6
76.5
73.1
69.9
66.7
63.2
59.1
56.5
53.5
48.8
89.6
85.0
81.9
79.4
75.3
71.8
68.6
65.4
61.9
57.8
55.3
52.2
47.6
88.4
83.7
80.7
78.1
74.0
70.5
67.3
64.1
60.7
56.6
54.0
50.9
46.3
87.1
82.5
79.4
76.8
72.7
69.3
66.1
62.9
59.4
55.3
52.7
49.6
45.0
85.8
81.2
78.1
75.6
71.5
68.0
64.8
61.6
58.1
54.0
51.5
48.4
43.8
84.5
79.9
76.9
74.3
70.2
66.7
63.5
60.3
56.9
52.7
50.2
47.1
42.5
83.3
78.7
75.6
73.0
68.9
65.5
62.2
59.0
55.6
51.5
48.9
45.8
41.2
82.0
77.4
74.3
71.7
67.6
64.2
61.0
57.8
54.3
50.2
47.6
44.6
39.9
80.7
76.1
73.0
70.5
66.4
62.9
59.7
56.5
53.0
48.9
46.4
43.3
38.7
79.5
74.8
71.8
69.2
65.1
61.6
58.4
55.2
51.8
47.7
45.1
42.0
37.4
78.2
73.6
70.5
67.9
63.8
60.4
57.2
54.0
50.5
46.4
43.8
40.8
36.1
76.9
72.3
69.2
66.7
62.6
59.1
55.9
52.7
49.2
45.1
42.6
39.5
34.9
75.6
71.0
68.0
65.4
61.3
57.8
54.6
51.4
48.0
43.9
41.3
38.2
33.6
609
Table A13
Normative data for the Stroop-Color stratified by age and education levels for BOLIVIA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
111.0
104.9
100.8
97.4
91.9
87.3
83.1
78.8
74.2
68.8
65.4
61.3
55.1
108.0
101.9
97.8
94.4
88.9
84.3
80.1
75.8
71.2
65.7
62.3
58.2
52.1
105.0
98.8
94.8
91.3
85.9
81.3
77.0
72.8
68.2
62.7
59.3
55.2
49.1
101.9
95.8
91.7
88.3
82.9
78.3
74.0
69.7
65.1
59.7
56.3
52.2
46.0
98.9
92.8
88.7
85.3
79.8
75.2
71.0
66.7
62.1
56.6
53.2
49.1
43.0
95.9
89.8
85.7
82.2
76.8
72.2
67.9
63.7
59.1
53.6
50.2
46.1
40.0
92.9
86.7
82.6
79.2
73.8
69.2
64.9
60.6
56.0
50.6
47.2
43.1
36.9
89.8
83.7
79.6
76.2
70.7
66.1
61.9
57.6
53.0
47.6
44.1
40.1
33.9
86.8
80.7
76.6
73.2
67.7
63.1
58.8
54.6
50.0
44.5
41.1
37.0
30.9
83.8
77.6
73.5
70.1
64.7
60.1
55.8
51.5
46.9
41.5
38.1
34.0
27.9
80.7
74.6
70.5
67.1
61.6
57.0
52.8
48.5
43.9
38.5
35.1
31.0
24.8
77.7
71.6
67.5
64.1
58.6
54.0
49.7
45.5
40.9
35.4
32.0
27.9
21.8
74.7
68.5
64.4
61.0
55.6
51.0
46.7
42.5
37.9
32.4
29.0
24.9
18.8
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
101.7
95.6
91.5
88.1
82.6
78.0
73.8
69.5
64.9
59.5
56.1
52.0
45.8
98.7
92.6
88.5
85.1
79.6
75.0
70.8
66.5
61.9
56.4
53.0
48.9
42.8
95.7
89.5
85.4
82.0
76.6
72.0
67.7
63.5
58.9
53.4
50.0
45.9
39.8
92.6
86.5
82.4
79.0
73.6
69.0
64.7
60.4
55.8
50.4
47.0
42.9
36.7
89.6
83.5
79.4
76.0
70.5
65.9
61.7
57.4
52.8
47.3
43.9
39.8
33.7
86.6
80.4
76.4
72.9
67.5
62.9
58.6
54.4
49.8
44.3
40.9
36.8
30.7
83.6
77.4
73.3
69.9
64.5
59.9
55.6
51.3
46.7
41.3
37.9
33.8
27.6
80.5
74.4
70.3
66.9
61.4
56.8
52.6
48.3
43.7
38.2
34.8
30.7
24.6
77.5
71.4
67.3
63.9
58.4
53.8
49.5
45.3
40.7
35.2
31.8
27.7
21.6
74.5
68.3
64.2
60.8
55.4
50.8
46.5
42.2
37.6
32.2
28.8
24.7
18.6
71.4
65.3
61.2
57.8
52.3
47.7
43.5
39.2
34.6
29.2
25.7
21.7
15.5
68.4
62.3
58.2
54.8
49.3
44.7
40.4
36.2
31.6
26.1
22.7
18.6
12.5
65.4
59.2
55.1
51.7
46.3
41.7
37.4
33.2
28.6
23.1
19.7
15.6
9.5
Table A14
Normative data for the Stroop-Color stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
102.3
97.6
94.4
91.8
87.6
84.0
80.7
77.4
73.8
69.6
67.0
63.8
59.1
100.2
95.4
92.3
89.6
85.4
81.8
78.5
75.2
71.7
67.5
64.8
61.7
56.9
98.0
93.3
90.1
87.5
83.2
79.7
76.4
73.1
69.5
65.3
62.7
59.5
54.7
95.9
91.1
88.0
85.3
81.1
77.5
74.2
70.9
67.4
63.1
60.5
57.3
52.6
93.7
89.0
85.8
83.2
78.9
75.4
72.1
68.8
65.2
61.0
58.3
55.2
50.4
91.6
86.8
83.6
81.0
76.8
73.2
69.9
66.6
63.1
58.8
56.2
53.0
48.3
89.4
84.7
81.5
78.8
74.6
71.1
67.8
64.5
60.9
56.7
54.0
50.9
46.1
87.2
82.5
79.3
76.7
72.5
68.9
65.6
62.3
58.7
54.5
51.9
48.7
44.0
85.1
80.3
77.2
74.5
70.3
66.7
63.4
60.1
56.6
52.4
49.7
46.6
41.8
82.9
78.2
75.0
72.4
68.2
64.6
61.3
58.0
54.4
50.2
47.6
44.4
39.7
80.8
76.0
72.9
70.2
66.0
62.4
59.1
55.8
52.3
48.1
45.4
42.2
37.5
78.6
73.9
70.7
68.1
63.8
60.3
57.0
53.7
50.1
45.9
43.3
40.1
35.3
76.5
71.7
68.5
65.9
61.7
58.1
54.8
51.5
48.0
43.7
41.1
37.9
33.2
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
90.3
85.5
82.4
79.7
75.5
71.9
68.6
65.3
61.8
57.6
54.9
51.8
47.0
88.1
83.4
80.2
77.6
73.3
69.8
66.5
63.2
59.6
55.4
52.8
49.6
44.8
86.0
81.2
78.1
75.4
71.2
67.6
64.3
61.0
57.5
53.2
50.6
47.4
42.7
83.8
79.1
75.9
73.3
69.0
65.5
62.2
58.9
55.3
51.1
48.5
45.3
40.5
81.7
76.9
73.7
71.1
66.9
63.3
60.0
56.7
53.2
48.9
46.3
43.1
38.4
79.5
74.8
71.6
68.9
64.7
61.2
57.9
54.6
51.0
46.8
44.1
41.0
36.2
77.3
72.6
69.4
66.8
62.6
59.0
55.7
52.4
48.8
44.6
42.0
38.8
34.1
75.2
70.4
67.3
64.6
60.4
56.9
53.6
50.3
46.7
42.5
39.8
36.7
31.9
73.0
68.3
65.1
62.5
58.3
54.7
51.4
48.1
44.5
40.3
37.7
34.5
29.8
70.9
66.1
63.0
60.3
56.1
52.5
49.2
45.9
42.4
38.2
35.5
32.3
27.6
68.7
64.0
60.8
58.2
53.9
50.4
47.1
43.8
40.2
36.0
33.4
30.2
25.4
66.6
61.8
58.7
56.0
51.8
48.2
44.9
41.6
38.1
33.8
31.2
28.0
23.3
64.4
59.7
56.5
53.9
49.6
46.1
42.8
39.5
35.9
31.7
29.0
25.9
21.1
610
Table A15
Normative data for the Stroop-Color stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
110.2
104.2
100.2
96.8
91.5
87.0
82.8
78.7
74.2
68.9
65.5
61.5
55.5
107.7
101.7
97.7
94.4
89.0
84.5
80.4
76.2
71.7
66.4
63.0
59.0
53.1
105.2
99.2
95.2
91.9
86.6
82.1
77.9
73.7
69.2
63.9
60.6
56.6
50.6
102.7
96.7
92.7
89.4
84.1
79.6
75.4
71.3
66.8
61.4
58.1
54.1
48.1
100.3
94.3
90.3
86.9
81.6
77.1
72.9
68.8
64.3
59.0
55.6
51.6
45.6
97.8
91.8
87.8
84.5
79.1
74.6
70.5
66.3
61.8
56.5
53.2
49.2
43.2
95.3
89.3
85.3
82.0
76.7
72.2
68.0
63.8
59.3
54.0
50.7
46.7
40.7
92.8
86.8
82.9
79.5
74.2
69.7
65.5
61.4
56.9
51.5
48.2
44.2
38.2
90.4
84.4
80.4
77.0
71.7
67.2
63.1
58.9
54.4
49.1
45.7
41.7
35.7
87.9
81.9
77.9
74.6
69.2
64.7
60.6
56.4
51.9
46.6
43.3
39.3
33.3
85.4
79.4
75.4
72.1
66.8
62.3
58.1
53.9
49.5
44.1
40.8
36.8
30.8
83.0
77.0
73.0
69.6
64.3
59.8
55.6
51.5
47.0
41.6
38.3
34.3
28.3
80.5
74.5
70.5
67.2
61.8
57.3
53.2
49.0
44.5
39.2
35.8
31.8
25.9
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
102.4
96.4
92.4
89.0
83.7
79.2
75.0
70.9
66.4
61.1
57.7
53.7
47.7
99.9
93.9
89.9
86.6
81.2
76.7
72.6
68.4
63.9
58.6
55.3
51.3
45.3
97.4
91.4
87.4
84.1
78.8
74.3
70.1
65.9
61.4
56.1
52.8
48.8
42.8
94.9
88.9
85.0
81.6
76.3
71.8
67.6
63.5
59.0
53.6
50.3
46.3
40.3
92.5
86.5
82.5
79.1
73.8
69.3
65.2
61.0
56.5
51.2
47.8
43.8
37.8
90.0
84.0
80.0
76.7
71.3
66.8
62.7
58.5
54.0
48.7
45.4
41.4
35.4
87.5
81.5
77.5
74.2
68.9
64.4
60.2
56.0
51.5
46.2
42.9
38.9
32.9
85.1
79.1
75.1
71.7
66.4
61.9
57.7
53.6
49.1
43.7
40.4
36.4
30.4
82.6
76.6
72.6
69.3
63.9
59.4
55.3
51.1
46.6
41.3
37.9
33.9
27.9
80.1
74.1
70.1
66.8
61.5
57.0
52.8
48.6
44.1
38.8
35.5
31.5
25.5
77.6
71.6
67.6
64.3
59.0
54.5
50.3
46.2
41.7
36.3
33.0
29.0
23.0
75.2
69.2
65.2
61.8
56.5
52.0
47.8
43.7
39.2
33.9
30.5
26.5
20.5
72.7
66.7
62.7
59.4
54.0
49.5
45.4
41.2
36.7
31.4
28.1
24.1
18.1
Table A16
Normative data for the Stroop-Color stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
96.4
90.2
86.1
82.6
77.1
72.4
68.1
63.8
59.1
53.6
50.2
46.0
39.8
95.2
89.0
84.8
81.4
75.8
71.2
66.9
62.5
57.9
52.4
48.9
44.8
38.6
93.9
87.7
83.6
80.1
74.6
69.9
65.6
61.3
56.6
51.1
47.7
43.5
37.3
92.7
86.4
82.3
78.8
73.3
68.7
64.3
60.0
55.4
49.9
46.4
42.3
36.0
91.4
85.2
81.0
77.6
72.1
67.4
63.1
58.8
54.1
48.6
45.1
41.0
34.8
90.1
83.9
79.8
76.3
70.8
66.1
61.8
57.5
52.9
47.3
43.9
39.7
33.5
88.9
82.7
78.5
75.1
69.6
64.9
60.6
56.3
51.6
46.1
42.6
38.5
32.3
87.6
81.4
77.3
73.8
68.3
63.6
59.3
55.0
50.3
44.8
41.4
37.2
31.0
86.4
80.2
76.0
72.6
67.0
62.4
58.1
53.7
49.1
43.6
40.1
36.0
29.8
85.1
78.9
74.8
71.3
65.8
61.1
56.8
52.5
47.8
42.3
38.9
34.7
28.5
83.9
77.6
73.5
70.0
64.5
59.9
55.5
51.2
46.6
41.1
37.6
33.5
27.2
82.6
76.4
72.2
68.8
63.3
58.6
54.3
50.0
45.3
39.8
36.3
32.2
26.0
81.3
75.1
71.0
67.5
62.0
57.3
53.0
48.7
44.1
38.5
35.1
30.9
24.7
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
85.6
79.3
75.2
71.8
66.2
61.6
57.3
52.9
48.3
42.8
39.3
35.2
28.9
84.3
78.1
73.9
70.5
65.0
60.3
56.0
51.7
47.0
41.5
38.0
33.9
27.7
83.0
76.8
72.7
69.2
63.7
59.1
54.7
50.4
45.8
40.2
36.8
32.6
26.4
81.8
75.6
71.4
68.0
62.5
57.8
53.5
49.2
44.5
39.0
35.5
31.4
25.2
80.5
74.3
70.2
66.7
61.2
56.5
52.2
47.9
43.3
37.7
34.3
30.1
23.9
79.3
73.1
68.9
65.5
59.9
55.3
51.0
46.7
42.0
36.5
33.0
28.9
22.7
78.0
71.8
67.7
64.2
58.7
54.0
49.7
45.4
40.7
35.2
31.8
27.6
21.4
76.8
70.5
66.4
63.0
57.4
52.8
48.5
44.1
39.5
34.0
30.5
26.4
20.1
75.5
69.3
65.1
61.7
56.2
51.5
47.2
42.9
38.2
32.7
29.2
25.1
18.9
74.2
68.0
63.9
60.4
54.9
50.3
45.9
41.6
37.0
31.4
28.0
23.8
17.6
73.0
66.8
62.6
59.2
53.7
49.0
44.7
40.4
35.7
30.2
26.7
22.6
16.4
71.7
65.5
61.4
57.9
52.4
47.7
43.4
39.1
34.5
28.9
25.5
21.3
15.1
70.5
64.3
60.1
56.7
51.1
46.5
42.2
37.9
33.2
27.7
24.2
20.1
13.9
611
Table A17
Normative data for the Stroop-Color stratified by age and education levels for GUATEMALA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
98.8
93.2
89.5
86.4
81.5
77.4
73.5
69.7
65.5
60.6
57.5
53.8
48.2
97.1
91.5
87.8
84.8
79.8
75.7
71.8
68.0
63.8
58.9
55.8
52.1
46.6
95.4
89.9
86.2
83.1
78.2
74.0
70.2
66.3
62.1
57.2
54.1
50.4
44.9
93.7
88.2
84.5
81.4
76.5
72.3
68.5
64.6
60.5
55.5
52.5
48.8
43.2
92.1
86.5
82.8
79.7
74.8
70.7
66.8
62.9
58.8
53.9
50.8
47.1
41.5
90.4
84.8
81.1
78.1
73.1
69.0
65.1
61.3
57.1
52.2
49.1
45.4
39.9
88.7
83.2
79.5
76.4
71.5
67.3
63.4
59.6
55.4
50.5
47.4
43.7
38.2
87.0
81.5
77.8
74.7
69.8
65.6
61.8
57.9
53.8
48.8
45.8
42.1
36.5
85.4
79.8
76.1
73.0
68.1
63.9
60.1
56.2
52.1
47.2
44.1
40.4
34.8
83.7
78.1
74.4
71.4
66.4
62.3
58.4
54.6
50.4
45.5
42.4
38.7
33.2
82.0
76.5
72.8
69.7
64.8
60.6
56.7
52.9
48.7
43.8
40.7
37.0
31.5
80.3
74.8
71.1
68.0
63.1
58.9
55.1
51.2
47.1
42.1
39.0
35.4
29.8
78.7
73.1
69.4
66.3
61.4
57.2
53.4
49.5
45.4
40.5
37.4
33.7
28.1
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
92.0
86.4
82.7
79.7
74.7
70.6
66.7
62.9
58.7
53.8
50.7
47.0
41.5
90.3
84.8
81.1
78.0
73.1
68.9
65.0
61.2
57.0
52.1
49.0
45.3
39.8
88.6
83.1
79.4
76.3
71.4
67.2
63.4
59.5
55.4
50.4
47.4
43.7
38.1
87.0
81.4
77.7
74.6
69.7
65.5
61.7
57.8
53.7
48.8
45.7
42.0
36.4
85.3
79.7
76.0
73.0
68.0
63.9
60.0
56.2
52.0
47.1
44.0
40.3
34.8
83.6
78.1
74.4
71.3
66.4
62.2
58.3
54.5
50.3
45.4
42.3
38.6
33.1
81.9
76.4
72.7
69.6
64.7
60.5
56.7
52.8
48.7
43.7
40.6
37.0
31.4
80.3
74.7
71.0
67.9
63.0
58.8
55.0
51.1
47.0
42.1
39.0
35.3
29.7
78.6
73.0
69.3
66.3
61.3
57.2
53.3
49.5
45.3
40.4
37.3
33.6
28.1
76.9
71.4
67.7
64.6
59.6
55.5
51.6
47.8
43.6
38.7
35.6
31.9
26.4
75.2
69.7
66.0
62.9
58.0
53.8
50.0
46.1
42.0
37.0
33.9
30.2
24.7
73.5
68.0
64.3
61.2
56.3
52.1
48.3
44.4
40.3
35.3
32.3
28.6
23.0
71.9
66.3
62.6
59.5
54.6
50.5
46.6
42.8
38.6
33.7
30.6
26.9
21.4
Table A18
Normative data for the Stroop-Color stratified by age and education levels for HONDURAS
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
93.7
88.7
85.3
82.5
77.9
74.1
70.6
67.1
63.3
58.8
56.0
52.6
47.5
91.2
86.1
82.8
79.9
75.4
71.6
68.1
64.6
60.8
56.3
53.4
50.1
45.0
88.7
83.6
80.2
77.4
72.9
69.1
65.6
62.1
58.2
53.7
50.9
47.5
42.5
86.2
81.1
77.7
74.9
70.4
66.6
63.1
59.5
55.7
51.2
48.4
45.0
39.9
83.6
78.6
75.2
72.4
67.9
64.1
60.5
57.0
53.2
48.7
45.9
42.5
37.4
81.1
76.0
72.7
69.8
65.3
61.5
58.0
54.5
50.7
46.2
43.3
40.0
34.9
78.6
73.5
70.1
67.3
62.8
59.0
55.5
52.0
48.2
43.6
40.8
37.4
32.4
76.1
71.0
67.6
64.8
60.3
56.5
53.0
49.4
45.6
41.1
38.3
34.9
29.8
73.6
68.5
65.1
62.3
57.8
54.0
50.4
46.9
43.1
38.6
35.8
32.4
27.3
71.0
66.0
62.6
59.8
55.2
51.4
47.9
44.4
40.6
36.1
33.3
29.9
24.8
68.5
63.4
60.1
57.2
52.7
48.9
45.4
41.9
38.1
33.6
30.7
27.4
22.3
66.0
60.9
57.5
54.7
50.2
46.4
42.9
39.4
35.5
31.0
28.2
24.8
19.8
63.5
58.4
55.0
52.2
47.7
43.9
40.4
36.8
33.0
28.5
25.7
22.3
17.2
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
85.5
80.4
77.1
74.2
69.7
65.9
62.4
58.9
55.1
50.6
47.7
44.4
39.3
83.0
77.9
74.5
71.7
67.2
63.4
59.9
56.3
52.5
48.0
45.2
41.8
36.8
80.5
75.4
72.0
69.2
64.7
60.9
57.4
53.8
50.0
45.5
42.7
39.3
34.2
77.9
72.9
69.5
66.7
62.2
58.4
54.8
51.3
47.5
43.0
40.2
36.8
31.7
75.4
70.3
67.0
64.1
59.6
55.8
52.3
48.8
45.0
40.5
37.6
34.3
29.2
72.9
67.8
64.4
61.6
57.1
53.3
49.8
46.3
42.5
37.9
35.1
31.7
26.7
70.4
65.3
61.9
59.1
54.6
50.8
47.3
43.7
39.9
35.4
32.6
29.2
24.1
67.9
62.8
59.4
56.6
52.1
48.3
44.7
41.2
37.4
32.9
30.1
26.7
21.6
65.3
60.3
56.9
54.1
49.5
45.7
42.2
38.7
34.9
30.4
27.6
24.2
19.1
62.8
57.7
54.4
51.5
47.0
43.2
39.7
36.2
32.4
27.9
25.0
21.7
16.6
60.3
55.2
51.8
49.0
44.5
40.7
37.2
33.6
29.8
25.3
22.5
19.1
14.1
57.8
52.7
49.3
46.5
42.0
38.2
34.7
31.1
27.3
22.8
20.0
16.6
11.5
55.2
50.2
46.8
44.0
39.5
35.7
32.1
28.6
24.8
20.3
17.5
14.1
9.0
612
Table A19
Normative data for the Stroop-Color stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
104.0
98.8
95.3
92.4
87.7
83.8
80.1
76.5
72.6
67.9
65.0
61.5
56.2
101.8
96.6
93.1
90.1
85.5
81.6
77.9
74.3
70.3
65.7
62.8
59.3
54.0
99.6
94.3
90.8
87.9
83.3
79.3
75.7
72.0
68.1
63.4
60.5
57.0
51.8
97.4
92.1
88.6
85.7
81.0
77.1
73.5
69.8
65.9
61.2
58.3
54.8
49.6
95.1
89.9
86.4
83.5
78.8
74.9
71.2
67.6
63.7
59.0
56.1
52.6
47.3
92.9
87.7
84.2
81.3
76.6
72.7
69.0
65.4
61.4
56.8
53.9
50.4
45.1
90.7
85.5
82.0
79.0
74.4
70.4
66.8
63.2
59.2
54.6
51.6
48.1
42.9
88.5
83.2
79.7
76.8
72.2
68.2
64.6
60.9
57.0
52.3
49.4
45.9
40.7
86.3
81.0
77.5
74.6
69.9
66.0
62.4
58.7
54.8
50.1
47.2
43.7
38.5
84.0
78.8
75.3
72.4
67.7
63.8
60.1
56.5
52.6
47.9
45.0
41.5
36.2
81.8
76.6
73.1
70.2
65.5
61.6
57.9
54.3
50.3
45.7
42.8
39.3
34.0
79.6
74.3
70.8
67.9
63.3
59.3
55.7
52.0
48.1
43.4
40.5
37.0
31.8
77.4
72.1
68.6
65.7
61.0
57.1
53.5
49.8
45.9
41.2
38.3
34.8
29.6
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
98.7
93.4
89.9
87.0
82.3
78.4
74.8
71.1
67.2
62.5
59.6
56.1
50.9
96.4
91.2
87.7
84.8
80.1
76.2
72.5
68.9
65.0
60.3
57.4
53.9
48.6
94.2
89.0
85.5
82.6
77.9
74.0
70.3
66.7
62.7
58.1
55.2
51.7
46.4
92.0
86.8
83.3
80.3
75.7
71.7
68.1
64.5
60.5
55.9
52.9
49.5
44.2
89.8
84.5
81.0
78.1
73.5
69.5
65.9
62.2
58.3
53.6
50.7
47.2
42.0
87.6
82.3
78.8
75.9
71.2
67.3
63.7
60.0
56.1
51.4
48.5
45.0
39.8
85.3
80.1
76.6
73.7
69.0
65.1
61.4
57.8
53.9
49.2
46.3
42.8
37.5
83.1
77.9
74.4
71.5
66.8
62.9
59.2
55.6
51.6
47.0
44.1
40.6
35.3
80.9
75.6
72.2
69.2
64.6
60.6
57.0
53.4
49.4
44.8
41.8
38.3
33.1
78.7
73.4
69.9
67.0
62.4
58.4
54.8
51.1
47.2
42.5
39.6
36.1
30.9
76.5
71.2
67.7
64.8
60.1
56.2
52.6
48.9
45.0
40.3
37.4
33.9
28.7
74.2
69.0
65.5
62.6
57.9
54.0
50.3
46.7
42.8
38.1
35.2
31.7
26.4
72.0
66.8
63.3
60.4
55.7
51.8
48.1
44.5
40.5
35.9
33.0
29.5
24.2
Table A20
Normative data for the Stroop-Color stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
96.4
92.5
89.8
87.6
84.1
81.2
78.4
75.7
72.7
69.2
67.0
64.4
60.5
95.4
91.5
88.9
86.7
83.2
80.2
77.5
74.7
71.8
68.3
66.1
63.4
59.5
94.5
90.5
87.9
85.7
82.2
79.2
76.5
73.7
70.8
67.3
65.1
62.5
58.5
93.5
89.5
86.9
84.7
81.2
78.3
75.5
72.8
69.8
66.3
64.1
61.5
57.5
92.5
88.6
85.9
83.7
80.2
77.3
74.5
71.8
68.8
65.3
63.1
60.5
56.6
91.5
87.6
85.0
82.8
79.3
76.3
73.6
70.8
67.9
64.4
62.2
59.5
55.6
90.6
86.6
84.0
81.8
78.3
75.3
72.6
69.9
66.9
63.4
61.2
58.6
54.6
89.6
85.6
83.0
80.8
77.3
74.4
71.6
68.9
65.9
62.4
60.2
57.6
53.6
88.6
84.7
82.0
79.8
76.3
73.4
70.6
67.9
64.9
61.4
59.2
56.6
52.7
87.6
83.7
81.1
78.9
75.4
72.4
69.7
66.9
64.0
60.5
58.3
55.6
51.7
86.7
82.7
80.1
77.9
74.4
71.4
68.7
66.0
63.0
59.5
57.3
54.7
50.7
85.7
81.7
79.1
76.9
73.4
70.5
67.7
65.0
62.0
58.5
56.3
53.7
49.7
84.7
80.8
78.1
75.9
72.4
69.5
66.7
64.0
61.0
57.5
55.3
52.7
48.8
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
84.3
80.3
77.7
75.5
72.0
69.0
66.3
63.5
60.6
57.1
54.9
52.3
48.3
83.3
79.3
76.7
74.5
71.0
68.0
65.3
62.6
59.6
56.1
53.9
51.3
47.3
82.3
78.4
75.7
73.5
70.0
67.1
64.3
61.6
58.6
55.1
52.9
50.3
46.4
81.3
77.4
74.8
72.6
69.1
66.1
63.4
60.6
57.7
54.2
52.0
49.3
45.4
80.4
76.4
73.8
71.6
68.1
65.1
62.4
59.6
56.7
53.2
51.0
48.4
44.4
79.4
75.4
72.8
70.6
67.1
64.1
61.4
58.7
55.7
52.2
50.0
47.4
43.4
78.4
74.5
71.8
69.6
66.1
63.2
60.4
57.7
54.7
51.2
49.0
46.4
42.5
77.4
73.5
70.9
68.7
65.2
62.2
59.5
56.7
53.8
50.3
48.1
45.4
41.5
76.5
72.5
69.9
67.7
64.2
61.2
58.5
55.7
52.8
49.3
47.1
44.5
40.5
75.5
71.5
68.9
66.7
63.2
60.3
57.5
54.8
51.8
48.3
46.1
43.5
39.5
74.5
70.6
67.9
65.7
62.2
59.3
56.5
53.8
50.8
47.3
45.1
42.5
38.6
73.5
69.6
67.0
64.8
61.3
58.3
55.6
52.8
49.9
46.4
44.2
41.5
37.6
72.6
68.6
66.0
63.8
60.3
57.3
54.6
51.8
48.9
45.4
43.2
40.6
36.6
613
Table A21
Normative data for the Stroop-Color stratified by age for PERU
Age (Years)
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
100.6
95.4
92.0
89.1
84.6
80.7
77.2
73.6
69.7
65.2
62.3
58.9
53.8
98.9
93.8
90.4
87.5
82.9
79.1
75.5
71.9
68.1
63.5
60.7
57.3
52.1
97.3
92.1
88.7
85.9
81.3
77.4
73.9
70.3
66.5
61.9
59.0
55.6
50.5
95.6
90.5
87.1
84.2
79.6
75.8
72.2
68.7
64.8
60.2
57.4
54.0
48.8
94.0
88.8
85.4
82.6
78.0
74.1
70.6
67.0
63.2
58.6
55.7
52.3
47.2
92.3
87.2
83.8
80.9
76.3
72.5
68.9
65.4
61.5
56.9
54.1
50.7
45.5
90.7
85.5
82.1
79.3
74.7
70.9
67.3
63.7
59.9
55.3
52.4
49.0
43.9
89.0
83.9
80.5
77.6
73.1
69.2
65.6
62.1
58.2
53.7
50.8
47.4
42.2
87.4
82.3
78.8
76.0
71.4
67.6
64.0
60.4
56.6
52.0
49.2
45.7
40.6
85.7
80.6
77.2
74.3
69.8
65.9
62.3
58.8
54.9
50.4
47.5
44.1
39.0
84.1
79.0
75.5
72.7
68.1
64.3
60.7
57.1
53.3
48.7
45.9
42.4
37.3
82.5
77.3
73.9
71.0
66.5
62.6
59.1
55.5
51.6
47.1
44.2
40.8
35.7
80.8
75.7
72.2
69.4
64.8
61.0
57.4
53.8
50.0
45.4
42.6
39.1
34.0
Table A22
Normative data for the Stroop-Color stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
99.5
95.0
92.0
89.5
85.5
82.2
79.1
76.0
72.6
68.6
66.1
63.1
58.7
97.2
92.8
89.8
87.3
83.3
79.9
76.8
73.7
70.4
66.4
63.9
60.9
56.4
95.0
90.5
87.5
85.1
81.1
77.7
74.6
71.5
68.1
64.2
61.7
58.7
54.2
92.8
88.3
85.3
82.8
78.8
75.5
72.4
69.3
65.9
61.9
59.4
56.4
52.0
90.5
86.1
83.1
80.6
76.6
73.3
70.1
67.0
63.7
59.7
57.2
54.2
49.7
88.3
83.8
80.8
78.4
74.4
71.0
67.9
64.8
61.4
57.5
55.0
52.0
47.5
86.1
81.6
78.6
76.1
72.1
68.8
65.7
62.6
59.2
55.2
52.7
49.7
45.3
83.9
79.4
76.4
73.9
69.9
66.6
63.4
60.3
57.0
53.0
50.5
47.5
43.0
81.6
77.1
74.2
71.7
67.7
64.3
61.2
58.1
54.7
50.8
48.3
45.3
40.8
79.4
74.9
71.9
69.4
65.4
62.1
59.0
55.9
52.5
48.5
46.0
43.0
38.6
77.2
72.7
69.7
67.2
63.2
59.9
56.7
53.6
50.3
46.3
43.8
40.8
36.3
74.9
70.4
67.5
65.0
61.0
57.6
54.5
51.4
48.0
44.1
41.6
38.6
34.1
72.7
68.2
65.2
62.7
58.8
55.4
52.3
49.2
45.8
41.8
39.3
36.4
31.9
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
95.0
90.5
87.5
85.0
81.0
77.7
74.6
71.5
68.1
64.1
61.6
58.6
54.2
92.7
88.3
85.3
82.8
78.8
75.4
72.3
69.2
65.9
61.9
59.4
56.4
51.9
90.5
86.0
83.0
80.6
76.6
73.2
70.1
67.0
63.6
59.7
57.2
54.2
49.7
88.3
83.8
80.8
78.3
74.3
71.0
67.9
64.8
61.4
57.4
54.9
51.9
47.5
86.0
81.6
78.6
76.1
72.1
68.7
65.6
62.5
59.2
55.2
52.7
49.7
45.2
83.8
79.3
76.3
73.9
69.9
66.5
63.4
60.3
56.9
53.0
50.5
47.5
43.0
81.6
77.1
74.1
71.6
67.6
64.3
61.2
58.1
54.7
50.7
48.2
45.2
40.8
79.3
74.9
71.9
69.4
65.4
62.1
58.9
55.8
52.5
48.5
46.0
43.0
38.5
77.1
72.6
69.7
67.2
63.2
59.8
56.7
53.6
50.2
46.3
43.8
40.8
36.3
74.9
70.4
67.4
64.9
60.9
57.6
54.5
51.4
48.0
44.0
41.5
38.5
34.1
72.7
68.2
65.2
62.7
58.7
55.4
52.2
49.1
45.8
41.8
39.3
36.3
31.8
70.4
65.9
63.0
60.5
56.5
53.1
50.0
46.9
43.5
39.6
37.1
34.1
29.6
68.2
63.7
60.7
58.2
54.3
50.9
47.8
44.7
41.3
37.3
34.8
31.9
27.4
614
Table A23
Normative data for the Stroop Word-Color stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
63.4
60.1
57.9
56.1
53.2
50.7
48.4
46.2
43.7
40.8
39.0
36.8
33.5
62.1
58.8
56.7
54.8
51.9
49.5
47.2
44.9
42.5
39.6
37.7
35.6
32.3
60.9
57.6
55.4
53.6
50.7
48.2
45.9
43.7
41.2
38.3
36.5
34.3
31.0
59.6
56.3
54.2
52.3
49.4
47.0
44.7
42.4
40.0
37.1
35.2
33.1
29.8
58.4
55.1
52.9
51.1
48.2
45.7
43.4
41.2
38.7
35.8
34.0
31.8
28.5
57.1
53.8
51.6
49.8
46.9
44.5
42.2
39.9
37.5
34.6
32.7
30.6
27.3
55.9
52.6
50.4
48.6
45.7
43.2
40.9
38.7
36.2
33.3
31.5
29.3
26.0
54.6
51.3
49.1
47.3
44.4
42.0
39.7
37.4
35.0
32.0
30.2
28.0
24.8
53.4
50.1
47.9
46.1
43.2
40.7
38.4
36.2
33.7
30.8
29.0
26.8
23.5
52.1
48.8
46.6
44.8
41.9
39.5
37.2
34.9
32.5
29.5
27.7
25.5
22.3
50.8
47.6
45.4
43.6
40.7
38.2
35.9
33.7
31.2
28.3
26.5
24.3
21.0
49.6
46.3
44.1
42.3
39.4
37.0
34.7
32.4
30.0
27.0
25.2
23.0
19.8
48.3
45.1
42.9
41.1
38.2
35.7
33.4
31.2
28.7
25.8
24.0
21.8
18.5
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
57.3
54.0
51.8
50.0
47.1
44.6
42.4
40.1
37.6
34.7
32.9
30.7
27.5
56.0
52.8
50.6
48.8
45.8
43.4
41.1
38.8
36.4
33.5
31.7
29.5
26.2
54.8
51.5
49.3
47.5
44.6
42.1
39.9
37.6
35.1
32.2
30.4
28.2
25.0
53.5
50.3
48.1
46.3
43.3
40.9
38.6
36.3
33.9
31.0
29.2
27.0
23.7
52.3
49.0
46.8
45.0
42.1
39.6
37.4
35.1
32.6
29.7
27.9
25.7
22.4
51.0
47.8
45.6
43.8
40.8
38.4
36.1
33.8
31.4
28.5
26.7
24.5
21.2
49.8
46.5
44.3
42.5
39.6
37.1
34.9
32.6
30.1
27.2
25.4
23.2
19.9
48.5
45.2
43.1
41.2
38.3
35.9
33.6
31.3
28.9
26.0
24.2
22.0
18.7
47.3
44.0
41.8
40.0
37.1
34.6
32.4
30.1
27.6
24.7
22.9
20.7
17.4
46.0
42.7
40.6
38.7
35.8
33.4
31.1
28.8
26.4
23.5
21.6
19.5
16.2
44.8
41.5
39.3
37.5
34.6
32.1
29.9
27.6
25.1
22.2
20.4
18.2
14.9
43.5
40.2
38.1
36.2
33.3
30.9
28.6
26.3
23.9
21.0
19.1
17.0
13.7
42.3
39.0
36.8
35.0
32.1
29.6
27.4
25.1
22.6
19.7
17.9
15.7
12.4
Table A24
Normative data for the Stroop Word-Color stratified by age and education levels for BOLIVIA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
72.6
67.4
63.9
61.0
56.3
52.4
48.8
45.1
41.2
36.5
33.6
30.2
24.9
70.9
65.7
62.2
59.3
54.6
50.7
47.1
43.4
39.5
34.9
32.0
28.5
23.2
69.2
64.0
60.5
57.6
52.9
49.0
45.4
41.7
37.8
33.2
30.3
26.8
21.5
67.5
62.3
58.8
55.9
51.3
47.3
43.7
40.1
36.1
31.5
28.6
25.1
19.8
65.8
60.6
57.1
54.2
49.6
45.6
42.0
38.4
34.4
29.8
26.9
23.4
18.2
64.2
58.9
55.4
52.5
47.9
43.9
40.3
36.7
32.7
28.1
25.2
21.7
16.5
62.5
57.2
53.7
50.8
46.2
42.3
38.6
35.0
31.1
26.4
23.5
20.0
14.8
60.8
55.5
52.1
49.1
44.5
40.6
36.9
33.3
29.4
24.7
21.8
18.3
13.1
59.1
53.8
50.4
47.5
42.8
38.9
35.2
31.6
27.7
23.0
20.1
16.6
11.4
57.4
52.2
48.7
45.8
41.1
37.2
33.5
29.9
26.0
21.3
18.4
14.9
9.7
55.7
50.5
47.0
44.1
39.4
35.5
31.9
28.2
24.3
19.6
16.7
13.2
8.0
54.0
48.8
45.3
42.4
37.7
33.8
30.2
26.5
22.6
18.0
15.0
11.6
6.3
52.3
47.1
43.6
40.7
36.0
32.1
28.5
24.8
20.9
16.3
13.4
9.9
4.6
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
67.6
62.4
58.9
56.0
51.4
47.4
43.8
40.2
36.2
31.6
28.7
25.2
20.0
66.0
60.7
57.2
54.3
49.7
45.7
42.1
38.5
34.6
29.9
27.0
23.5
18.3
64.3
59.0
55.5
52.6
48.0
44.1
40.4
36.8
32.9
28.2
25.3
21.8
16.6
62.6
57.3
53.9
50.9
46.3
42.4
38.7
35.1
31.2
26.5
23.6
20.1
14.9
60.9
55.7
52.2
49.3
44.6
40.7
37.0
33.4
29.5
24.8
21.9
18.4
13.2
59.2
54.0
50.5
47.6
42.9
39.0
35.4
31.7
27.8
23.1
20.2
16.7
11.5
57.5
52.3
48.8
45.9
41.2
37.3
33.7
30.0
26.1
21.4
18.5
15.1
9.8
55.8
50.6
47.1
44.2
39.5
35.6
32.0
28.3
24.4
19.8
16.8
13.4
8.1
54.1
48.9
45.4
42.5
37.8
33.9
30.3
26.6
22.7
18.1
15.2
11.7
6.4
52.4
47.2
43.7
40.8
36.2
32.2
28.6
25.0
21.0
16.4
13.5
10.0
4.7
50.7
45.5
42.0
39.1
34.5
30.5
26.9
23.3
19.3
14.7
11.8
8.3
3.1
49.1
43.8
40.3
37.4
32.8
28.8
25.2
21.6
17.6
13.0
10.1
6.6
1.4
47.4
42.1
38.6
35.7
31.1
27.2
23.5
19.9
16.0
11.3
8.4
4.9
615
Table A25
Normative data for the Stroop Word-Color stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
73.5
69.4
66.6
64.3
60.7
57.6
54.7
51.9
48.8
45.1
42.9
40.1
36.0
71.7
67.6
64.8
62.6
58.9
55.8
53.0
50.1
47.0
43.4
41.1
38.3
34.2
69.9
65.8
63.1
60.8
57.1
54.0
51.2
48.3
45.2
41.6
39.3
36.5
32.4
68.1
64.0
61.3
59.0
55.3
52.2
49.4
46.5
43.4
39.8
37.5
34.8
30.6
66.3
62.2
59.5
57.2
53.5
50.5
47.6
44.7
41.7
38.0
35.7
33.0
28.9
64.6
60.4
57.7
55.4
51.8
48.7
45.8
43.0
39.9
36.2
33.9
31.2
27.1
62.8
58.7
55.9
53.6
50.0
46.9
44.0
41.2
38.1
34.4
32.1
29.4
25.3
61.0
56.9
54.1
51.8
48.2
45.1
42.2
39.4
36.3
32.6
30.4
27.6
23.5
59.2
55.1
52.3
50.1
46.4
43.3
40.5
37.6
34.5
30.9
28.6
25.8
21.7
57.4
53.3
50.6
48.3
44.6
41.5
38.7
35.8
32.7
29.1
26.8
24.0
19.9
55.6
51.5
48.8
46.5
42.8
39.7
36.9
34.0
30.9
27.3
25.0
22.3
18.1
53.8
49.7
47.0
44.7
41.0
38.0
35.1
32.2
29.2
25.5
23.2
20.5
16.4
52.1
47.9
45.2
42.9
39.3
36.2
33.3
30.5
27.4
23.7
21.4
18.7
14.6
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
61.4
57.3
54.5
52.2
48.6
45.5
42.6
39.8
36.7
33.0
30.8
28.0
23.9
59.6
55.5
52.7
50.5
46.8
43.7
40.9
38.0
34.9
31.3
29.0
26.2
22.1
57.8
53.7
51.0
48.7
45.0
41.9
39.1
36.2
33.1
29.5
27.2
24.4
20.3
56.0
51.9
49.2
46.9
43.2
40.1
37.3
34.4
31.3
27.7
25.4
22.7
18.5
54.2
50.1
47.4
45.1
41.4
38.4
35.5
32.6
29.6
25.9
23.6
20.9
16.8
52.5
48.3
45.6
43.3
39.7
36.6
33.7
30.9
27.8
24.1
21.8
19.1
15.0
50.7
46.6
43.8
41.5
37.9
34.8
31.9
29.1
26.0
22.3
20.0
17.3
13.2
48.9
44.8
42.0
39.7
36.1
33.0
30.1
27.3
24.2
20.5
18.3
15.5
11.4
47.1
43.0
40.2
38.0
34.3
31.2
28.4
25.5
22.4
18.8
16.5
13.7
9.6
45.3
41.2
38.5
36.2
32.5
29.4
26.6
23.7
20.6
17.0
14.7
11.9
7.8
43.5
39.4
36.7
34.4
30.7
27.6
24.8
21.9
18.8
15.2
12.9
10.2
6.0
41.7
37.6
34.9
32.6
28.9
25.9
23.0
20.1
17.1
13.4
11.1
8.4
4.3
40.0
35.8
33.1
30.8
27.2
24.1
21.2
18.4
15.3
11.6
9.3
6.6
2.5
Table A26
Normative data for the Stroop Word-Color stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
69.8
65.0
61.8
59.2
54.9
51.3
48.0
44.6
41.1
36.8
34.1
30.9
26.1
68.4
63.6
60.4
57.7
53.4
49.8
46.5
43.2
39.6
35.3
32.7
29.5
24.7
66.9
62.1
58.9
56.2
52.0
48.4
45.0
41.7
38.1
33.9
31.2
28.0
23.2
65.4
60.6
57.4
54.8
50.5
46.9
43.6
40.2
36.7
32.4
29.7
26.5
21.7
64.0
59.2
56.0
53.3
49.0
45.4
42.1
38.8
35.2
30.9
28.3
25.1
20.3
62.5
57.7
54.5
51.8
47.6
44.0
40.6
37.3
33.7
29.5
26.8
23.6
18.8
61.0
56.2
53.0
50.4
46.1
42.5
39.2
35.8
32.3
28.0
25.3
22.1
17.3
59.6
54.8
51.6
48.9
44.6
41.0
37.7
34.4
30.8
26.5
23.9
20.7
15.9
58.1
53.3
50.1
47.4
43.2
39.6
36.2
32.9
29.3
25.1
22.4
19.2
14.4
56.6
51.8
48.6
46.0
41.7
38.1
34.8
31.5
27.9
23.6
20.9
17.7
12.9
55.2
50.4
47.2
44.5
40.2
36.6
33.3
30.0
26.4
22.1
19.5
16.3
11.5
53.7
48.9
45.7
43.0
38.8
35.2
31.8
28.5
24.9
20.7
18.0
14.8
10.0
52.2
47.4
44.2
41.6
37.3
33.7
30.4
27.1
23.5
19.2
16.5
13.3
8.5
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
66.1
61.3
58.1
55.4
51.1
47.6
44.2
40.9
37.3
33.0
30.4
27.2
22.4
64.6
59.8
56.6
53.9
49.7
46.1
42.8
39.4
35.8
31.6
28.9
25.7
20.9
63.1
58.3
55.1
52.5
48.2
44.6
41.3
38.0
34.4
30.1
27.4
24.2
19.4
61.7
56.9
53.7
51.0
46.8
43.2
39.8
36.5
32.9
28.6
26.0
22.8
18.0
60.2
55.4
52.2
49.5
45.3
41.7
38.4
35.0
31.4
27.2
24.5
21.3
16.5
58.7
53.9
50.7
48.1
43.8
40.2
36.9
33.6
30.0
25.7
23.0
19.8
15.0
57.3
52.5
49.3
46.6
42.4
38.8
35.4
32.1
28.5
24.2
21.6
18.4
13.6
55.8
51.0
47.8
45.1
40.9
37.3
34.0
30.6
27.0
22.8
20.1
16.9
12.1
54.3
49.5
46.3
43.7
39.4
35.8
32.5
29.2
25.6
21.3
18.6
15.4
10.7
52.9
48.1
44.9
42.2
38.0
34.4
31.0
27.7
24.1
19.8
17.2
14.0
9.2
51.4
46.6
43.4
40.8
36.5
32.9
29.6
26.2
22.6
18.4
15.7
12.5
7.7
49.9
45.1
41.9
39.3
35.0
31.4
28.1
24.8
21.2
16.9
14.2
11.0
6.3
48.5
43.7
40.5
37.8
33.6
30.0
26.6
23.3
19.7
15.4
12.8
9.6
4.8
616
Table A27
Normative data for the Stroop Word-Color stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
61.7
57.9
55.3
53.2
49.8
46.9
44.2
41.6
38.7
35.3
33.2
30.6
26.8
60.7
56.9
54.3
52.2
48.8
45.9
43.2
40.6
37.7
34.3
32.2
29.6
25.8
59.7
55.9
53.3
51.2
47.8
44.9
42.2
39.6
36.7
33.3
31.2
28.6
24.8
58.7
54.9
52.3
50.2
46.8
43.9
41.2
38.6
35.7
32.3
30.2
27.6
23.8
57.7
53.8
51.3
49.2
45.8
42.9
40.2
37.6
34.7
31.3
29.2
26.6
22.8
56.7
52.8
50.3
48.2
44.8
41.9
39.2
36.6
33.7
30.3
28.2
25.6
21.8
55.7
51.8
49.3
47.2
43.8
40.9
38.2
35.6
32.7
29.3
27.2
24.6
20.8
54.7
50.8
48.3
46.2
42.8
39.9
37.2
34.6
31.7
28.3
26.2
23.6
19.8
53.7
49.8
47.3
45.2
41.8
38.9
36.2
33.6
30.7
27.3
25.2
22.6
18.8
52.7
48.8
46.3
44.2
40.8
37.9
35.2
32.6
29.7
26.3
24.2
21.6
17.8
51.7
47.8
45.3
43.2
39.7
36.9
34.2
31.6
28.7
25.3
23.1
20.6
16.8
50.7
46.8
44.3
42.2
38.7
35.9
33.2
30.6
27.7
24.3
22.1
19.6
15.8
49.7
45.8
43.3
41.1
37.7
34.9
32.2
29.6
26.7
23.3
21.1
18.6
14.8
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
51.5
47.7
45.1
43.0
39.6
36.7
34.0
31.4
28.5
25.1
23.0
20.4
16.6
50.5
46.7
44.1
42.0
38.6
35.7
33.0
30.4
27.5
24.1
22.0
19.4
15.6
49.5
45.7
43.1
41.0
37.6
34.7
32.0
29.4
26.5
23.1
21.0
18.4
14.6
48.5
44.7
42.1
40.0
36.6
33.7
31.0
28.4
25.5
22.1
20.0
17.4
13.6
47.5
43.7
41.1
39.0
35.6
32.7
30.0
27.4
24.5
21.1
19.0
16.4
12.6
46.5
42.7
40.1
38.0
34.6
31.7
29.0
26.4
23.5
20.1
18.0
15.4
11.6
45.5
41.6
39.1
37.0
33.6
30.7
28.0
25.4
22.5
19.1
17.0
14.4
10.6
44.5
40.6
38.1
36.0
32.6
29.7
27.0
24.4
21.5
18.1
16.0
13.4
9.6
43.5
39.6
37.1
35.0
31.6
28.7
26.0
23.4
20.5
17.1
15.0
12.4
8.6
42.5
38.6
36.1
34.0
30.6
27.7
25.0
22.4
19.5
16.1
14.0
11.4
7.6
41.5
37.6
35.1
33.0
29.6
26.7
24.0
21.4
18.5
15.1
13.0
10.4
6.6
40.5
36.6
34.1
32.0
28.5
25.7
23.0
20.4
17.5
14.1
11.9
9.4
5.6
39.5
35.6
33.1
31.0
27.5
24.7
22.0
19.4
16.5
13.1
10.9
8.4
4.6
Table A28
Normative data for the Stroop Word-Color stratified by age and education levels for GUATEMALA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
63.7
59.5
56.7
54.4
50.7
47.5
44.6
41.7
38.6
34.9
32.5
29.8
25.6
62.5
58.3
55.5
53.2
49.5
46.3
43.4
40.5
37.4
33.7
31.3
28.6
24.4
61.3
57.1
54.3
52.0
48.3
45.1
42.2
39.3
36.2
32.5
30.2
27.4
23.2
60.1
55.9
53.1
50.8
47.1
43.9
41.0
38.1
35.0
31.3
29.0
26.2
22.0
58.9
54.7
51.9
49.6
45.9
42.7
39.8
36.9
33.8
30.1
27.8
25.0
20.8
57.7
53.5
50.7
48.4
44.7
41.6
38.7
35.7
32.6
28.9
26.6
23.8
19.6
56.5
52.3
49.5
47.2
43.5
40.4
37.5
34.6
31.4
27.7
25.4
22.6
18.4
55.3
51.1
48.3
46.0
42.3
39.2
36.3
33.4
30.2
26.5
24.2
21.4
17.2
54.1
49.9
47.1
44.8
41.1
38.0
35.1
32.2
29.0
25.3
23.0
20.2
16.0
52.9
48.7
46.0
43.6
39.9
36.8
33.9
31.0
27.8
24.1
21.8
19.0
14.8
51.7
47.5
44.8
42.4
38.7
35.6
32.7
29.8
26.6
22.9
20.6
17.8
13.6
50.5
46.4
43.6
41.2
37.5
34.4
31.5
28.6
25.5
21.7
19.4
16.6
12.4
49.3
45.2
42.4
40.1
36.3
33.2
30.3
27.4
24.3
20.5
18.2
15.4
11.3
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
57.6
53.4
50.7
48.3
44.6
41.5
38.6
35.7
32.5
28.8
26.5
23.7
19.5
56.4
52.2
49.5
47.1
43.4
40.3
37.4
34.5
31.3
27.6
25.3
22.5
18.3
55.2
51.1
48.3
45.9
42.2
39.1
36.2
33.3
30.2
26.4
24.1
21.3
17.1
54.0
49.9
47.1
44.7
41.0
37.9
35.0
32.1
29.0
25.2
22.9
20.1
16.0
52.8
48.7
45.9
43.6
39.8
36.7
33.8
30.9
27.8
24.0
21.7
18.9
14.8
51.7
47.5
44.7
42.4
38.6
35.5
32.6
29.7
26.6
22.9
20.5
17.7
13.6
50.5
46.3
43.5
41.2
37.5
34.3
31.4
28.5
25.4
21.7
19.3
16.6
12.4
49.3
45.1
42.3
40.0
36.3
33.1
30.2
27.3
24.2
20.5
18.1
15.4
11.2
48.1
43.9
41.1
38.8
35.1
31.9
29.0
26.1
23.0
19.3
17.0
14.2
10.0
46.9
42.7
39.9
37.6
33.9
30.7
27.8
24.9
21.8
18.1
15.8
13.0
8.8
45.7
41.5
38.7
36.4
32.7
29.5
26.6
23.7
20.6
16.9
14.6
11.8
7.6
44.5
40.3
37.5
35.2
31.5
28.4
25.5
22.5
19.4
15.7
13.4
10.6
6.4
43.3
39.1
36.3
34.0
30.3
27.2
24.3
21.4
18.2
14.5
12.2
9.4
5.2
617
Table A29
Normative data for the Stroop Word-Color stratified by age and education levels for HONDURAS
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
56.3
52.9
50.6
48.7
45.7
43.2
40.8
38.4
35.9
32.9
31.0
28.7
25.3
55.2
51.8
49.5
47.7
44.6
42.1
39.7
37.4
34.8
31.8
29.9
27.7
24.3
54.1
50.8
48.5
46.6
43.6
41.0
38.7
36.3
33.8
30.8
28.9
26.6
23.2
53.1
49.7
47.4
45.5
42.5
40.0
37.6
35.3
32.7
29.7
27.8
25.6
22.2
52.0
48.6
46.4
44.5
41.5
38.9
36.6
34.2
31.7
28.6
26.8
24.5
21.1
51.0
47.6
45.3
43.4
40.4
37.9
35.5
33.1
30.6
27.6
25.7
23.4
20.0
49.9
46.5
44.3
42.4
39.4
36.8
34.4
32.1
29.5
26.5
24.6
22.4
19.0
48.9
45.5
43.2
41.3
38.3
35.7
33.4
31.0
28.5
25.5
23.6
21.3
17.9
47.8
44.4
42.1
40.3
37.2
34.7
32.3
30.0
27.4
24.4
22.5
20.3
16.9
46.7
43.3
41.1
39.2
36.2
33.6
31.3
28.9
26.4
23.3
21.5
19.2
15.8
45.7
42.3
40.0
38.1
35.1
32.6
30.2
27.9
25.3
22.3
20.4
18.1
14.7
44.6
41.2
39.0
37.1
34.1
31.5
29.2
26.8
24.3
21.2
19.3
17.1
13.7
43.6
40.2
37.9
36.0
33.0
30.5
28.1
25.7
23.2
20.2
18.3
16.0
12.6
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
50.3
46.9
44.6
42.8
39.7
37.2
34.8
32.5
29.9
26.9
25.0
22.8
19.4
49.2
45.8
43.6
41.7
38.7
36.1
33.8
31.4
28.9
25.8
24.0
21.7
18.3
48.2
44.8
42.5
40.6
37.6
35.1
32.7
30.4
27.8
24.8
22.9
20.6
17.2
47.1
43.7
41.5
39.6
36.6
34.0
31.7
29.3
26.7
23.7
21.8
19.6
16.2
46.1
42.7
40.4
38.5
35.5
33.0
30.6
28.2
25.7
22.7
20.8
18.5
15.1
45.0
41.6
39.3
37.5
34.4
31.9
29.5
27.2
24.6
21.6
19.7
17.5
14.1
43.9
40.5
38.3
36.4
33.4
30.8
28.5
26.1
23.6
20.6
18.7
16.4
13.0
42.9
39.5
37.2
35.3
32.3
29.8
27.4
25.1
22.5
19.5
17.6
15.3
12.0
41.8
38.4
36.2
34.3
31.3
28.7
26.4
24.0
21.5
18.4
16.6
14.3
10.9
40.8
37.4
35.1
33.2
30.2
27.7
25.3
22.9
20.4
17.4
15.5
13.2
9.8
39.7
36.3
34.1
32.2
29.1
26.6
24.2
21.9
19.3
16.3
14.4
12.2
8.8
38.7
35.3
33.0
31.1
28.1
25.5
23.2
20.8
18.3
15.3
13.4
11.1
7.7
37.6
34.2
31.9
30.0
27.0
24.5
22.1
19.8
17.2
14.2
12.3
10.1
6.7
Table A30
Normative data for the Stroop Word-Color stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
72.6
68.3
65.4
62.9
59.0
55.8
52.7
49.7
46.4
42.5
40.1
37.2
32.8
70.8
66.5
63.5
61.1
57.2
54.0
50.9
47.9
44.6
40.7
38.3
35.4
31.0
69.0
64.7
61.7
59.3
55.4
52.1
49.1
46.1
42.8
38.9
36.5
33.6
29.2
67.2
62.8
59.9
57.5
53.6
50.3
47.3
44.3
41.0
37.1
34.7
31.8
27.4
65.4
61.0
58.1
55.7
51.8
48.5
45.5
42.5
39.2
35.3
32.9
30.0
25.6
63.6
59.2
56.3
53.9
50.0
46.7
43.7
40.7
37.4
33.5
31.1
28.1
23.8
61.8
57.4
54.5
52.1
48.2
44.9
41.9
38.9
35.6
31.7
29.3
26.3
22.0
60.0
55.6
52.7
50.3
46.4
43.1
40.1
37.0
33.8
29.9
27.5
24.5
20.2
58.2
53.8
50.9
48.5
44.6
41.3
38.3
35.2
32.0
28.1
25.6
22.7
18.4
56.4
52.0
49.1
46.7
42.8
39.5
36.5
33.4
30.2
26.3
23.8
20.9
16.6
54.6
50.2
47.3
44.9
41.0
37.7
34.7
31.6
28.3
24.5
22.0
19.1
14.7
52.8
48.4
45.5
43.1
39.2
35.9
32.9
29.8
26.5
22.7
20.2
17.3
12.9
51.0
46.6
43.7
41.2
37.4
34.1
31.0
28.0
24.7
20.8
18.4
15.5
11.1
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
67.1
62.8
59.9
57.4
53.5
50.3
47.2
44.2
40.9
37.0
34.6
31.7
27.3
65.3
61.0
58.1
55.6
51.7
48.5
45.4
42.4
39.1
35.2
32.8
29.9
25.5
63.5
59.2
56.3
53.8
49.9
46.7
43.6
40.6
37.3
33.4
31.0
28.1
23.7
61.7
57.4
54.4
52.0
48.1
44.9
41.8
38.8
35.5
31.6
29.2
26.3
21.9
59.9
55.6
52.6
50.2
46.3
43.0
40.0
37.0
33.7
29.8
27.4
24.5
20.1
58.1
53.7
50.8
48.4
44.5
41.2
38.2
35.2
31.9
28.0
25.6
22.7
18.3
56.3
51.9
49.0
46.6
42.7
39.4
36.4
33.4
30.1
26.2
23.8
20.9
16.5
54.5
50.1
47.2
44.8
40.9
37.6
34.6
31.6
28.3
24.4
22.0
19.0
14.7
52.7
48.3
45.4
43.0
39.1
35.8
32.8
29.7
26.5
22.6
20.2
17.2
12.9
50.9
46.5
43.6
41.2
37.3
34.0
31.0
27.9
24.7
20.8
18.3
15.4
11.1
49.1
44.7
41.8
39.4
35.5
32.2
29.2
26.1
22.9
19.0
16.5
13.6
9.3
47.3
42.9
40.0
37.6
33.7
30.4
27.4
24.3
21.1
17.2
14.7
11.8
7.5
45.5
41.1
38.2
35.8
31.9
28.6
25.6
22.5
19.2
15.4
12.9
10.0
5.6
618
Table A31
Normative data for the Stroop Word-Color stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
60.5
57.6
55.7
54.1
51.6
49.4
47.4
45.5
43.3
40.8
39.2
37.3
34.4
59.6
56.7
54.8
53.2
50.7
48.5
46.5
44.6
42.4
39.9
38.3
36.4
33.5
58.7
55.8
53.9
52.3
49.8
47.6
45.6
43.7
41.5
39.0
37.4
35.5
32.6
57.8
54.9
53.0
51.4
48.9
46.7
44.7
42.8
40.6
38.1
36.5
34.6
31.7
56.9
54.0
52.1
50.5
48.0
45.8
43.9
41.9
39.7
37.2
35.6
33.7
30.8
56.0
53.1
51.2
49.6
47.1
44.9
43.0
41.0
38.8
36.3
34.7
32.8
29.9
55.1
52.2
50.3
48.7
46.2
44.0
42.1
40.1
37.9
35.4
33.8
31.9
29.0
54.2
51.3
49.4
47.8
45.3
43.2
41.2
39.2
37.0
34.5
32.9
31.0
28.2
53.3
50.4
48.5
46.9
44.4
42.3
40.3
38.3
36.1
33.6
32.0
30.1
27.3
52.4
49.5
47.6
46.0
43.5
41.4
39.4
37.4
35.2
32.7
31.1
29.2
26.4
51.5
48.6
46.7
45.1
42.6
40.5
38.5
36.5
34.4
31.8
30.2
28.3
25.5
50.6
47.7
45.8
44.3
41.7
39.6
37.6
35.6
33.5
30.9
29.3
27.4
24.6
49.7
46.8
44.9
43.4
40.8
38.7
36.7
34.7
32.6
30.0
28.4
26.5
23.7
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
47.4
44.5
42.6
41.1
38.5
36.4
34.4
32.4
30.3
27.7
26.1
24.2
21.4
46.5
43.6
41.7
40.2
37.6
35.5
33.5
31.5
29.4
26.8
25.2
23.3
20.5
45.6
42.8
40.8
39.3
36.7
34.6
32.6
30.6
28.5
25.9
24.3
22.4
19.6
44.7
41.9
40.0
38.4
35.8
33.7
31.7
29.7
27.6
25.0
23.4
21.5
18.7
43.8
41.0
39.1
37.5
34.9
32.8
30.8
28.8
26.7
24.1
22.5
20.6
17.8
42.9
40.1
38.2
36.6
34.0
31.9
29.9
27.9
25.8
23.2
21.7
19.7
16.9
42.0
39.2
37.3
35.7
33.1
31.0
29.0
27.0
24.9
22.3
20.8
18.9
16.0
41.1
38.3
36.4
34.8
32.2
30.1
28.1
26.1
24.0
21.4
19.9
18.0
15.1
40.2
37.4
35.5
33.9
31.3
29.2
27.2
25.2
23.1
20.6
19.0
17.1
14.2
39.3
36.5
34.6
33.0
30.5
28.3
26.3
24.3
22.2
19.7
18.1
16.2
13.3
38.4
35.6
33.7
32.1
29.6
27.4
25.4
23.4
21.3
18.8
17.2
15.3
12.4
37.5
34.7
32.8
31.2
28.7
26.5
24.5
22.5
20.4
17.9
16.3
14.4
11.5
36.7
33.8
31.9
30.3
27.8
25.6
23.6
21.7
19.5
17.0
15.4
13.5
10.6
Table A32
Normative data for the Stroop Word-Color stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
68.2
64.0
61.2
58.9
55.2
52.0
49.1
46.2
43.1
39.4
37.1
34.3
30.1
66.5
62.3
59.5
57.2
53.5
50.4
47.4
44.5
41.4
37.7
35.4
32.6
28.4
64.8
60.6
57.8
55.5
51.8
48.7
45.8
42.9
39.7
36.0
33.7
30.9
26.7
63.1
58.9
56.1
53.8
50.1
47.0
44.1
41.2
38.0
34.3
32.0
29.2
25.0
61.4
57.2
54.4
52.1
48.4
45.3
42.4
39.5
36.3
32.6
30.3
27.5
23.3
59.7
55.5
52.8
50.4
46.7
43.6
40.7
37.8
34.6
30.9
28.6
25.8
21.6
58.0
53.8
51.1
48.7
45.0
41.9
39.0
36.1
32.9
29.2
26.9
24.1
19.9
56.3
52.1
49.4
47.0
43.3
40.2
37.3
34.4
31.2
27.5
25.2
22.4
18.2
54.6
50.5
47.7
45.3
41.6
38.5
35.6
32.7
29.5
25.8
23.5
20.7
16.5
52.9
48.8
46.0
43.6
39.9
36.8
33.9
31.0
27.9
24.1
21.8
19.0
14.8
51.2
47.1
44.3
42.0
38.2
35.1
32.2
29.3
26.2
22.4
20.1
17.3
13.1
49.6
45.4
42.6
40.3
36.5
33.4
30.5
27.6
24.5
20.7
18.4
15.6
11.5
47.9
43.7
40.9
38.6
34.8
31.7
28.8
25.9
22.8
19.1
16.7
13.9
9.8
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
64.5
60.3
57.5
55.2
51.5
48.3
45.4
42.5
39.4
35.7
33.4
30.6
26.4
62.8
58.6
55.8
53.5
49.8
46.7
43.7
40.8
37.7
34.0
31.7
28.9
24.7
61.1
56.9
54.1
51.8
48.1
45.0
42.1
39.2
36.0
32.3
30.0
27.2
23.0
59.4
55.2
52.4
50.1
46.4
43.3
40.4
37.5
34.3
30.6
28.3
25.5
21.3
57.7
53.5
50.7
48.4
44.7
41.6
38.7
35.8
32.6
28.9
26.6
23.8
19.6
56.0
51.8
49.1
46.7
43.0
39.9
37.0
34.1
30.9
27.2
24.9
22.1
17.9
54.3
50.1
47.4
45.0
41.3
38.2
35.3
32.4
29.2
25.5
23.2
20.4
16.2
52.6
48.4
45.7
43.3
39.6
36.5
33.6
30.7
27.5
23.8
21.5
18.7
14.5
50.9
46.8
44.0
41.6
37.9
34.8
31.9
29.0
25.8
22.1
19.8
17.0
12.8
49.2
45.1
42.3
39.9
36.2
33.1
30.2
27.3
24.2
20.4
18.1
15.3
11.1
47.5
43.4
40.6
38.3
34.5
31.4
28.5
25.6
22.5
18.7
16.4
13.6
9.4
45.9
41.7
38.9
36.6
32.8
29.7
26.8
23.9
20.8
17.0
14.7
11.9
7.8
44.2
40.0
37.2
34.9
31.1
28.0
25.1
22.2
19.1
15.4
13.0
10.2
6.1
619
Table A33
Normative data for the Stroop Word-Color stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
72.1
68.2
65.6
63.4
59.9
56.9
54.2
51.4
48.5
45.0
42.8
40.2
36.2
69.8
65.9
63.3
61.1
57.6
54.6
51.9
49.2
46.2
42.7
40.5
37.9
33.9
67.5
63.6
61.0
58.8
55.3
52.3
49.6
46.9
43.9
40.4
38.2
35.6
31.6
65.2
61.3
58.7
56.5
53.0
50.0
47.3
44.6
41.6
38.1
35.9
33.3
29.4
63.0
59.0
56.4
54.2
50.7
47.7
45.0
42.3
39.3
35.8
33.6
31.0
27.1
60.7
56.7
54.1
51.9
48.4
45.4
42.7
40.0
37.0
33.5
31.3
28.7
24.8
58.4
54.4
51.8
49.6
46.1
43.2
40.4
37.7
34.7
31.2
29.0
26.4
22.5
56.1
52.1
49.5
47.3
43.8
40.9
38.1
35.4
32.4
28.9
26.7
24.1
20.2
53.8
49.8
47.2
45.0
41.5
38.6
35.8
33.1
30.1
26.6
24.5
21.8
17.9
51.5
47.5
44.9
42.7
39.2
36.3
33.5
30.8
27.8
24.3
22.2
19.5
15.6
49.2
45.3
42.6
40.4
36.9
34.0
31.2
28.5
25.6
22.1
19.9
17.2
13.3
46.9
43.0
40.3
38.1
34.6
31.7
29.0
26.2
23.3
19.8
17.6
14.9
11.0
44.6
40.7
38.0
35.8
32.3
29.4
26.7
23.9
21.0
17.5
15.3
12.6
8.7
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
68.6
64.6
62.0
59.8
56.3
53.3
50.6
47.9
44.9
41.4
39.2
36.6
32.7
66.3
62.3
59.7
57.5
54.0
51.0
48.3
45.6
42.6
39.1
36.9
34.3
30.4
64.0
60.0
57.4
55.2
51.7
48.8
46.0
43.3
40.3
36.8
34.6
32.0
28.1
61.7
57.7
55.1
52.9
49.4
46.5
43.7
41.0
38.0
34.5
32.3
29.7
25.8
59.4
55.4
52.8
50.6
47.1
44.2
41.4
38.7
35.7
32.2
30.0
27.4
23.5
57.1
53.1
50.5
48.3
44.8
41.9
39.1
36.4
33.4
29.9
27.8
25.1
21.2
54.8
50.8
48.2
46.0
42.5
39.6
36.8
34.1
31.1
27.6
25.5
22.8
18.9
52.5
48.6
45.9
43.7
40.2
37.3
34.5
31.8
28.9
25.4
23.2
20.5
16.6
50.2
46.3
43.6
41.4
37.9
35.0
32.3
29.5
26.6
23.1
20.9
18.2
14.3
47.9
44.0
41.3
39.2
35.6
32.7
30.0
27.2
24.3
20.8
18.6
16.0
12.0
45.6
41.7
39.0
36.9
33.4
30.4
27.7
24.9
22.0
18.5
16.3
13.7
9.7
43.3
39.4
36.8
34.6
31.1
28.1
25.4
22.6
19.7
16.2
14.0
11.4
7.4
41.0
37.1
34.5
32.3
28.8
25.8
23.1
20.3
17.4
13.9
11.7
9.1
5.1
Table A34
Normative data for the Stroop Interference stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
16.1
13.5
11.8
10.4
8.1
6.1
4.3
2.5
0.6
1.7
3.2
4.9
7.5
15.5
12.9
11.2
9.7
7.4
5.5
3.7
1.9
0.0
2.3
3.8
5.5
8.1
14.9
12.3
10.6
9.1
6.8
4.9
3.1
1.3
0.6
2.9
4.4
6.1
8.7
14.3
11.7
10.0
8.5
6.2
4.3
2.5
0.7
1.2
3.5
5.0
6.7
9.3
13.7
11.1
9.4
7.9
5.6
3.7
1.9
0.1
1.9
4.2
5.6
7.3
9.9
13.1
10.5
8.8
7.3
5.0
3.1
1.3
0.5
2.5
4.8
6.2
7.9
10.5
12.5
9.9
8.2
6.7
4.4
2.5
0.7
1.1
3.1
5.4
6.8
8.5
11.1
11.9
9.3
7.5
6.1
3.8
1.9
0.1
1.7
3.7
6.0
7.4
9.1
11.7
11.3
8.7
6.9
5.5
3.2
1.3
0.5
2.3
4.3
6.6
8.0
9.7
12.3
10.6
8.1
6.3
4.9
2.6
0.7
1.1
2.9
4.9
7.2
8.6
10.4
12.9
10.0
7.5
5.7
4.3
2.0
0.0
1.8
3.6
5.5
7.8
9.2
11.0
13.5
9.4
6.8
5.1
3.7
1.4
0.6
2.4
4.2
6.1
8.4
9.8
11.6
14.2
8.8
6.2
4.5
3.1
0.8
1.2
3.0
4.8
6.7
9.0
10.4
12.2
14.8
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
13.4
10.8
9.1
7.7
5.4
3.4
1.6
0.2
2.1
4.4
5.9
7.6
10.2
12.8
10.2
8.5
7.1
4.8
2.8
1.0
0.8
2.7
5.0
6.5
8.2
10.8
12.2
9.6
7.9
6.5
4.2
2.2
0.4
1.4
3.3
5.6
7.1
8.8
11.4
11.6
9.0
7.3
5.8
3.5
1.6
0.2
2.0
3.9
6.2
7.7
9.4
12.0
11.0
8.4
6.7
5.2
2.9
1.0
0.8
2.6
4.5
6.8
8.3
10.0
12.6
10.4
7.8
6.1
4.6
2.3
0.4
1.4
3.2
5.1
7.4
8.9
10.6
13.2
9.8
7.2
5.5
4.0
1.7
0.2
2.0
3.8
5.8
8.1
9.5
11.2
13.8
9.2
6.6
4.9
3.4
1.1
0.8
2.6
4.4
6.4
8.7
10.1
11.8
14.4
8.6
6.0
4.3
2.8
0.5
1.4
3.2
5.0
7.0
9.3
10.7
12.4
15.0
8.0
5.4
3.6
2.2
0.1
2.0
3.8
5.6
7.6
9.9
11.3
13.0
15.6
7.4
4.8
3.0
1.6
0.7
2.6
4.4
6.2
8.2
10.5
11.9
13.6
16.2
6.7
4.2
2.4
1.0
1.3
3.2
5.0
6.8
8.8
11.1
12.5
14.3
16.8
6.1
3.6
1.8
0.4
1.9
3.9
5.7
7.5
9.4
11.7
13.1
14.9
17.4
620
Table A35
Normative data for the Stroop Interference for BOLIVIA
Percentile
Raw Score
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
23.9
18.5
14.0
12.1
8.2
5.1
2.4
0.0
3.8
7.2
9.0
10.6
16.9
Table A36
Normative data for the Stroop Interference stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
22.5
19.4
17.3
15.6
12.8
10.5
8.3
6.1
3.8
1.0
0.7
2.8
5.9
21.9
18.8
16.7
15.0
12.2
9.9
7.7
5.6
3.2
0.5
1.3
3.4
6.5
21.4
18.3
16.2
14.5
11.7
9.3
7.2
5.0
2.7
0.1
1.8
3.9
7.0
20.8
17.7
15.6
13.9
11.1
8.8
6.6
4.4
2.1
0.7
2.4
4.5
7.6
20.3
17.1
15.1
13.3
10.6
8.2
6.0
3.9
1.5
1.2
3.0
5.0
8.2
19.7
16.6
14.5
12.8
10.0
7.7
5.5
3.3
1.0
1.8
3.5
5.6
8.7
19.1
16.0
13.9
12.2
9.4
7.1
4.9
2.8
0.4
2.4
4.1
6.2
9.3
18.6
15.5
13.4
11.6
8.9
6.5
4.4
2.2
0.1
2.9
4.7
6.7
9.9
18.0
14.9
12.8
11.1
8.3
6.0
3.8
1.6
0.7
3.5
5.2
7.3
10.4
17.4
14.3
12.2
10.5
7.7
5.4
3.2
1.1
1.3
4.0
5.8
7.9
11.0
16.9
13.8
11.7
10.0
7.2
4.8
2.7
0.5
1.8
4.6
6.3
8.4
11.5
16.3
13.2
11.1
9.4
6.6
4.3
2.1
0.1
2.4
5.2
6.9
9.0
12.1
15.8
12.6
10.6
8.8
6.1
3.7
1.5
0.6
3.0
5.7
7.5
9.5
12.7
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.3
14.2
12.1
10.4
7.6
5.3
3.1
0.9
1.4
4.2
5.9
8.0
11.1
16.8
13.6
11.6
9.8
7.0
4.7
2.5
0.4
2.0
4.7
6.5
8.5
11.7
16.2
13.1
11.0
9.3
6.5
4.1
2.0
0.2
2.5
5.3
7.0
9.1
12.2
15.6
12.5
10.4
8.7
5.9
3.6
1.4
0.7
3.1
5.9
7.6
9.7
12.8
15.1
11.9
9.9
8.1
5.4
3.0
0.9
1.3
3.7
6.4
8.2
10.2
13.4
14.5
11.4
9.3
7.6
4.8
2.5
0.3
1.9
4.2
7.0
8.7
10.8
13.9
13.9
10.8
8.7
7.0
4.2
1.9
0.3
2.4
4.8
7.5
9.3
11.4
14.5
13.4
10.3
8.2
6.4
3.7
1.3
0.8
3.0
5.3
8.1
9.8
11.9
15.0
12.8
9.7
7.6
5.9
3.1
0.8
1.4
3.6
5.9
8.7
10.4
12.5
15.6
12.3
9.1
7.1
5.3
2.6
0.2
2.0
4.1
6.5
9.2
11.0
13.0
16.2
11.7
8.6
6.5
4.8
2.0
0.4
2.5
4.7
7.0
9.8
11.5
13.6
16.7
11.1
8.0
5.9
4.2
1.4
0.9
3.1
5.2
7.6
10.4
12.1
14.2
17.3
10.6
7.5
5.4
3.6
0.9
1.5
3.6
5.8
8.1
10.9
12.7
14.7
17.9
621
Table A37
Normative data for the Stroop Interference for CUBA
Percentile
Raw Score
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
18.6
12.2
9.2
6.9
4.2
1.8
0.1
1.8
4.3
7.0
9.1
11.2
14.9
Table A38
Normative data for the Stroop Interference stratified by age for EL SALVADOR
Age (Years)
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.0
13.9
11.9
10.2
7.4
5.1
3.0
0.8
1.5
4.2
6.0
8.0
11.1
16.6
13.5
11.5
9.8
7.0
4.7
2.6
0.4
1.9
4.6
6.3
8.4
11.5
16.2
13.2
11.1
9.4
6.6
4.3
2.2
0.0
2.3
5.0
6.7
8.8
11.9
15.9
12.8
10.7
9.0
6.3
3.9
1.8
0.3
2.7
5.4
7.1
9.2
12.3
15.5
12.4
10.3
8.6
5.9
3.6
1.4
0.7
3.0
5.8
7.5
9.6
12.6
15.1
12.0
9.9
8.2
5.5
3.2
1.0
1.1
3.4
6.2
7.9
10.0
13.0
14.7
11.6
9.5
7.8
5.1
2.8
0.6
1.5
3.8
6.6
8.3
10.3
13.4
14.3
11.2
9.2
7.4
4.7
2.4
0.2
1.9
4.2
7.0
8.7
10.7
13.8
13.9
10.8
8.8
7.1
4.3
2.0
0.1
2.3
4.6
7.3
9.1
11.1
14.2
13.5
10.4
8.4
6.7
3.9
1.6
0.5
2.7
5.0
7.7
9.4
11.5
14.6
13.1
10.1
8.0
6.3
3.5
1.2
0.9
3.1
5.4
8.1
9.8
11.9
15.0
12.8
9.7
7.6
5.9
3.2
0.8
1.3
3.4
5.8
8.5
10.2
12.3
15.4
12.4
9.3
7.2
5.5
2.8
0.5
1.7
3.8
6.1
8.9
10.6
12.7
15.7
Table A39
Normative data for the Stroop Interference for GUATEMALA
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
Raw Score
15.5
11.8
7.5
5.8
2.7
0.8
1.3
3.4
5.4
7.3
9.3
12.1
16.3
622
Table A40
Normative data for the Stroop Interference for HONDURAS
Percentile
Raw Score
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.2
9.5
8.2
6.5
4.6
3.5
2.0
1.1
0.9
2.4
4.8
5.4
7.3
Table A41
Normative data for the Stroop Interference stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
23.8
20.2
17.8
15.7
12.5
9.8
7.3
4.7
2.0
1.2
3.2
5.7
9.3
23.2
19.5
17.1
15.1
11.9
9.1
6.6
4.1
1.4
1.9
3.9
6.3
9.9
22.6
18.9
16.5
14.5
11.2
8.5
6.0
3.5
0.7
2.5
4.5
6.9
10.6
21.9
18.3
15.9
13.9
10.6
7.9
5.4
2.8
0.1
3.1
5.1
7.6
11.2
21.3
17.7
15.2
13.2
10.0
7.3
4.7
2.2
0.5
3.7
5.8
8.2
11.8
20.7
17.0
14.6
12.6
9.4
6.6
4.1
1.6
1.1
4.4
6.4
8.8
12.4
20.0
16.4
14.0
12.0
8.7
6.0
3.5
1.0
1.8
5.0
7.0
9.4
13.1
19.4
15.8
13.4
11.3
8.1
5.4
2.9
0.3
2.4
5.6
7.6
10.1
13.7
18.8
15.2
12.7
10.7
7.5
4.8
2.2
0.3
3.0
6.2
8.3
10.7
14.3
18.2
14.5
12.1
10.1
6.9
4.1
1.6
0.9
3.6
6.9
8.9
11.3
14.9
17.5
13.9
11.5
9.5
6.2
3.5
1.0
1.5
4.3
7.5
9.5
11.9
15.6
16.9
13.3
10.9
8.8
5.6
2.9
0.4
2.2
4.9
8.1
10.1
12.6
16.2
16.3
12.7
10.2
8.2
5.0
2.3
0.3
2.8
5.5
8.7
10.8
13.2
16.8
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
21.8
18.2
15.7
13.7
10.5
7.8
5.2
2.7
0.0
3.3
5.3
7.7
11.3
21.2
17.5
15.1
13.1
9.9
7.1
4.6
2.1
0.6
3.9
5.9
8.3
12.0
20.5
16.9
14.5
12.5
9.2
6.5
4.0
1.5
1.3
4.5
6.5
8.9
12.6
19.9
16.3
13.8
11.8
8.6
5.9
3.3
0.8
1.9
5.1
7.1
9.6
13.2
19.3
15.6
13.2
11.2
8.0
5.2
2.7
0.2
2.5
5.8
7.8
10.2
13.8
18.7
15.0
12.6
10.6
7.3
4.6
2.1
0.4
3.2
6.4
8.4
10.8
14.5
18.0
14.4
12.0
10.0
6.7
4.0
1.5
1.1
3.8
7.0
9.0
11.5
15.1
17.4
13.8
11.3
9.3
6.1
3.4
0.8
1.7
4.4
7.6
9.7
12.1
15.7
16.8
13.1
10.7
8.7
5.5
2.7
0.2
2.3
5.0
8.3
10.3
12.7
16.3
16.1
12.5
10.1
8.1
4.8
2.1
0.4
2.9
5.7
8.9
10.9
13.3
17.0
15.5
11.9
9.5
7.4
4.2
1.5
1.0
3.6
6.3
9.5
11.5
14.0
17.6
14.9
11.3
8.8
6.8
3.6
0.9
1.7
4.2
6.9
10.1
12.2
14.6
18.2
14.3
10.6
8.2
6.2
3.0
0.2
2.3
4.8
7.5
10.8
12.8
15.2
18.8
623
Table A42
Normative data for the Stroop Interference stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
16.3
13.7
12.0
10.5
8.2
6.2
4.4
2.6
0.6
1.7
3.2
4.9
7.6
16.0
13.3
11.6
10.1
7.8
5.8
4.0
2.2
0.2
2.1
3.6
5.3
7.9
15.6
13.0
11.2
9.8
7.4
5.5
3.6
1.8
0.1
2.5
3.9
5.7
8.3
15.2
12.6
10.9
9.4
7.1
5.1
3.3
1.5
0.5
2.8
4.3
6.0
8.7
14.9
12.2
10.5
9.0
6.7
4.7
2.9
1.1
0.9
3.2
4.7
6.4
9.0
14.5
11.9
10.1
8.7
6.3
4.4
2.6
0.7
1.2
3.6
5.0
6.8
9.4
14.1
11.5
9.8
8.3
6.0
4.0
2.2
0.4
1.6
3.9
5.4
7.1
9.8
13.8
11.1
9.4
7.9
5.6
3.6
1.8
0.0
2.0
4.3
5.7
7.5
10.1
13.4
10.8
9.0
7.6
5.2
3.3
1.5
0.4
2.3
4.7
6.1
7.9
10.5
13.0
10.4
8.7
7.2
4.9
2.9
1.1
0.7
2.7
5.0
6.5
8.2
10.8
12.7
10.0
8.3
6.8
4.5
2.5
0.7
1.1
3.1
5.4
6.8
8.6
11.2
12.3
9.7
7.9
6.5
4.1
2.2
0.4
1.5
3.4
5.8
7.2
9.0
11.6
11.9
9.3
7.6
6.1
3.8
1.8
0.0
1.8
3.8
6.1
7.6
9.3
11.9
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
9.9
7.3
5.5
4.1
1.8
0.2
2.0
3.9
5.8
8.1
9.6
11.4
14.0
9.5
6.9
5.2
3.7
1.4
0.6
2.4
4.2
6.2
8.5
10.0
11.7
14.3
9.2
6.6
4.8
3.4
1.0
0.9
2.8
4.6
6.5
8.9
10.3
12.1
14.7
8.8
6.2
4.4
3.0
0.7
1.3
3.1
4.9
6.9
9.2
10.7
12.4
15.1
8.4
5.8
4.1
2.6
0.3
1.7
3.5
5.3
7.3
9.6
11.1
12.8
15.4
8.1
5.5
3.7
2.3
0.1
2.0
3.9
5.7
7.6
10.0
11.4
13.2
15.8
7.7
5.1
3.3
1.9
0.4
2.4
4.2
6.0
8.0
10.3
11.8
13.5
16.2
7.3
4.7
3.0
1.5
0.8
2.8
4.6
6.4
8.4
10.7
12.2
13.9
16.5
7.0
4.4
2.6
1.2
1.2
3.1
5.0
6.8
8.7
11.1
12.5
14.3
16.9
6.6
4.0
2.2
0.8
1.5
3.5
5.3
7.1
9.1
11.4
12.9
14.6
17.3
6.3
3.6
1.9
0.4
1.9
3.9
5.7
7.5
9.5
11.8
13.3
15.0
17.6
5.9
3.3
1.5
0.1
2.3
4.2
6.1
7.9
9.8
12.2
13.6
15.4
18.0
5.5
2.9
1.2
0.3
2.6
4.6
6.4
8.2
10.2
12.5
14.0
15.7
18.4
Table A43
Normative data for the Stroop Interference stratified by age for PERU
Age (Years)
Percentile
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
19.9
16.5
14.2
12.3
9.3
6.7
4.4
2.0
0.5
3.6
5.5
7.7
11.1
19.1
15.7
13.4
11.5
8.5
5.9
3.6
1.2
1.4
4.4
6.3
8.6
12.0
18.3
14.9
12.6
10.7
7.7
5.1
2.8
0.4
2.2
5.2
7.1
9.4
12.8
17.5
14.1
11.8
9.9
6.9
4.3
1.9
0.4
3.0
6.0
7.9
10.2
13.6
16.6
13.2
11.0
9.1
6.0
3.5
1.1
1.2
3.8
6.8
8.7
11.0
14.4
15.8
12.4
10.2
8.3
5.2
2.7
0.3
2.1
4.6
7.6
9.5
11.8
15.2
15.0
11.6
9.3
7.5
4.4
1.9
0.5
2.9
5.4
8.4
10.3
12.6
16.0
14.2
10.8
8.5
6.6
3.6
1.1
1.3
3.7
6.2
9.3
11.2
13.4
16.8
13.4
10.0
7.7
5.8
2.8
0.2
2.1
4.5
7.0
10.1
12.0
14.2
17.6
12.6
9.2
6.9
5.0
2.0
0.6
2.9
5.3
7.9
10.9
12.8
15.0
18.5
11.8
8.4
6.1
4.2
1.2
1.4
3.7
6.1
8.7
11.7
13.6
15.9
19.3
11.0
7.6
5.3
3.4
0.4
2.2
4.6
6.9
9.5
12.5
14.4
16.7
20.1
10.2
6.7
4.5
2.6
0.4
3.0
5.4
7.7
10.3
13.3
15.2
17.5
20.9
624
Table A44
Normative data for the Stroop Interference stratified by age for PUERTO RICO
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
25.3
21.7
19.3
17.3
14.1
11.4
8.9
6.4
3.7
0.5
1.5
3.9
7.5
24.1
20.5
18.1
16.1
12.9
10.2
7.7
5.2
2.5
0.7
2.7
5.1
8.7
23.0
19.4
17.0
15.0
11.8
9.1
6.6
4.1
1.4
1.8
3.8
6.2
9.8
21.9
18.3
15.9
13.9
10.7
8.0
5.5
3.0
0.3
2.9
4.9
7.3
10.9
20.7
17.1
14.7
12.7
9.5
6.8
4.3
1.8
0.9
4.1
6.1
8.5
12.1
19.6
16.0
13.6
11.6
8.4
5.7
3.2
0.7
2.0
5.2
7.2
9.6
13.2
18.4
14.8
12.4
10.4
7.2
4.5
2.0
0.5
3.2
6.4
8.3
10.7
14.3
17.3
13.7
11.3
9.3
6.1
3.4
0.9
1.6
4.3
7.5
9.5
11.9
15.5
16.2
12.6
10.2
8.2
5.0
2.3
0.2
2.7
5.4
8.6
10.6
13.0
16.6
15.0
11.4
9.0
7.0
3.8
1.1
1.4
3.9
6.6
9.8
11.8
14.2
17.8
13.9
10.3
7.9
5.9
2.7
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.7
10.9
12.9
15.3
18.9
12.8
9.2
6.8
4.8
1.6
1.1
3.6
6.1
8.8
12.0
14.0
16.4
20.0
11.6
8.0
5.6
3.6
0.4
2.3
4.8
7.3
10.0
13.2
15.2
17.6
21.2
625

DOI:10.3233/NRE-151282
IOS Press
Symbol Digit Modalities Test: Normative data

adult population
J.C. Arango-Lasprillaa,b, , D. Riverab , G. Rodrguezc , M.T. Garzad , J. Galarza-del-Angele ,
W. Rodrguezf , J. Velazquez-Cardosog , A. Aguayoh , S. Schebelai , C. Weilj , M. Longonik ,
A. Aliagal , N. Ocampo-Barbam , C.P. Sarachon , I. Panyavinb , L. Esenarroo , C. Martnezp ,
C. Garca de la Cadenaq and P.B. Perrinr
a IKERBASQUE,

c Hospital Clnico Quir
urgico Docente Hermanos Ameijeiras, Havana, Cuba
e Universidad Aut
g Instituto Nacional de Neurologa y Neurociruga MVS, Mexico City, Mexico
h Instituto Vocacional Enrique Daz de Le
j Escuela de Psicologa, Universidad Dr. Jos
k Clnica de rehabilitaci
l Servicio M
m Fundaci
n CETYS University, Mexicali, Mexico
p Departamento de Medicina de Rehabilitaci
q Departamento de psicologa, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala
r Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
b Faculty
Abstract.
OBJECTIVE: To generate normative data on the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) across 11 countries in Latin America,
with country-specific adjustments for gender, age, and education, where appropriate.
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and, Puerto Rico. Each subject was administered the SDMT as part of a larger
RESULTS: The final multiple linear regression models explained 2956% of the variance in SDMT scores. Although there were
gender differences on the SDMT in Mexico, Honduras, Paraguay, and Guatemala, none of the four countries had an effect size
greater than 0.3. As a result, gender-adjusted norms were not generated.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first normative multicenter study conducted in Latin America to create norms for the SDMT; this
study will have an impact on the future practice of neuropsychology throughout the global region.
Keywords: Normative data, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, reference values, Latin America, processing speed, attention
Address

Ph.D., IKERBASQUE Research Professor, Department of
Psychology, University of Deusto, IKERBASQUE, Basque
Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain. Tel.: +34 94 413 90

03 (Extn. 3261); Fax: +34 94 413 93 42. E-mail: jcarango@
deusto.es.
626
J.C. Arango-Lasprilla et al. / Symbol Digit Modalities Test
1. Introduction
The Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) is a
paper-and-pencil substitution task which is easily
administered and sensitive to the presence of cerebral dysfunction (Smith, 1982). Originally published
in 1973 and later revised (Smith, 1982), the SDMT
is considered a measure of divided attention, complex
scanning and visual tracking, perceptual and motor
speed, and memory (Shum, McFarland, & Bain, 1990;
Lezak, Howieson, & Loring, 2004).
The SDMT consists of a key with two rows, with
nine stimulus symbols in the upper row and matched
numbers (19) in the row below it. The task sequence
consists of a series of symbols, each with a blank
space underneath, which the subject is asked to consecutively fill with the corresponding numbers as fast
as possible in 90 seconds after completing a 10-item
practice trial. The score of the test is the number of correct substitutions completed within the time limit, with
the maximum score of 110 (Smith, 1982). Obtaining a
score under 33 on the SDMT is generally considered
a clear indicator of the existence of some type of cognitive disorder (Cherbuin, Sachdev, & Anstey, 2010).
The SDMT is very similar to the Digit Symbol Coding
subtest of the WAIS (Wechsler, 1981), with which it
correlates very highly, suggesting they are essentially
the same (Morgan & Wheelock, 1992). However, the
SDMT has the advantage of allowing for responses with
a more familiar act of number writing, as well as a spoken response trial (Smith, 1982; Lezak et al., 2004).
A correlation on the order of 0.80 has been reported
between the standard SDMT and its oral version, as
well as Wechsler Digit Symbol Coding, confirming its
content and construct validity (Smith, 1991; Bowler,
Sudia, Mergler, Harrison, & Cone, 1992; Lezak et al.,
2004). Test-retest reliability in a sample of young athletes ranged from 0.74 to 0.91, and from 0.84 to 0.93 in
healthy adults (Hinton-Bayre, Geffen, & McFarland,
1997; Hinton-Bayre, Geffen, Geffen, McFarland, &
Frijs, 1999; Amodio et al., 2002; Benedict, Smerbeck,
Parikh, Rodgers, Cadavid, & Erlanger, 2012).
Due to its wide applicability and ease of administration, the SDMT has been used to study cognitive
sequelae in a variety of neurological conditions, including the consequences of traumatic head injury in adults
(Ponsford & Kinsella, 1992; Hingon-Bayre, Geffen,
& McFarland, 1997; Felmingham, Baguley, & Green,
2004), brain damage in children (Lewandowski, 1984),
aging and dementia (Pfeffer et al., 1981), hepatic
encephalopathy (Tarter, Hegedus, Van Thiel, Schade,
Gavaler, & Starzl., 1984; Quero, Hartmann, Meulstee,

Hop, & Schalm, 1996), extra-pyramidal disorders
(Starkstein et al., 1988; Starkstein, Bolduc, Preziosi,
& Robinson, 1989), multiple sclerosis (Benedict et al.,
2002; Huijbregts, Kalkers, de Sonneville, de Groot,
Reuling, & Polman, 2004; Nocentini et al., 2006), and
schizophrenia (Dickinson, Ramsey, & Gold, 2007).
Performance on the SDMT is affected by age and
educational level: scores have been shown to decline
with increasing age and lower education levels (Smith,
1982; Strauss, Shermann, & Spreen, 2006), while
improved performance was noted with increasing verbal IQ scores (Nielsen, Knudsen, & Daugbjerg, 1989;
Waldmann, Dickson, Monahan, & Kazelskis, 1992).
Age-related decline in performance likely reflects
changes in the speed of both motor response and information processing (Gilmore, Royer, & Gruhn, 1983)
and in memory (Joy, Kaplan, & Fein, 2004). Some
studies have also found gender effects (with women
outperforming men), although this finding is not consistent, tends to diminish when controlling for handedness
(Waldmann, Dickson, Monahan, & Kazelskis, 1992;
Lezak et al., 2004; Strauss et al., 2006), and appears to
be of insufficient magnitude to create separate genderbased norms (Gilmore, Royer, & Gruhn, 1983).
The SDMT normative data, while accounting for
such factors as age and level of education, are lacking for adults from diverse racial/ethnic groups as well
as diverse global regions (Sheridan et al., 2006). This is
an important issue, considering the well-documented
effect of culture on differences in performance in
nearly all domains of neuropsychological functioning (OBryant, Humphreys, Bauer, McCaffrey, &
Hilsabeck, 2007). In recent years, a number of normative studies have taken place, including among African
Americans, Blacks of Caribbean ancestry, and nonLatino Whites living in areas of the United States
with large populations of Blacks (Gonzalez, Whitfield,
West, Williams, Lichtenberg, & Jackson, 2007), Italian
adults (Amodio et al., 2002; Nocentini, Giordano, Di
Vincenzo, Panella, & Pasqualetti, 2006), healthy elderly
Danes (Vogel, Stokholm, & Jorgensen, 2013), and in
Spain among healthy adults (Smith, 2002) and institutionalized elderly persons (Cancela, Ayan, & Varela,
2012).
Normative data are needed to implement the SDMT
correctly in Latin America. To date, only limited normative data have been produced on the SDMT in
Spanish from Spain but none from Latin America. The
unique educational opportunities and cultures in this
region underscore the necessity of norms standard-
ized for Latin America, as interpreting performance

on the SDMT in individuals from this region using
norms from other countries and languages might result
in significant assessment errors. As a result, the purpose of the current study was to generate norms for
the SDMT across 11 countries in Latin America with
appropriate adjustments for age, gender, and formal
education.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Paraguay, Peru, and Puerto Rico. The participants were
1965).
consent form. Twelve participants were excluded from
the analyses, with a final sample of 3965 participants.
627
any lines is necessary. The subjects score is the

number of correct substitutions made at an interval of
90 seconds.
The detailed statistical analyses used to generate the normative data for this test are described
in Guàrdia-Olmos et al. (2015). In summary, the
data manipulation process for each country-specific
dataset involved five-steps: a) t tests for independent samples and effect sizes (r) were conducted to
determine gender effects. If the effect size was larger
than 0.3, gender was included in the model with
gender dummy coded and female as the reference
group (male = 1 and female = 0); b) A multivariable
regression model was used to specify the predictive model including gender (if effect size was larger
than 0.3), age as a continuous variable, and education as a dummy coded variable with 1 if the
participant had >12 years of education and 0 if the
participants had 112 years of education. If gender,
age and/or education was not statistically significant
in this multivariate model with an alpha of 0.05,
the non-significant variables were removed and the
model was re-run. Then a final regression model
was conducted that included age (if statistically significant in the multivariable model), dichotomized
education (if statistically significant in the multivariate model), and/or gender (if effect size was
greater than 0.3) [yi = 0 + (Age Agei ) + (Educ
Educi ) + (Gender Genderi )]; c) residual scores were
calculated based on this final model (ei = yi y i ); d)
using the SDe (residual) value provided by the regression model, residuals were standardized: z = ei /SDe ,
were applied to SDMT scores.
3. Results

The SDMT test consists of converting symbols with
shaped geometric figures in numbers. This substitution
can be applied orally or in writing. This study used
normative data for the written form. When administrating the test, confirmation that the subject is marking
the answers in the order given and without skipping
Regarding the effect of gender on SDMT, the

women in the countries of Honduras, Mexico, and
Paraguay, however, none of these three countries had
an effect size larger than 0.3. Table 1 shows the results
of the gender analyses by country on SDMT scores. As
628

Table 1
Effect of gender in the SDMT
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentinaa
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
43.9 (10.1)
44.2 (12.5)
27.7 (17.6)
28.4 (18.7)
34.4 (19.0)
36.5 (19.9)
33.0 (12.4)
33.3 (13.4)
26.5 (16.9)
23.7 (14.0)
34.8 (16.2)
38.3 (16.0)
29.7 (14.7)
23.0 (12.6)
39.2 (16.2)
36.6 (15.7)
24.2 (10.4)
21.3 (8.2)
41.5 (12.2)
41.1 (14.8)
40.4 (16.5)
39.7 (15.1)
0.27
219.2
0.791
0.018
0.29
272
0.775
0.017
0.95
318
0.341
0.053
0.19
304
0.853
0.011
1.39
180.5
0.165
0.103
1.59
210
0.113
0.109
3.20
178
0.002
0.233
2.78
1,295
0.006
0.077
2.39
176.1
0.018
0.177
0.23
206.4
0.818
0.016
0.43
290
0.669
0.025
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvadora
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguaya
Perua
Puerto Rico
a Value
p < 0.05, p < 0.01.
account to generate SDMT normative data for any of
the countries in the study.
The final eleven SDMT multivariate linear regression models for each country are shown in Table 2. In
all countries, the SDMT score increased for those with
more than 12 years of education (see Table 2) and, in all
countries SDMT scores decreased in a linear fashion as
a function of age. The amount of variance explained in
SDMT scores ranged from 30% (in Guatemala) to 56%
(in Chile).
Norms (e.g., a percentile score) for the SDMT score
test were established using the five-step procedure
described above. To facilitate the understanding of the
procedure to obtain the percentile associated with a
score on this test, an example will be given. Suppose you
need to find the percentile score for a Mexican woman,
who is 25 years old and has 13 years of education. She
has a score of 40 on the SDMT test. The steps to obtain
the percentile for this score are: a) Check Table 1 to
determine if the effect size of gender in the country of
interest (Mexico) on this test and time point (SDMT) is
greater than 0.3 by country. In this example, the effect
size is 0.077, which is not greater than 0.3. For Mexican
on this test, gender does not influence scores to a sufficient degree to take it into account when determining
the percentile. b) Find Mexico in Table 2, which provides the final regression models by country for SDMT.
Use the B weights to create an equation that will allow
you to obtain the predicted SDMT score. The corresponding B weights are multiplied by the actual age
and dichotomized education scores and added to a constant in order to calculate the predicted value. In this
case, the predicted SDMT score would be calculated
(6.229 Dichotomized Educational Leveli )] (the values have been rounded for presentation in the formula).
The subscript notation i indicates the person of interest.
The persons age is 25, but the education variable is not
continuous in the model. Years of education is split into
either 1 to 12 years (and assigned a 0) or more than 12
years (and assigned a 1) in the model. Since our hypothetical person in the example has 13 years of education,
her educational level value is 1. Thus the predicted
value is y i = 60.802 + (0.471 25) + (6.229 1) =
60.802 11.778 + 6.229 = 55.25. c) In order to calculate the residual value (indicated with an e in the
equation), we subtract the actual value from the predicted value we just calculated (ei = yi y i ). In this
consult the SDe column in Table 2 to obtain the country-
629

Table 2
Final multiple linear regression models for SDMT
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
51.557
0.267
8.855
54.010
0.489
8.180
62.742
0.563
15.798
49.802
0.351
8.171
40.460
0.348
17.849
45.901
0.282
15.014
37.853
0.331
14.479
60.802
0.471
6.229
32.522
0.226
10.241
52.694
0.404
9.400
64.815
0.534
5.010
1.516
0.027
1.055
2.434
0.039
2.268
2.421
0.039
1.767
1.726
0.030
1.377
2.040
0.033
1.689
3.117
0.054
1.924
2.208
0.041
1.757
0.972
0.016
0.807
1.812
0.031
1.211
1.787
0.030
1.295
2.255
0.037
1.387
34.013
9.901
8.395
22.193
12.460
3.606
25.917
14.482
8.942
28.852
11.830
5.933
19.836
10.437
10.569
14.726
5.188
7.804
17.147
8.159
8.241
62.534
28.592
7.719
17.950
7.187
8.456
29.491
13.377
7.261
28.739
14.263
3.611
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.380
9.294
0.405
14.082
0.557
12.995
0.379
10.163
0.483
10.956
0.299
13.544
0.486
9.874
0.430
12.012
0.441
6.866
0.534
9.486
0.473
11.380
specific SDe (residual) value. For Mexico it is 12.012.

Using this value, we can transform the residual value
to a standardized z score using the equation (ei /SDe ).
In this case, we have (15.25)/12.012 = 1.269. This
is the standardized z score for a Mexican woman aged
25 and 13 years of education and a score of 40 on the
SDMT test. e) The last step is to use look-up the tables in
the statistical reference books (e.g. Strauss et al., 2006)
or use a trusted online calculator like the one available at
one-sided test and note the percent of area after hitting the submit button. In this case, the probability of
1.269 corresponds to the 10th percentile.

(SDMT) in the Appendix. In order to obtain an approximate percentile for the above example (converting a
raw score of 40 for a Mexican women who is 25 years
old and has 13 years of education) using the simplified normative tables provided, the following steps are
table for SDMT scores for Mexico can be found in Table
A8. (2) Note if the title of the table indicates that it is
only to be used for one specific gender. In this case,
gender is not specified. Thus Table A8 is used for both
males and females. (3) Next, the table is divided based
on educational level (1 to 12 vs. more than 12 years of
630
education). Since this woman has 13 years of education, she falls into the more than 12 years of education
category. These data can be found in the top section
of the table. (4) Determine the age range most appropriate for the individual. In this case, 25 falls into the
raw score the person obtained on the text. Reading down
the 2327 column, the score of 40 obtained by this Mexican woman corresponds to an approximate percentile
of 10.
4. Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to generate normative data on the SDMT across 11 countries in Latin
2955% of the variance in the SDMT scores. Although
men outperformed women on the SDMT in three of
the 11 countries (Mexico, Honduras, and Paraguay),
women outperformed men in Guatemala. Nonetheless,
all gender effect sizes were small, and therefore genderadjusted norms were not generated. These findings
are generally in line with the literature, as previously
reported gender effects have tended to be inconsistent and to diminish when controlling for handedness
(Waldmann et al., 1992; Lezak et al., 2004; Strauss et
al., 2006). Previous studies have similarly found gender differences to be too small to create separate gender
norms (Gilmore, Royer, & Gruhn, 1983). In light of
the previous literature, the current results suggest that
gender should not be taken into account in calculating participants percentiles for the SDMT in in Latin
America when using the current norms.
The SDMT scores increased linearly as a function of education in all countries. These findings were
consistent within the current study, as well as with previous studies showing that performance on the SDMT
increases with education level (Smith, 1982; Strauss
et al., 2006). Because of potentially major differences in
the quality of education across countries in Latin America, it is very important to use the education-adjusted
norms generated for a single country when administering the SDMT to individuals from that country.
Age was inversely associated with SDMT scores in
all countries, and as a result, age-adjusted norms were
calculated for each country. These findings are in line
with the previous literature showing SDMT scores to
decrease with advancing age (Smith, 1982; Strauss,
Shermann, & Spreen, 2006), as age-related decline in

SDMT performance likely reflects changes in the speed
of motor response and information processing (Gilmore
et al., 1983) and in memory (Joy, Kaplan, & Fein, 2004).
As with education, it is important that neuropsychologists in Latin America use the age-adjusted norms for
their specific country.
This study has several limitations, and as a result
directions for future research. First, this study was
subject to a number of sampling limitations. Participants had Spanish as their primary language, and
SDMT performance could differ among people with
various languages, bilingualism, or local dialects such
as Quechua or Guaran. A ripe area for future research
is bilingualism and SDMT performance. Also, the data
were collected in various regions of the countries in
this study, as opposed to nationally. Although this study
was the largest neuropsychological normative study in
the history of Latin America, or of any global region,
it is only a first step in conducting more rigorous,
larger studies with nationally representative samples.
Although many participants had fewer than 12 years of
education, those who were unable to read or write were
excluded; thus, the SDMT norms cannot generalize to
illiterate populations. Similarly, all participants in the
current study were healthy adults, so future studies need
to include populations with neurological conditions, as
well as children. Future research may also assess participants bilingualism, which was not controlled for or
examined.
Second, clinicians should be cautious about using
the norms of the SDMT from the current study in countries in Latin America beyond the 11 countries from
which data were collected. In the future, it is important
to establish SDMT norms in other countries such as
Ecuador, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Panama. Nonetheless, the current SDMT norms may be more accurate in
these countries than other norms from Spain or Englishspeaking countries that may currently be in use; future
research should nonetheless investigate the generalizability of the current norms.
Third, despite the SDMTs commonness in Latin
America, many other assessments are also common
and need to be normed in the same manner. It
is important that future research examine the psychometric properties of common neuropsychological
instruments in Latin America, even at the individual item level. Research should also examine whether
neuropsychological assessments have good ecological

validity, or develop instruments in those cultures with
higher ecological validity. The SDMT was created in
a Western culture that may be different from the various cultures in Latin America. Future research should
develop more culturally sensitive assessments bound in
local cultures, not solely translate and norm tests from
other cultures and countries.
Despite these limitations and although previous studies have produced Spanish-language norms for the
SDMT in Spain with healthy adults (Smith, 2002), the
current study was the first to generate SDMT norms
across 11 countries in Latin America with nearly 4,000
participants. This study was the largest and most comprehensive SDMT normative study to date in any global
region, and its norms have the potential to affect the
standard of neuropsychological assessment with the
SDMT in Latin America unlike any study before it.
References
Amodio, P., Wenin, H., del Piccolo, F., Mapelli, D., Montagnese,
S., Pellegrini, A., Musto, C., Gatta, A., & Umilta, C. (2002).
Variability of Trail Making Test, Symbol Digit Test and Line Trait
Test in normal people. A normative study taking into account agedependent decline and sociobiological variables. Aging Clinical
and Experimental Research, 14(2), 117-131.
Benedict, R. H., Smerbeck, A., Parikh, R., Rodgers, J., Cadavid, D., &
Erlanger, D. (2012). Reliability and equivalence of alternate forms
for the Symbol Digit Modalities Test: Implications for multiple
sclerosis clinical trials. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 18(9), 13201325.
Benedict, R., Fischer, J., Archibald, C., Arnett, P., Beatty, W.,
Bobholz, J., Chelune, G., Fisk, J., Langdon, D., Caruso, L., Foley,
F., LaRocca, N., Vowels, L., Weinstein, A., DeLuca, J., Rao, S., &
Munschauer, F. (2002). Minimal neuropsychological assessment
of MS patients: A consensus approach. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 16(3), 381-397.
Bowler, R., Sudia, S., Mergler, D., Harrison, R., & Cone, J. (1992).
Comparison of digit symbol and symbol digit modalities tests for
assessing neurotoxic exposure. The Clinical Neuropsychologist,
6(1), 103-104.
Cancela, J., Ayan, C., & Varela, S. (2012). Symbol Digit Modalities
Test normative values for Spanish home care residents: A pilot
study. Actas Espanolas de Psiquiatria, 40(6), 299-303.
Cherbuin, N., Sachdev, P., & Anstey, K. (2010). Neuropsychological predictors of transition from healthy cognitive aging to mild
cognitive impairment: The PATH Through Life Study. American
Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(8), 723-33.
Dickinson, D., Ramsey, M., & Gold, J. (2007). Overlooking the obvious. A meta-analytic comparison of digit symbol coding tasks and
other cognitive measures in schizophrenia. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 64(5), 532-542.
Felmingham, K., Baguley, I., & Green, A. (2004). Effects of
diffuse axonal injury on speed of information processing
631
following severe traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychology, 18(3),

564-571.
189-198.
Gilmore, G. C., Royer, F. L., & Gruhn, J. J. (1983). Age differences in
symbol-digit substitution task performance. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 39(1), 114-124.
Gonzalez, H. M., Whitfield, K. E., West, B. T., Williams, D. R.,
Lichtenberg, P. A., & Jackson, J. S. (2007). Modified-symbol digit
modalities test for African Americans, Caribbean Black Americans, and non-Latino Whites: Nationally representative normative
data from the National Survey of American Life. Archives of
493-499.
Hinton-Bayre, A. D., Geffen, G. M., Geffen, L. B., McFarland, K.
A., & Frijs, P. (1999). Concussion in contact sports: Reliable
change indices of impairment and recovery. Journal of Clinical
Hinton-Bayre, A., Geffen, G., & McFarland, K. (1997). Mild head
injury and speed of information processing: A prospective study
of professional rugby league players. Journal of Clinical and
Huijbregts, S., Kalkers, N., de Sonneville, L., de Groot, V., Reuling,
I., & Polman, C. (2004). Differences in cognitive impairment
of relapsing remitting, secondary, and primary progressive MS.
Neurology, 63(2), 335-339.
Joy, S., Kaplan, E., & Fein, D. (2004). Speed and memory in the
WAIS-III Digit Symbol-Coding subtest across the adult lifespan.
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 759-767.
Lewandowski, L. (1984). The Symbol Digit Modalities Test: A
screening instrument for brain damaged children. Perceptual &
Motor Skills, 59(2), 615-618.
Lezak, M., Howieson, D., & Loring, D. (2004). Neuropsychological
Assessment (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Morgan, S., & Wheelock, J. (1992). Digit symbol and symbol digit
modalities tests: Are they directly interchangeable? Neuropsychology, 6(4), 327-330.
Nielsen, H., Knudsen, L., & Daugbjerg, O. (1989). Normative data
for eight neuropsychological tests based on a Danish sample.
Nocentini, U., Giordano, A., Di Vincenzo, S., Panella, M., &
Pasqualetti, P. (2006). The Symbol Digit Modalities Test Oral
version: Italian normative data. Functional Neurology, 21(2),
93-96.
Nocentini, U., Pasqualetti, P., Bonavita, S., Buccafusca, M., De Caro,
M., Farina, D., Girlanda, P., Le Pira, F., Lugaresi, A., Quattrone,
A., Reggio, A., Salemi, G., Savettieri, G., Tedeschi, G., Trojano,
M., Valentino, P., & Caltagirone, C. (2006). Cognitive dysfunction
in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Multiple
Sclerosis, 12(1), 77-87.
632
OBryant, S., Hemphreys, J., Bauer, L., McCaffrey, R., & Hilsabeck,
R. (2007). The influence of ethnicity on symbol digit modalities test performance: An analysis of a multi-ethnic college
and hepatitis C patient sample. Applied Neuropsychology, 14(3),
183-188.
Pfeffer RI, Kurosaki TT, Harrah, C., Chance, J., Bates, D., Detels, R.,
Filos, S., & Butzke, C. (1981). A survey diagnostic tool for senile
dementia. American Journal of Epidemiology, 114(4), 515-527.
Ponsford, J., & Kinsella, G. (1992). Attentional deficits following closed head injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Quero, J., Hartmann, I., Meulstee, J., Hop, W., & Schalm, S. (1996).
The diagnosis of subclinical hepatic encephalopathy in patients
with cirrhosis using neuropsychological tests and automated electroencephalogram analysis. Hepatology, 24(3), 556-560.
Sheridan, L., Fitzgerald, H., Adams, K., Nigg, J., Martel, M.,
Puttler, L., Wong, M., & Zucker, R. (2006). Normative symbol
digit modalities test performance in a community-based sample.
Shum, D., McFarland, K., & Bain, J. (1990). Construct validity of
eight tests of attention: Comparison of normal and closed head
injured samples. Clinical Neuropsychology, 4(2), 151-62.
Smith, A. (1982). Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). Manual
(revised). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Smith, A. (1991). Symbol Digit Modalities Test. Los Angeles, CA:
Western Psychological Services.
Smith, A. (2002). Test de smbolos y dgitos (Symbol and Digit Test).
Madrid: TEA Ediciones S.A.
Starkstein, S., Bolduc, P., Preziosi, T., & Robinson, R. (1989).

Cognitive impairments in different stages of Parkinsons disease. Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neuroscience, 1,
243-248.
Starkstein, S. E., Brandt, J., Folstein, S., Strauss, M., Berthier, M.,
Pearlson, G., Wong, D., McDonnell, A., & Folstein, M. (1988).
Neuropsychological and neuroradiological correlates in Huntingtons disease. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry,
51(10), 1259-1263.
Strauss, E., Sherman, E., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary
(3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Tarter, R., Hegedus, A., Van Thiel, D., Schade, R., Gavaler, J., &
Starzl, T. (1984). Nonalcoholic cirrhosis associated with neuropsychological dysfunction in the absence of overt evidence of
hepatic encephalopathy. Gastroenterology, 86(6), 1421-1427.
Vogel, A., Stokholm, J., & Jorgensen, K. (2013). Performances on
Symbol Digit Modalities Test, Color Trails Test, and modified
Stroop test in a healthy, elderly Danish sample. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 20(3), 370-382.
Waldmann, B. W., Dickson, A. L., Monahan, M. C., & Kazelskis, R.
(1992). The relationship between intellectual ability and adult
performance on the Trail Making Test and the Symbol Digit
Modalities Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48(3), 360-363.
Wechsler, D. (1981). The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised.
New York: The Psychological Corporation.
633
Appendix
Table A1
Normative data for the SDMT stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
70.3
67.0
64.7
62.9
59.9
57.4
55.1
52.7
50.2
47.3
45.4
43.2
39.8
69.0
65.6
63.4
61.5
58.6
56.1
53.7
51.4
48.9
45.9
44.1
41.8
38.5
67.6
64.3
62.1
60.2
57.2
54.7
52.4
50.1
47.6
44.6
42.7
40.5
37.2
66.3
63.0
60.7
58.9
55.9
53.4
51.1
48.7
46.2
43.3
41.4
39.2
35.8
65.0
61.6
59.4
57.5
54.6
52.1
49.7
47.4
44.9
41.9
40.1
37.8
34.5
63.6
60.3
58.1
56.2
53.2
50.7
48.4
46.1
43.6
40.6
38.7
36.5
33.1
62.3
59.0
56.7
54.9
51.9
49.4
47.1
44.7
42.2
39.2
37.4
35.2
31.8
61.0
57.6
55.4
53.5
50.6
48.0
45.7
43.4
40.9
37.9
36.1
33.8
30.5
59.6
56.3
54.0
52.2
49.2
46.7
44.4
42.1
39.6
36.6
34.7
32.5
29.1
58.3
54.9
52.7
50.9
47.9
45.4
43.0
40.7
38.2
35.2
33.4
31.2
27.8
57.0
53.6
51.4
49.5
46.5
44.0
41.7
39.4
36.9
33.9
32.0
29.8
26.5
55.6
52.3
50.0
48.2
45.2
42.7
40.4
38.1
35.5
32.6
30.7
28.5
25.1
54.3
50.9
48.7
46.8
43.9
41.4
39.0
36.7
34.2
31.2
29.4
27.1
23.8
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
61.5
58.1
55.9
54.0
51.0
48.5
46.2
43.9
41.4
38.4
36.5
34.3
31.0
60.1
56.8
54.5
52.7
49.7
47.2
44.9
42.6
40.0
37.1
35.2
33.0
29.6
58.8
55.4
53.2
51.3
48.4
45.9
43.5
41.2
38.7
35.7
33.9
31.6
28.3
57.4
54.1
51.9
50.0
47.0
44.5
42.2
39.9
37.4
34.4
32.5
30.3
27.0
56.1
52.8
50.5
48.7
45.7
43.2
40.9
38.5
36.0
33.1
31.2
29.0
25.6
54.8
51.4
49.2
47.3
44.4
41.9
39.5
37.2
34.7
31.7
29.9
27.6
24.3
53.4
50.1
47.9
46.0
43.0
40.5
38.2
35.9
33.4
30.4
28.5
26.3
23.0
52.1
48.8
46.5
44.7
41.7
39.2
36.9
34.5
32.0
29.1
27.2
25.0
21.6
50.8
47.4
45.2
43.3
40.4
37.9
35.5
33.2
30.7
27.7
25.9
23.6
20.3
49.4
46.1
43.9
42.0
39.0
36.5
34.2
31.9
29.4
26.4
24.5
22.3
19.0
48.1
44.8
42.5
40.7
37.7
35.2
32.9
30.5
28.0
25.1
23.2
21.0
17.6
46.8
43.4
41.2
39.3
36.4
33.8
31.5
29.2
26.7
23.7
21.9
19.6
16.3
45.4
42.1
39.9
38.0
35.0
32.5
30.2
27.9
25.4
22.4
20.5
18.3
14.9
Table A2
Normative data for the SDMT stratified by age and education levels for BOLIVIA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
75.5
70.4
67.1
64.2
59.7
55.9
52.4
48.9
45.1
40.6
37.8
34.4
29.3
73.1
68.0
64.6
61.8
57.3
53.5
50.0
46.4
42.6
38.1
35.3
31.9
26.9
70.6
65.5
62.2
59.3
54.8
51.0
47.5
44.0
40.2
35.7
32.9
29.5
24.4
68.2
63.1
59.7
56.9
52.4
48.6
45.1
41.6
37.8
33.2
30.4
27.0
22.0
65.7
60.7
57.3
54.5
50.0
46.1
42.6
39.1
35.3
30.8
28.0
24.6
19.5
63.3
58.2
54.8
52.0
47.5
43.7
40.2
36.7
32.9
28.4
25.5
22.2
17.1
60.8
55.8
52.4
49.6
45.1
41.3
37.7
34.2
30.4
25.9
23.1
19.7
14.6
58.4
53.3
49.9
47.1
42.6
38.8
35.3
31.8
28.0
23.5
20.6
17.3
12.2
55.9
50.9
47.5
44.7
40.2
36.4
32.8
29.3
25.5
21.0
18.2
14.8
9.8
53.5
48.4
45.0
42.2
37.7
33.9
30.4
26.9
23.1
18.6
15.8
12.4
7.3
51.1
46.0
42.6
39.8
35.3
31.5
28.0
24.4
20.6
16.1
13.3
9.9
4.9
48.6
43.5
40.2
37.3
32.8
29.0
25.5
22.0
18.2
13.7
10.9
7.5
2.4
46.2
41.1
37.7
34.9
30.4
26.6
23.1
19.5
15.7
11.2
8.4
5.0
0.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
67.3
62.3
58.9
56.1
51.6
47.7
44.2
40.7
36.9
32.4
29.6
26.2
21.1
64.9
59.8
56.4
53.6
49.1
45.3
41.8
38.3
34.5
30.0
27.1
23.8
18.7
62.4
57.4
54.0
51.2
46.7
42.9
39.3
35.8
32.0
27.5
24.7
21.3
16.2
60.0
54.9
51.5
48.7
44.2
40.4
36.9
33.4
29.6
25.1
22.2
18.9
13.8
57.5
52.5
49.1
46.3
41.8
38.0
34.4
30.9
27.1
22.6
19.8
16.4
11.4
55.1
50.0
46.6
43.8
39.3
35.5
32.0
28.5
24.7
20.2
17.4
14.0
8.9
52.7
47.6
44.2
41.4
36.9
33.1
29.6
26.0
22.2
17.7
14.9
11.5
6.5
50.2
45.1
41.8
38.9
34.4
30.6
27.1
23.6
19.8
15.3
12.5
9.1
4.0
47.8
42.7
39.3
36.5
32.0
28.2
24.7
21.1
17.3
12.8
10.0
6.6
1.6
45.3
40.2
36.9
34.1
29.5
25.7
22.2
18.7
14.9
10.4
7.6
4.2
42.9
37.8
34.4
31.6
27.1
23.3
19.8
16.3
12.5
7.9
5.1
1.8
40.4
35.4
32.0
29.2
24.7
20.9
17.3
13.8
10.0
5.5
2.7
38.0
32.9
29.5
26.7
22.2
18.4
14.9
11.4
7.6
3.1
0.2
634

Table A3
Normative data for the SDMT stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
88.6
83.9
80.8
78.2
74.0
70.5
67.3
64.0
60.5
56.4
53.8
50.6
46.0
85.8
81.1
78.0
75.4
71.2
67.7
64.5
61.2
57.7
53.5
50.9
47.8
43.1
83.0
78.3
75.2
72.6
68.4
64.9
61.6
58.4
54.9
50.7
48.1
45.0
40.3
80.1
75.5
72.3
69.7
65.6
62.1
58.8
55.6
52.1
47.9
45.3
42.2
37.5
77.3
72.6
69.5
66.9
62.8
59.3
56.0
52.8
49.3
45.1
42.5
39.4
34.7
74.5
69.8
66.7
64.1
60.0
56.4
53.2
50.0
46.4
42.3
39.7
36.6
31.9
71.7
67.0
63.9
61.3
57.1
53.6
50.4
47.1
43.6
39.5
36.9
33.7
29.1
68.9
64.2
61.1
58.5
54.3
50.8
47.6
44.3
40.8
36.7
34.1
30.9
26.3
66.1
61.4
58.3
55.7
51.5
48.0
44.8
41.5
38.0
33.8
31.2
28.1
23.4
63.2
58.6
55.5
52.9
48.7
45.2
41.9
38.7
35.2
31.0
28.4
25.3
20.6
60.4
55.8
52.6
50.0
45.9
42.4
39.1
35.9
32.4
28.2
25.6
22.5
17.8
57.6
52.9
49.8
47.2
43.1
39.6
36.3
33.1
29.5
25.4
22.8
19.7
15.0
54.8
50.1
47.0
44.4
40.2
36.7
33.5
30.2
26.7
22.6
20.0
16.9
12.2
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
72.8
68.1
65.0
62.4
58.2
54.7
51.5
48.2
44.7
40.6
38.0
34.8
30.2
70.0
65.3
62.2
59.6
55.4
51.9
48.7
45.4
41.9
37.7
35.1
32.0
27.4
67.2
62.5
59.4
56.8
52.6
49.1
45.8
42.6
39.1
34.9
32.3
29.2
24.5
64.3
59.7
56.5
53.9
49.8
46.3
43.0
39.8
36.3
32.1
29.5
26.4
21.7
61.5
56.9
53.7
51.1
47.0
43.5
40.2
37.0
33.5
29.3
26.7
23.6
18.9
58.7
54.0
50.9
48.3
44.2
40.7
37.4
34.2
30.6
26.5
23.9
20.8
16.1
55.9
51.2
48.1
45.5
41.3
37.8
34.6
31.3
27.8
23.7
21.1
18.0
13.3
53.1
48.4
45.3
42.7
38.5
35.0
31.8
28.5
25.0
20.9
18.3
15.1
10.5
50.3
45.6
42.5
39.9
35.7
32.2
29.0
25.7
22.2
18.0
15.4
12.3
7.6
47.5
42.8
39.7
37.1
32.9
29.4
26.1
22.9
19.4
15.2
12.6
9.5
4.8
44.6
40.0
36.8
34.2
30.1
26.6
23.3
20.1
16.6
12.4
9.8
6.7
2.0
41.8
37.1
34.0
31.4
27.3
23.8
20.5
17.3
13.8
9.6
7.0
3.9
39.0
34.3
31.2
28.6
24.4
20.9
17.7
14.4
10.9
6.8
4.2
1.1
Table A4
Normative data for the SDMT stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
67.6
64.0
61.5
59.5
56.2
53.5
51.0
48.4
45.7
42.4
40.4
38.0
34.3
65.9
62.2
59.8
57.7
54.5
51.7
49.2
46.7
43.9
40.7
38.6
36.2
32.5
64.1
60.5
58.0
56.0
52.7
50.0
47.5
44.9
42.2
38.9
36.9
34.4
30.8
62.4
58.7
56.3
54.2
51.0
48.2
45.7
43.2
40.4
37.2
35.1
32.7
29.0
60.6
57.0
54.5
52.5
49.2
46.5
43.9
41.4
38.7
35.4
33.4
30.9
27.3
58.9
55.2
52.8
50.7
47.5
44.7
42.2
39.7
36.9
33.7
31.6
29.2
25.5
57.1
53.4
51.0
49.0
45.7
43.0
40.4
37.9
35.2
31.9
29.9
27.4
23.8
55.4
51.7
49.3
47.2
44.0
41.2
38.7
36.1
33.4
30.1
28.1
25.7
22.0
53.6
49.9
47.5
45.5
42.2
39.5
36.9
34.4
31.6
28.4
26.4
23.9
20.3
51.8
48.2
45.7
43.7
40.5
37.7
35.2
32.6
29.9
26.6
24.6
22.2
18.5
50.1
46.4
44.0
42.0
38.7
36.0
33.4
30.9
28.1
24.9
22.9
20.4
16.8
48.3
44.7
42.2
40.2
37.0
34.2
31.7
29.1
26.4
23.1
21.1
18.7
15.0
46.6
42.9
40.5
38.5
35.2
32.5
29.9
27.4
24.6
21.4
19.3
16.9
13.2
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
59.5
55.8
53.4
51.3
48.1
45.3
42.8
40.2
37.5
34.3
32.2
29.8
26.1
57.7
54.0
51.6
49.6
46.3
43.6
41.0
38.5
35.7
32.5
30.5
28.0
24.4
55.9
52.3
49.8
47.8
44.6
41.8
39.3
36.7
34.0
30.7
28.7
26.3
22.6
54.2
50.5
48.1
46.1
42.8
40.1
37.5
35.0
32.2
29.0
27.0
24.5
20.9
52.4
48.8
46.3
44.3
41.1
38.3
35.8
33.2
30.5
27.2
25.2
22.8
19.1
50.7
47.0
44.6
42.6
39.3
36.6
34.0
31.5
28.7
25.5
23.5
21.0
17.4
48.9
45.3
42.8
40.8
37.6
34.8
32.3
29.7
27.0
23.7
21.7
19.3
15.6
47.2
43.5
41.1
39.0
35.8
33.1
30.5
28.0
25.2
22.0
19.9
17.5
13.8
45.4
41.8
39.3
37.3
34.0
31.3
28.8
26.2
23.5
20.2
18.2
15.8
12.1
43.7
40.0
37.6
35.5
32.3
29.5
27.0
24.5
21.7
18.5
16.4
14.0
10.3
41.9
38.3
35.8
33.8
30.5
27.8
25.3
22.7
20.0
16.7
14.7
12.2
8.6
40.2
36.5
34.1
32.0
28.8
26.0
23.5
21.0
18.2
15.0
12.9
10.5
6.8
38.4
34.8
32.3
30.3
27.0
24.3
21.7
19.2
16.5
13.2
11.2
8.7
5.1
635

Table A5
Normative data for the SDMT stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
69.3
65.4
62.8
60.6
57.1
54.1
51.4
48.6
45.7
42.2
40.0
37.3
33.4
67.6
63.6
61.0
58.8
55.3
52.4
49.6
46.9
43.9
40.4
38.2
35.6
31.7
65.8
61.9
59.3
57.1
53.6
50.6
47.9
45.1
42.2
38.7
36.5
33.9
29.9
64.1
60.2
57.5
55.3
51.8
48.9
46.1
43.4
40.4
36.9
34.7
32.1
28.2
62.4
58.4
55.8
53.6
50.1
47.1
44.4
41.7
38.7
35.2
33.0
30.4
26.4
60.6
56.7
54.1
51.9
48.4
45.4
42.7
39.9
37.0
33.5
31.3
28.6
24.7
58.9
55.0
52.3
50.1
46.6
43.7
40.9
38.2
35.2
31.7
29.5
26.9
23.0
57.2
53.2
50.6
48.4
44.9
41.9
39.2
36.5
33.5
30.0
27.8
25.2
21.2
55.4
51.5
48.8
46.7
43.2
40.2
37.5
34.7
31.8
28.3
26.1
23.4
19.5
53.7
49.7
47.1
44.9
41.4
38.5
35.7
33.0
30.0
26.5
24.3
21.7
17.7
51.9
48.0
45.4
43.2
39.7
36.7
34.0
31.2
28.3
24.8
22.6
20.0
16.0
50.2
46.3
43.6
41.4
37.9
35.0
32.2
29.5
26.5
23.0
20.8
18.2
14.3
48.5
44.5
41.9
39.7
36.2
33.2
30.5
27.8
24.8
21.3
19.1
16.5
12.5
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
51.5
47.5
44.9
42.7
39.2
36.2
33.5
30.8
27.8
24.3
22.1
19.5
15.5
49.7
45.8
43.2
41.0
37.5
34.5
31.8
29.0
26.1
22.6
20.4
17.7
13.8
48.0
44.1
41.4
39.2
35.7
32.8
30.0
27.3
24.3
20.8
18.6
16.0
12.1
46.3
42.3
39.7
37.5
34.0
31.0
28.3
25.6
22.6
19.1
16.9
14.3
10.3
44.5
40.6
38.0
35.8
32.3
29.3
26.6
23.8
20.9
17.4
15.2
12.5
8.6
42.8
38.8
36.2
34.0
30.5
27.6
24.8
22.1
19.1
15.6
13.4
10.8
6.9
41.0
37.1
34.5
32.3
28.8
25.8
23.1
20.3
17.4
13.9
11.7
9.1
5.1
39.3
35.4
32.7
30.5
27.0
24.1
21.3
18.6
15.6
12.1
9.9
7.3
3.4
37.6
33.6
31.0
28.8
25.3
22.3
19.6
16.9
13.9
10.4
8.2
5.6
1.6
35.8
31.9
29.3
27.1
23.6
20.6
17.9
15.1
12.2
8.7
6.5
3.8
34.1
30.2
27.5
25.3
21.8
18.9
16.1
13.4
10.4
6.9
4.7
2.1
32.4
28.4
25.8
23.6
20.1
17.1
14.4
11.7
8.7
5.2
3.0
0.4
30.6
26.7
24.0
21.9
18.3
15.4
12.7
9.9
7.0
3.4
1.3
Table A6
Normative data for the SDMT stratified by education levels for GUATEMALA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
77.5
72.6
69.4
66.7
62.3
58.7
55.3
51.9
48.2
43.9
41.2
37.9
33.1
76.1
71.2
68.0
65.3
60.9
57.3
53.9
50.5
46.8
42.5
39.8
36.5
31.7
74.7
69.8
66.6
63.8
59.5
55.9
52.5
49.1
45.4
41.1
38.4
35.1
30.3
73.3
68.4
65.1
62.4
58.1
54.4
51.1
47.7
44.0
39.7
37.0
33.7
28.8
71.9
67.0
63.7
61.0
56.7
53.0
49.7
46.3
42.6
38.3
35.6
32.3
27.4
70.5
65.6
62.3
59.6
55.3
51.6
48.2
44.9
41.2
36.9
34.2
30.9
26.0
69.0
64.2
60.9
58.2
53.9
50.2
46.8
43.4
39.8
35.5
32.7
29.5
24.6
67.6
62.8
59.5
56.8
52.5
48.8
45.4
42.0
38.4
34.0
31.3
28.1
23.2
66.2
61.4
58.1
55.4
51.1
47.4
44.0
40.6
37.0
32.6
29.9
26.7
21.8
64.8
59.9
56.7
54.0
49.7
46.0
42.6
39.2
35.6
31.2
28.5
25.3
20.4
63.4
58.5
55.3
52.6
48.2
44.6
41.2
37.8
34.2
29.8
27.1
23.9
19.0
62.0
57.1
53.9
51.2
46.8
43.2
39.8
36.4
32.8
28.4
25.7
22.5
17.6
60.6
55.7
52.5
49.8
45.4
41.8
38.4
35.0
31.3
27.0
24.3
21.0
16.2
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
62.5
57.6
54.4
51.6
47.3
43.7
40.3
36.9
33.2
28.9
26.2
22.9
18.1
61.1
56.2
52.9
50.2
45.9
42.2
38.9
35.5
31.8
27.5
24.8
21.5
16.6
59.7
54.8
51.5
48.8
44.5
40.8
37.5
34.1
30.4
26.1
23.4
20.1
15.2
58.3
53.4
50.1
47.4
43.1
39.4
36.0
32.7
29.0
24.7
22.0
18.7
13.8
56.8
52.0
48.7
46.0
41.7
38.0
34.6
31.3
27.6
23.3
20.6
17.3
12.4
55.4
50.6
47.3
44.6
40.3
36.6
33.2
29.8
26.2
21.9
19.1
15.9
11.0
54.0
49.2
45.9
43.2
38.9
35.2
31.8
28.4
24.8
20.4
17.7
14.5
9.6
52.6
47.7
44.5
41.8
37.5
33.8
30.4
27.0
23.4
19.0
16.3
13.1
8.2
51.2
46.3
43.1
40.4
36.0
32.4
29.0
25.6
22.0
17.6
14.9
11.7
6.8
49.8
44.9
41.7
39.0
34.6
31.0
27.6
24.2
20.6
16.2
13.5
10.3
5.4
48.4
43.5
40.3
37.6
33.2
29.6
26.2
22.8
19.1
14.8
12.1
8.9
4.0
47.0
42.1
38.9
36.2
31.8
28.2
24.8
21.4
17.7
13.4
10.7
7.4
2.6
45.6
40.7
37.5
34.7
30.4
26.8
23.4
20.0
16.3
12.0
9.3
6.0
1.2
636

Table A7
Normative data for the SDMT stratified by age and education levels for HONDURAS
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
61.9
58.3
56.0
54.0
50.8
48.2
45.7
43.2
40.6
37.4
35.4
33.1
29.5
60.2
56.7
54.3
52.3
49.2
46.5
44.0
41.6
38.9
35.8
33.8
31.4
27.9
58.6
55.0
52.7
50.7
47.5
44.9
42.4
39.9
37.3
34.1
32.1
29.7
26.2
56.9
53.4
51.0
49.0
45.9
43.2
40.7
38.3
35.6
32.4
30.5
28.1
24.5
55.3
51.7
49.3
47.4
44.2
41.5
39.1
36.6
33.9
30.8
28.8
26.4
22.9
53.6
50.1
47.7
45.7
42.6
39.9
37.4
34.9
32.3
29.1
27.1
24.8
21.2
52.0
48.4
46.0
44.1
40.9
38.2
35.8
33.3
30.6
27.5
25.5
23.1
19.6
50.3
46.7
44.4
42.4
39.2
36.6
34.1
31.6
29.0
25.8
23.8
21.5
17.9
48.6
45.1
42.7
40.7
37.6
34.9
32.4
30.0
27.3
24.1
22.2
19.8
16.2
47.0
43.4
41.1
39.1
35.9
33.3
30.8
28.3
25.7
22.5
20.5
18.1
14.6
45.3
41.8
39.4
37.4
34.3
31.6
29.1
26.7
24.0
20.8
18.9
16.5
12.9
43.7
40.1
37.7
35.8
32.6
29.9
27.5
25.0
22.3
19.2
17.2
14.8
11.3
42.0
38.5
36.1
34.1
30.9
28.3
25.8
23.3
20.7
17.5
15.5
13.2
9.6
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
47.4
43.9
41.5
39.5
36.4
33.7
31.2
28.8
26.1
22.9
21.0
18.6
15.0
45.8
42.2
39.8
37.9
34.7
32.0
29.6
27.1
24.4
21.3
19.3
16.9
13.4
44.1
40.5
38.2
36.2
33.0
30.4
27.9
25.4
22.8
19.6
17.6
15.3
11.7
42.4
38.9
36.5
34.5
31.4
28.7
26.3
23.8
21.1
18.0
16.0
13.6
10.1
40.8
37.2
34.9
32.9
29.7
27.1
24.6
22.1
19.5
16.3
14.3
12.0
8.4
39.1
35.6
33.2
31.2
28.1
25.4
22.9
20.5
17.8
14.6
12.7
10.3
6.7
37.5
33.9
31.5
29.6
26.4
23.7
21.3
18.8
16.1
13.0
11.0
8.6
5.1
35.8
32.3
29.9
27.9
24.8
22.1
19.6
17.2
14.5
11.3
9.4
7.0
3.4
34.2
30.6
28.2
26.3
23.1
20.4
18.0
15.5
12.8
9.7
7.7
5.3
1.8
32.5
28.9
26.6
24.6
21.4
18.8
16.3
13.8
11.2
8.0
6.0
3.7
0.1
30.8
27.3
24.9
22.9
19.8
17.1
14.6
12.2
9.5
6.4
4.4
2.0
29.2
25.6
23.3
21.3
18.1
15.5
13.0
10.5
7.9
4.7
2.7
0.4
27.5
24.0
21.6
19.6
16.5
13.8
11.3
8.9
6.2
3.0
1.1
Table A8
Normative data for the SDMT stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
77.3
73.0
70.1
67.7
63.9
60.6
57.6
54.6
51.4
47.5
45.1
42.2
37.9
75.0
70.6
67.7
65.3
61.5
58.3
55.3
52.3
49.0
45.2
42.8
39.9
35.6
72.6
68.3
65.4
63.0
59.1
55.9
52.9
49.9
46.7
42.8
40.4
37.5
33.2
70.2
65.9
63.0
60.6
56.8
53.5
50.5
47.5
44.3
40.5
38.0
35.2
30.8
67.9
63.6
60.7
58.3
54.4
51.2
48.2
45.2
41.9
38.1
35.7
32.8
28.5
65.5
61.2
58.3
55.9
52.1
48.8
45.8
42.8
39.6
35.7
33.3
30.5
26.1
63.2
58.9
56.0
53.6
49.7
46.5
43.5
40.5
37.2
33.4
31.0
28.1
23.8
60.8
56.5
53.6
51.2
47.4
44.1
41.1
38.1
34.9
31.0
28.6
25.7
21.4
58.5
54.1
51.3
48.9
45.0
41.8
38.8
35.8
32.5
28.7
26.3
23.4
19.1
56.1
51.8
48.9
46.5
42.7
39.4
36.4
33.4
30.2
26.3
23.9
21.0
16.7
53.8
49.4
46.5
44.1
40.3
37.1
34.1
31.0
27.8
24.0
21.6
18.7
14.4
51.4
47.1
44.2
41.8
37.9
34.7
31.7
28.7
25.5
21.6
19.2
16.3
12.0
49.0
44.7
41.8
39.4
35.6
32.3
29.3
26.3
23.1
19.3
16.8
14.0
9.6
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
71.1
66.8
63.9
61.5
57.6
54.4
51.4
48.4
45.1
41.3
38.9
36.0
31.7
68.7
64.4
61.5
59.1
55.3
52.0
49.0
46.0
42.8
38.9
36.5
33.6
29.3
66.3
62.0
59.2
56.8
52.9
49.7
46.7
43.7
40.4
36.6
34.2
31.3
27.0
64.0
59.7
56.8
54.4
50.6
47.3
44.3
41.3
38.1
34.2
31.8
28.9
24.6
61.7
57.3
54.4
52.0
48.2
45.0
42.0
39.0
35.7
31.9
29.5
26.6
22.3
59.3
55.0
52.1
49.7
45.8
42.6
39.6
36.6
33.4
29.5
27.1
24.2
19.9
56.9
52.6
49.7
47.3
43.5
40.2
37.2
34.2
31.0
27.2
24.8
21.9
17.5
54.6
50.3
47.4
45.0
41.1
37.9
34.9
31.9
28.6
24.8
22.4
19.5
15.2
52.2
47.9
45.0
42.6
38.8
35.5
32.5
29.5
26.3
22.4
20.0
17.2
12.8
49.9
45.6
42.7
40.3
36.4
33.2
30.2
27.2
23.9
20.1
17.7
14.8
10.5
47.5
43.2
40.3
37.9
34.1
30.8
27.8
24.8
21.6
17.7
15.3
12.4
8.1
45.1
40.8
38.0
35.6
31.7
28.5
25.5
22.5
19.2
15.4
13.0
10.1
5.8
42.8
38.5
35.6
33.2
29.4
26.1
23.1
20.1
16.9
13.0
10.6
7.7
3.4
637

Table A9
Normative data for the SDMT stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
49.5
47.0
45.4
44.0
41.8
40.0
38.3
36.5
34.7
32.5
31.1
29.5
27.0
48.4
45.9
44.3
42.9
40.7
38.8
37.1
35.4
33.6
31.4
30.0
28.3
25.9
47.3
44.8
43.1
41.8
39.6
37.7
36.0
34.3
32.4
30.2
28.9
27.2
24.7
46.1
43.7
42.0
40.6
38.4
36.6
34.9
33.2
31.3
29.1
27.7
26.1
23.6
45.0
42.5
40.9
39.5
37.3
35.5
33.7
32.0
30.2
28.0
26.6
25.0
22.5
43.9
41.4
39.8
38.4
36.2
34.3
32.6
30.9
29.0
26.8
25.5
23.8
21.4
42.7
40.3
38.6
37.2
35.1
33.2
31.5
29.8
27.9
25.7
24.3
22.7
20.2
41.6
39.1
37.5
36.1
33.9
32.1
30.4
28.6
26.8
24.6
23.2
21.6
19.1
40.5
38.0
36.4
35.0
32.8
30.9
29.2
27.5
25.7
23.5
22.1
20.4
18.0
39.4
36.9
35.2
33.9
31.7
29.8
28.1
26.4
24.5
22.3
21.0
19.3
16.8
38.2
35.8
34.1
32.7
30.5
28.7
27.0
25.3
23.4
21.2
19.8
18.2
15.7
37.1
34.6
33.0
31.6
29.4
27.6
25.8
24.1
22.3
20.1
18.7
17.1
14.6
36.0
33.5
31.9
30.5
28.3
26.4
24.7
23.0
21.1
18.9
17.6
15.9
13.5
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
39.3
36.8
35.1
33.8
31.6
29.7
28.0
26.3
24.4
22.2
20.9
19.2
16.7
38.1
35.7
34.0
32.6
30.5
28.6
26.9
25.2
23.3
21.1
19.7
18.1
15.6
37.0
34.5
32.9
31.5
29.3
27.5
25.8
24.0
22.2
20.0
18.6
17.0
14.5
35.9
33.4
31.8
30.4
28.2
26.3
24.6
22.9
21.1
18.9
17.5
15.8
13.4
34.8
32.3
30.6
29.3
27.1
25.2
23.5
21.8
19.9
17.7
16.4
14.7
12.2
33.6
31.2
29.5
28.1
25.9
24.1
22.4
20.7
18.8
16.6
15.2
13.6
11.1
32.5
30.0
28.4
27.0
24.8
23.0
21.2
19.5
17.7
15.5
14.1
12.5
10.0
31.4
28.9
27.3
25.9
23.7
21.8
20.1
18.4
16.5
14.3
13.0
11.3
8.9
30.2
27.8
26.1
24.8
22.6
20.7
19.0
17.3
15.4
13.2
11.8
10.2
7.7
29.1
26.6
25.0
23.6
21.4
19.6
17.9
16.1
14.3
12.1
10.7
9.1
6.6
28.0
25.5
23.9
22.5
20.3
18.4
16.7
15.0
13.2
11.0
9.6
7.9
5.5
26.9
24.4
22.7
21.4
19.2
17.3
15.6
13.9
12.0
9.8
8.5
6.8
4.3
25.7
23.3
21.6
20.2
18.0
16.2
14.5
12.8
10.9
8.7
7.3
5.7
3.2
Table A10
Normative data for the SDMT stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
69.6
66.2
63.9
62.0
59.0
56.4
54.0
51.7
49.1
46.1
44.2
41.9
38.5
67.6
64.1
61.9
60.0
56.9
54.4
52.0
49.6
47.1
44.0
42.1
39.9
36.4
65.5
62.1
59.9
58.0
54.9
52.4
50.0
47.6
45.1
42.0
40.1
37.8
34.4
63.5
60.1
57.8
55.9
52.9
50.3
48.0
45.6
43.0
40.0
38.1
35.8
32.4
61.5
58.1
55.8
53.9
50.9
48.3
46.0
43.6
41.0
38.0
36.1
33.8
30.4
59.5
56.1
53.8
51.9
48.9
46.3
43.9
41.6
39.0
36.0
34.1
31.8
28.4
57.5
54.1
51.8
49.9
46.9
44.3
41.9
39.5
37.0
34.0
32.1
29.8
26.4
55.5
52.0
49.8
47.9
44.8
42.3
39.9
37.5
35.0
31.9
30.0
27.8
24.3
53.4
50.0
47.7
45.9
42.8
40.3
37.9
35.5
33.0
29.9
28.0
25.7
22.3
51.4
48.0
45.7
43.8
40.8
38.2
35.9
33.5
30.9
27.9
26.0
23.7
20.3
49.4
46.0
43.7
41.8
38.8
36.2
33.8
31.5
28.9
25.9
24.0
21.7
18.3
47.4
44.0
41.7
39.8
36.8
34.2
31.8
29.5
26.9
23.9
22.0
19.7
16.3
45.4
42.0
39.7
37.8
34.7
32.2
29.8
27.4
24.9
21.8
19.9
17.7
14.3
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
60.2
56.8
54.5
52.6
49.6
47.0
44.6
42.3
39.7
36.7
34.8
32.5
29.1
58.2
54.7
52.5
50.6
47.5
45.0
42.6
40.2
37.7
34.6
32.7
30.5
27.0
56.1
52.7
50.5
48.6
45.5
43.0
40.6
38.2
35.7
32.6
30.7
28.4
25.0
54.1
50.7
48.4
46.5
43.5
40.9
38.6
36.2
33.6
30.6
28.7
26.4
23.0
52.1
48.7
46.4
44.5
41.5
38.9
36.6
34.2
31.6
28.6
26.7
24.4
21.0
50.1
46.7
44.4
42.5
39.5
36.9
34.5
32.2
29.6
26.6
24.7
22.4
19.0
48.1
44.7
42.4
40.5
37.5
34.9
32.5
30.1
27.6
24.6
22.7
20.4
17.0
46.1
42.6
40.4
38.5
35.4
32.9
30.5
28.1
25.6
22.5
20.6
18.4
14.9
44.0
40.6
38.4
36.5
33.4
30.9
28.5
26.1
23.6
20.5
18.6
16.3
12.9
42.0
38.6
36.3
34.4
31.4
28.8
26.5
24.1
21.5
18.5
16.6
14.3
10.9
40.0
36.6
34.3
32.4
29.4
26.8
24.4
22.1
19.5
16.5
14.6
12.3
8.9
38.0
34.6
32.3
30.4
27.4
24.8
22.4
20.1
17.5
14.5
12.6
10.3
6.9
36.0
32.6
30.3
28.4
25.3
22.8
20.4
18.0
15.5
12.4
10.5
8.3
4.9
638

Table A11
Normative data for the SDMT stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
77.8
73.7
71.0
68.7
65.1
62.0
59.2
56.3
53.2
49.6
47.3
44.6
40.5
75.1
71.1
68.3
66.0
62.4
59.3
56.5
53.6
50.6
46.9
44.6
41.9
37.8
72.5
68.4
65.7
63.4
59.7
56.7
53.8
51.0
47.9
44.3
42.0
39.2
35.2
69.8
65.7
63.0
60.7
57.1
54.0
51.1
48.3
45.2
41.6
39.3
36.6
32.5
67.1
63.0
60.3
58.0
54.4
51.3
48.5
45.6
42.6
38.9
36.6
33.9
29.8
64.5
60.4
57.6
55.4
51.7
48.7
45.8
43.0
39.9
36.3
34.0
31.2
27.1
61.8
57.7
55.0
52.7
49.1
46.0
43.1
40.3
37.2
33.6
31.3
28.6
24.5
59.1
55.0
52.3
50.0
46.4
43.3
40.5
37.6
34.6
30.9
28.6
25.9
21.8
56.5
52.4
49.6
47.4
43.7
40.7
37.8
35.0
31.9
28.2
26.0
23.2
19.1
53.8
49.7
47.0
44.7
41.1
38.0
35.1
32.3
29.2
25.6
23.3
20.6
16.5
51.1
47.0
44.3
42.0
38.4
35.3
32.5
29.6
26.6
22.9
20.6
17.9
13.8
48.5
44.4
41.6
39.4
35.7
32.6
29.8
27.0
23.9
20.2
18.0
15.2
11.1
45.8
41.7
39.0
36.7
33.1
30.0
27.1
24.3
21.2
17.6
15.3
12.6
8.5
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
72.8
68.7
66.0
63.7
60.1
57.0
54.1
51.3
48.2
44.6
42.3
39.6
35.5
70.1
66.0
63.3
61.0
57.4
54.3
51.5
48.6
45.6
41.9
39.6
36.9
32.8
67.5
63.4
60.6
58.4
54.7
51.7
48.8
46.0
42.9
39.2
37.0
34.2
30.1
64.8
60.7
58.0
55.7
52.1
49.0
46.1
43.3
40.2
36.6
34.3
31.6
27.5
62.1
58.0
55.3
53.0
49.4
46.3
43.5
40.6
37.6
33.9
31.6
28.9
24.8
59.5
55.4
52.6
50.4
46.7
43.6
40.8
38.0
34.9
31.2
29.0
26.2
22.1
56.8
52.7
50.0
47.7
44.1
41.0
38.1
35.3
32.2
28.6
26.3
23.6
19.5
54.1
50.0
47.3
45.0
41.4
38.3
35.5
32.6
29.5
25.9
23.6
20.9
16.8
51.5
47.4
44.6
42.4
38.7
35.6
32.8
30.0
26.9
23.2
21.0
18.2
14.1
48.8
44.7
42.0
39.7
36.0
33.0
30.1
27.3
24.2
20.6
18.3
15.6
11.5
46.1
42.0
39.3
37.0
33.4
30.3
27.5
24.6
21.5
17.9
15.6
12.9
8.8
43.5
39.4
36.6
34.4
30.7
27.6
24.8
21.9
18.9
15.2
13.0
10.2
6.1
40.8
36.7
34.0
31.7
28.0
25.0
22.1
19.3
16.2
12.6
10.3
7.6
3.5
639

DOI:10.3233/NRE-151284
IOS Press
Trail Making Test: Normative data

adult population
J.C. Arango-Lasprillaa,b, , D. Riverab , A. Aguayoc , W. Rodrguezd , M.T. Garzae , C.P. Sarachof ,
Y. Rodrguez-Agudelog , A. Aliagah , G. Weileri , M. Lunaj , M. Longonik , N. Ocampo-Barbal ,
J. Galarza-del-Angelm , I. Panyavinb , A. Guerran , L. Esenarroo , P. Garca de la Cadenap ,
C. Martnezq and P.B. Perrinr
a IKERBASQUE,

c Instituto Vocacional Enrique Daz de Le
d Ponce Health Sciences University, Ponce, Puerto Rico
e Facultad de Psicologa, Universidad Aut
f CETYS University, Mexicali, Mexico
h Servicio M
j Universidad Dr, Jos
l Fundaci
m Universidad Aut
n Departamento de Psicologa, Universidad de Camag
o Departamento de Psicologa, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala
r Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA
b Faculty
Abstract.
OBJECTIVE: To generate normative data on the Trail Making Test (TMT) across 11 countries in Latin America, with countryspecific adjustments for gender, age, and education, where appropriate.
METHOD: The sample consisted of 3,977 healthy adults who were recruited from Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Paraguay, Honduras,
Chile, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Bolivia. Each subject was administered the TMT as part of a larger
RESULTS: The final multiple linear regression models for the TMT-A explained 2350% of the variance, and the final multiple
linear models for the TMT-B explained 2249% of the variance. Although there were gender differences on the TMT in Mexico,
Peru, Paraguay, and Honduras, only Honduras had an effect size greater than 0.3. As a result, gender-adjusted norms were generated
for the Trail Making Test-A, but not B, in this country.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study is the first to create norms for the TMT in Latin America. As a result, this study will have
important implications for the practice of neuropsychology in the future.
Keywords: Normative data, Trail Making Test, reference values, Latin America, executive function
Address


jcarango@deusto.es.
E-mail:
640
J.C. Arango-Lasprilla et al. / TMT: Normative data for the Latin American Spanish speaking adult population
1. Introduction
The Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most
widely used neuropsychological assessment instruments and is the most common instrument for the
assessment of attention (Rabin, Barr, & Burton, 2005).
This paper-and-pencil test is easily administered, is
in the public domain, and can be reproduced without
permission (Lezak, Howieson, & Loring, 2004). Originally developed to assess general intelligence as part
of the Army Individual Test Battery (1944), it was
later included in the Halstead-Reitan Battery (Reitan &
Wolfson, 1985), with detailed administration instructions updated by Spreen and Strauss (1998).
The TMT is considered a measure of psychomotor speed, visual scanning, attention, sequencing, and
mental flexibility (Spreen & Strauss, 1998; Mitrushina,
Boone, & DElla, 1999), and consists of two parts: Part
A and Part B (TMT-A and TMT-B). In Part A, the goal
is to connect consecutively numbered semi-randomly
distributed circles on a sheet of paper as quickly as possible by drawing lines between them, without lifting
the pencil from the paper (Lezak, Howieson, & Loring, 2004). Part B requires the subject to connect on a
separate worksheet in ascending and alternating order
the same number of circles which contain numbers and
letters (i.e., 1-A-2-B-3, etc.). TMT-A is considered to
be a measure of visual search/attention skills and psychomotor speed, as its performance has been shown
to correlate with scores on other timed tasks which
require visual search (e.g., WAIS-III Digit Symbol Coding; Sanchez-Cubillo et al., 2009). TMT-B, on the other
hand, is thought of as a measure of executive control,
cognitive flexibility, and set shifting, as it is correlated
with performance on cognitive alternation and taskswitching tests, as well as increased activation of frontal
cortices on fMRI studies and results of prefrontal cortex lesion studies (Crowe, 1998; Arbuthnott & Frank,
2000; Yochim, Baldo, Nelson, & Delis, 2007; Jacobson,
Blanchard, Connolly, Cannon, & Garavan, 2011). Both
parts of the test have exhibited high test-retest reliability
(at least 0.76 for Part A, and 0.82 for Part B in recently
reported studies), with the coefficient values generally
higher for TMT-B compared to A (Lezak et al., 2004;
Seo et al., 2006; Wagner, Helmreich, Dahmen, Lieb, &
Tadic, 2011).
The subjects performance on the Trail Making Test
yields two scores: times to completion (in seconds) for
Parts A and B. Additionally, derived scores (i.e., difference BA, and ratio B:A) are oftentimes used in
clinical practice to remove the speed component from
the test performance, provide a more pure measure of

executive control, and serve as a possible symptom
validity indicator (Arbuthnott & Frank, 2000; Drane,
Yuspeh, Huthwaite, & Klingler, 2002; Lezak et al.,
2004; Egeland, & Langfjaeran, 2007; Ashendorf, Jefferson, OConnor, Chaisson, Green, & Stern, 2008;
Sanchez-Cubillo et al., 2009).
The TMT is considered to be one of the best measures
of general brain function (Armitage, 1946; Spreen &
Benton, 1965; Reitan & Wolfson, 1985) and is sensitive
to many dysfunctions in both adult and pediatric patient
populations (Reitan & Wolfson, 1985). Due to its wide
applicability, the TMT has been utilized to measure
the cognitive effects of hepatic encephalopathy (Conn,
1977; Riggio et al., 2011), cognitive deterioration in
HIV positive patients (Chalermchai et al., 2013; Selnes
et al., 1991) and polydrug users (McCaffrey, Krahula, &
Heimberg, 1989), patients with head trauma (Leininger,
Gramling, Farrell, Kreutzer, & Peck, 1990; Thaler et al.,
2012), Alzheimers disease (Amieva et al., 1998; Terada
et al., 2013), Parkinsons disease, supranuclear palsy
(Pellecchia et al., 2015; Pillon et al., 1995), mild cognitive impairment, and normal aging (Ashendorf et al.,
2008), among other disorders.
Despite its extensive use in neuropsychological and
neuropsychiatric populations, the performance on the
TMT has been associated with cultural and demographic factors (Agranovich & Puente, 2007; Horton
& Roberts, 2003). While gender showed little relation with performance in adults (Tombaugh, 2004),
increased age and lower education are related to lower
test scores (Bornstein & Suga, 1988; Perianez et al.,
2007; Wecker, Kramer, Wisniewski, Delis, & Kaplan,
2000; Woods, Wyma, Herron, & Yund, 2015). Ethnicity,
cultural background, and degree of acculturation have
also been linked to performance on the TMT (Ardila,
2001; Fernandez & Marcopulos, 2008).
It has been recommended in the past to take cultural variables into consideration at each stage of
neuropsychological evaluation, including administration and interpretation of results (Ardila, 1995; Golden
& Thomas, 2000; Ardila & Moreno, 2001). However, until relatively recently the preponderance of
normative TMT data has been obtained mainly from
Western, well-educated, and English-speaking countries (e.g., U.S., Canada; Tombaugh, 2004; Spreen &
Strauss, 1998; Selnes et al., 1991; Goul & Brown,
1970). To ameliorate this problem, normative studies
of the TMT have recently been carried out in other
regions of the world, namely, in Japan (Abe et al.,
2004; Hashimoto et al., 2006), Korea (Seo et al., 2006),
Spain (Pena-Casanova et al., 2009), Turkey (Cangoz,

Karakoc, & Selekler, 2009), China (Wang et al., 2011),
and the Czech Republic (Bezdicek, 2012), and Portugal
(Cavaco et al., 2013).
There is lack of normative neuropsychological data
in Latin America, where to the best of our knowledge
only two normative studies about the TMT have taken
place. Campanholo and colleagues (2014) administered
a battery of neuropsychological tests which included
the TMT to 1025 healthy native Portuguese speakers
from five regions of Brazil, obtaining normative data
stratified by age (into six groups, ranging from 18 to
over 70 years old) and years of education (four groups,
013 years). Fernandez and colleagues (2002) obtained
the TMT normative data from a sample of 251 healthy
adults (ages 1570 y.o.) from all educational levels
(024 years) in Argentina, and observed differential
performance as a function of age and education. As
relatively few individuals were included in certain cells
of this normative study (e.g., only 9 participants over 60
years old with high level of education) generalizability
of the findings may be somewhat limited. Even in the
normative data obtained in Western countries, there is
a great deal of variability, such that depending upon the
norms used, an otherwise normal performance could be
classified as pathological, and vice versa (Fernandez &
Marcopulos, 2008). The present study aims to establish
normative data, stratified by age and educational level,
for 11 countries in Latin America.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
scored 90 on the Barthel Index (Mahoney, & Barthel,
1965).
641
consent. Twelve participants were excluded from the
analyses, with a final sample of 3965 participants.
The TMT consists of two parts: TMT-A and B. In
the TMT-A the individual must draw a line to connect
25 numbers in ascending order, which are circled and
randomly distributed on a sheet of paper. The task
requirements are similar for the TMT-B, except that
the person alternates between numbers and letters
(1-A, 2-B, 3-C, etc.), the latter being significantly
more difficult (Drane, Yuspeh, Huthwaite, & Klingler,
2002). The score is the time that an individual takes to
finish the task in each test. The time limit for TMT-A
is 100 seconds (maximum score) and 300 seconds
for TMT-B.
The detailed statistical analyses used to generate the normative data for this test are described in
Guàrdia-Olmos et al. (2015). In summary, the data
involved five-steps: a) t tests for independent samples and effect sizes (r) were conducted to determine
gender effects. If the effect size was larger than 0.3,
gender was included in the model with gender dummy
coded and female as the reference group (male = 1 and
female = 0). b) A multivariable regression model was
used to specify the predictive model including gender
(if effect size was larger than 0.3), age as a continuous variable, and education as a dummy coded variable
with 1 if the participant had >12 years of education
and 0 if participants had 112 years of education.
642
Table 1
Effect of gender in the TMT-A
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentina
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
32.1 (10.4)
34.1 (12.3)
75.1 (23.1)
75.5 (24.4)
53.8 (24.1)
53.9 (22.7)
62.3 (22.3)
64.3 (22.5)
53.1 (25.5)
42.7 (24.2)
62.9 (28.2)
68.7 (23.3)
67.9 (24.2)
81.8 (20.9)
54.9 (23.2)
58.3 (23.6)
61.7 (21.5)
69.4 (20.6)
44.2 (18.7)
51.4 (23.4)
46.4 (23.8)
48.1 (24.1)
1.40
318
0.161
0.079
0.13
272
0.897
0.008
0.03
318
0.975
0.002
0.79
304
0.427
0.046
0.12
212
0.904
0.008
1.74
181.8
0.083
0.128
3.93
121.8
<0.001
0.335 b
2.45
1,291
0.015
0.068
2.92
261
0.004
0.178
2.66
211.6
0.009
0.180
0.59
288
0.557
0.035
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
Guatemala
El Salvadora
Hondurasa
Mexico
Paraguay
Perua
Puerto Rico
a Value
b r > 0.3, p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001.
education (if statistically significant in the multivariate model), and/or gender (if effect size was
greater than 0.3) [yi = 0 + (Age Agei ) + (Educ
Educi ) + (Gender Genderi )]; c) residual scores were
calculated based on this final model (ei = yi y i ); d)
using the SDe (residual) value provided by the regression model, residuals were standardized: z = ei /SDe ,
were applied to TMT A & B errors.
3. Results
3.1. Trail Making Test A
Regarding the effect of gender on TMT-A, the ttests showed significant differences between men and
women in the countries of Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay,
and Peru. Table 1 shows the results of the gender analysis by country on TMT-A scores. As shown in Table 1,
the effect sizes for all countries except Honduras were
less than 0.3, and therefore gender was only taken into
account to generate TMT-A normative data for the Honduras sample.
The final eleven TMT-A scores multivariate linear regression models for each country are shown in
Table 2. In all countries, except Puerto Rico, the TMTA scores decreased for those with more than 12 years
of education (see Table 2), and, in all countries, TMT-A
scores increased in a linear fashion as a function of age.
The amount of variance explained in TMT-A scores
ranged from 23% (in Argentina) to 50% (in Paraguay).
3.2. Trail Making Test B
Regarding the effect of gender on TMT-B scores,
the t-test showed significant differences between men
and women in the countries of Honduras, Mexico, and
Paraguay. Table 3 shows the results of the gender analysis by country on TMT-B. As shown in Table 3, the
effect sizes for all countries were less than 0.3, and
TMT-B normative data.
The final eleven TMT-B multivariate linear regression models for each country are shown in Table 4. In all
countries, TMT-B scores decreased for those with more
than 12 years of education (see Table 4) and, TMT-B
scores increased in a linear fashion as a function of age.
The amount of variance explained in TMT-B scores
ranged from 22% (in Cuba) to 49% (in Honduras).
643
Table 2
Final multiple linear regression models for TMT-A
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Gender (Female)
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
26.410
0.228
6.146
44.467
0.588
11.016
22.338
0.639
15.091
34.560
0.590
10.474
43.226
0.521
28.461
37.370
0.445
21.622
68.124
0.369
22.922
10.314
25.357
0.644
8.327
41.778
0.551
25.425
29.402
0.600
10.215
15.192
0.634
1.674
0.030
1.165
3.328
0.054
3.101
3.197
0.051
2.333
3.129
0.054
2.496
3.621
0.059
2.997
4.713
0.081
2.919
4.226
0.073
3.183
2.791
1.519
0.026
1.261
3.950
0.068
2.641
3.197
0.054
2.316
3.586
0.066
15.776
7.650
5.276
13.363
10.957
3.552
6.988
12.442
6.469
11.045
10.985
4.196
11.939
8.830
9.496
7.929
5.464
7.406
16.120
5.056
7.201
3.696
16.697
24.969
6.604
10.576
8.049
9.627
9.198
11.113
4.411
4.237
9.555
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.238
10.264
0.350
19.255
0.456
17.159
0.324
18.422
0.415
19.451
0.292
20.609
0.403
17.836
0.365
18.732
0.502
14.970
0.409
16.972
0.241
20.880
4. Normative procedure
Norms (e.g., a percentile score) for the TMT A &
B scores were established using the five-step procedure described above. To facilitate the understanding
of the procedure to obtain the percentile associated
with a score on this test, an example will be given.
Suppose you need to find the percentile score for an
Argentine man, who is 50 years old and has 17 years of
education. He has a score of 40 (seconds) on TMT-A.
The steps to obtain the percentile for this score are:
a) Check Table 1 to determine if the effect size of
gender in the country of interest (Argentina) on this
test and time point (TMT-A) is greater than 0.3 by
country. The column labelled r in Table 1 indicates
the effect size and the superscript notation b next to
the number indicates that the number is larger than
0.3. In this example, the effect size is 0.079, which is
not greater than 0.3. For Argentines on this test, gender does not influence scores to a sufficient degree to
take it into account gender when determining the percentile. b) Find Argentina in Table 2, which provides
the final regression models by country for TMT-B. Use
the B weights to create an equation that will allow
you to obtain the predicted TMT-B score. The corresponding B weights are multiplied by the actual age
and dichotomized education scores and added to a
constant in order to calculate the predicted value. In
this case, the predicted TMT-A would be calculated
(6.146 Dichotomized Educational Level i )] (the values have been rounded for presentation in the formula).
The subscript notation i indicate the person of interest.
The persons age is 50, but the education variable is not
continuous in the model. Years of education is split into
either 1 to 12 years (and assigned a 0) or more than 12
years (and assigned a 1) in the model. Since our hypothetical person in the example has 17 years of education,
his educational level value is 1. Thus the predicted
value is y i = 26.410 + (0.228 50) + (6.146 1) =
644
Table 3
Effect of gender in the TMT-B
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentina
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
68.0 (36.9)
74.5 (49.5)
181.0 (95.0)
186.7 (90.8)
138.4 (73.0)
141.7 (79.6)
146.0 (74.6)
150.2 (78.9)
168.8 (101.5)
183.4 (92.2)
144.7 (92.5)
127.9 (87.0)
168.5 (83.3)
212.6 (87.8)
114.8 (72.9)
127.2 (75.6)
124.0 (57.1)
138.6 (57.8)
103.0 (65.6)
114.3 (76.5)
113.4 (70.6)
118.6 (76.1)
1.15
317
0.249
0.065
0.49
272
0.621
0.030
0.38
318
0.702
0.021
0.47
304
0.638
0.027
1.19
255
0.233
0.075
1.36
212
0.174
0.093
3.24
168
0.001
0.243
2.83
1.288
0.005
0.079
2.00
261
0.047
0.123
1.15
243
0.249
0.074
0.59
286
0.557
0.035
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
p < 0.05, p < 0.01.
26.410 + 11.397 6.146 = 31.662). c) In order to calculate the residual value (indicated with an e in the
equation), we subtract the actual value from the predicted value we just calculated (ei = yi y i ). In this
consult the SDe column in Table 2 to obtain the countryspecific SDe (residual) value. For Argentina it is 10.264.
Using this value, we can transform the residual value to
a standardized z score using the equation (ei /SDe ). In
this case, we have 8.338/10.264 = 0.812. In the case
of TMT A & B, the order of the scores were reversed
(e.g., the z score sign changed from negative to positive
or positive to negative) in order to maintain an interpretation of improved performance, higher percentile.
Thus 0.812 is the standardized z score for an Argentine man aged 50 and 17 years of education and a score
of 40 on TMT-A. e) The last step is to use look-up the
tables in the statistical reference books (e.g. Strauss et
al., 2006) or use a trusted online calculator like the one
available at http://www.measuringu.com/pcalcz.php. In
the online calculator, you would enter the z score and
choose a one-sided test and note the percent of area after
hitting the submit button. In this case, the probability
of 0.812 corresponds to the 21st percentile. Please
remember to use the appropriate tables that correspond
to each test when performing these calculations. If the
percentile for the TMT-B scores is desired, Tables 3-4
must be used.

of 40 for an Argentine man who is 50 years old and has
17 years of education) using the simplified normative
(1) First, identify the appropriate table ensuring the specific country and test. In this case, the table for TMT-A
for Argentina can be found in Table A1. (2) Note if the
title of the table indicates that it is only to be used for
one specific gender. In this case, gender is not specified.
Thus Table A1 is used for both males and females. (3)
Next, the table is divided based on educational level (1
to 12 vs. more than 12 years of education). Since this
man has 17 years of education, he falls into the more
than 12 years of education category. These data can be
found in the top section of the table. (4) Determine the
645
Table 4
Final multiple linear regression models for TMT-B
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
B
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
51.634
0.807
29.406
57.619
2.448
54.711
36.103
2.124
52.059
74.942
1.561
39.878
105.759
1.688
107.587
120.529
0.901
87.278
116.223
2.173
91.081
39.856
1.730
32.061
62.808
1.464
41.049
60.927
1.769
42.591
16.235
2.121
16.116
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
6.525
0.116
4.548
12.039
0.194
11.220
10.385
0.167
7.579
11.516
0.198
9.187
14.241
0.232
11.789
17.659
0.305
10.938
14.500
0.270
11.363
5.142
0.087
4.268
12.803
0.222
8.559
10.810
0.182
7.832
12.006
0.200
7.410
7.913
6.946
6.466
4.786
12.609
4.876
3.476
12.730
6.869
6.508
7.892
4.341
7.426
7.267
9.126
6.825
2.954
7.980
8.016
8.058
8.016
7.751
19.797
7.513
4.906
6.598
4.796
5.636
9.693
5.438
1.352
10.633
2.175
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.177
<0.001
0.030
0.247
40.006
0.429
69.661
0.473
55.747
0.221
67.799
0.365
76.508
0.259
77.212
0.488
63.367
0.284
63.387
0.297
48.516
0.380
57.390
0.326
60.506
age range most appropriate for the individual. In this

case, 50 fall into the column 4852 years of age. (5)
Read down the age range column to find the approximate location of the raw score the person obtained on
40 obtained by this Argentine man corresponds to an
one (21st) obtained following the individual conversion
5. Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to generate
normative data on the TMT across 11 countries in
Latin America, with country-specific adjustments

for gender, age, and education, where appropriate.
The final multiple linear regression models explained
between 2350% of the variance in TMT-A scores
and 2249% of the variance TMT-B scores. On
the TMT-A, gender differences emerged in several
countries, although only Honduras reached an effect
size greater than 0.3. Similarly, on the TMT-B, there
were several gender differences, but none reached an
effect size of 0.3. Although gender-based norms have
often been used in neuropsychological assessment,
these findings generally conformed to those found in
the research literature showing gender to have little
association with TMT performance (Tombaugh, 2004).
As a result, the performance of the current sample
on the TMT in terms of gender likely is not different
from other normative samples. In light of the previous
literature and because the gender differences in TMT
performance in the current study generally showed
small effect sizes, gender-adjusted norms were not
646
generated, except for in Honduras. Except in Honduras

on the TMT-A, gender-adjustments should not be
made in calculating percentiles for the TMT in Latin
America.
Both TMT scores decreased linearly as a function of
education in almost all countries. However, there was no
effect of education for the TMT-A in Puerto Rico. These
general effects of education resonate with the prior
literature showing that education has been inversely
associated with TMT scores (Stuss et al., 1987; Wecker
et al., 2000; Bornstein & Suga, 1988). Therefore, neuropsychologists in Latin America should use educationadjusted norms generated in this study for each country
on the TMT, except in Puerto Rico for the TMT-A.
Various countries in Latin America likely have major
differences in their quality of education, and as a result,
the current TMT education adjustments should be used
in their respective Latin American countries. Perhaps
these differences in education are the largest between
Puerto Rico and the other countries in this study, given
that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, and
therefore has one of the more advanced educational systems. This could have accounted for the consistent educational effect on TMT-A scores in all countries except
Puerto Rico.
TMT scores increased with advancing age in all
countries in this study. This robust finding is consistent with the previous literature showing older age to be
associated with higher TMT scores (Stuss et al., 1987;
Wecker et al., 2000; Bornstein & Suga, 1988). When
considering the previous findings, those from the current study suggests that TMT corrections for age should
be made in all Latin American countries tested in this
study.
The current study has several limitations, and as a
result directions for future research. First, the TMT is
a very common neuropsychological assessment instrument in Latin America, but many other common instruments should be normed following the same procedures
in this study to improve their use in Latin America as
well. Similarly, future studies needs to examine the ecological validity and psychometrics of the TMT and these
other common neuropsychological instruments in Latin
America. Researchers should create instruments within
Latin American cultures with high ecological validity,
considering that the TMT was developed and validated
initially in a Western culture which differs in many ways
from the various cultures present in Latin America.

Developing assessments in the context of local cultures,
instead of simply translating and norming instruments
from other cultural contexts, would represent a crucial
advance in neuropsychological assessment throughout
the region.
Second, neuropsychologists should use caution when
applying the TMT norms from this study in conducting assessments with the TMT in countries other than
those in which data were collected. Future research
needs to create TMT norms in countries in Latin America that were not included in this study, including
Ecuador, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Panama. Despite
this limitation, the TMT norms from the current
study may actually be more accurate in other Latin
American countries than some of the norms that neuropsychologists in those countries currently apply. The
generalizability of the current norms to other Latin
American countries is an important area of future
research.
Third, all participants in the current study spoke
Spanish as a primary language, but they may have spoken secondary languages as well, such as local dialects
or English. TMT performance may be different among
bilingual individuals from Latin America, so future
studies need to examine possible influences of bilingualism on TMT performance. Participants were all
recruited from distinct regions or cities in each country,
instead of nationally within the countries. However, this
was the largest TMT normative study to date in Latin
America, or in any global region, and it is a first step
toward larger, nationally representative studies. The
sample was also limited in that it contained many participants with fewer than 12 years of education, but those
who were unable to read were excluded. As a result,
the current TMT norms may not apply well to illiterate adults, so future studies should be conducted with
illiterate individuals, as well as those with neurological
conditions and children.
Despite these limitations, only limited studies have
produced TMT norms in Spanish-speaking populations
such as Spanish-speakers from Spain (Pena-Casanova
et al., 2009) and Argentina (Fernandez et al., 2002).
Therefore, this study was the first systematic study to
create TMT norms across 11 countries in Latin America with almost 4,000 participants. It was the largest,
most comprehensive TMT normative study to date in
any global region, and its norms have the potential
to improve the standard of neuropsychological assessment with the TMT in Latin America unlike any study
before it.
References
Agranovich, A., & Puente, A. (2007). Do Russian and American
normal adults perform similarly on neuropsychological tests?
Preliminary findings on the relationship between culture and
test performance. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22(3),
273-282.
Amieva, H., Lafont, S., Auriacombe, S., Rainville, C., Orgogozo, J.
M., Dartigues, J. F., & Fabrigoule, C. (1998). Analysis of error
types in the Trial Making Test evidences an inhibitory deficit in
dementia of the Alzheimer type. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20(2), 280-285.
Arbuthnott, K., & Frank, J. (2000). Trail Making Test, Part B
as a measure of executive control: Validation using a setswitching paradigm. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Arbuthnott, K., & Frank, J. (2000). Trail Making Test, Part B as a
measure of executive control: Validation using a set-switching
paradigm. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22, 518-528.
Ardila, A. & Moreno, S. (2001). Neuropsychological test performance in Arauco Indians: An exploratory study. Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society, 7(4), 510-515.
Ardila, A. (1995). Directions of research in crosscultural neuropsychology. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,
17(1), 143-150.
Ardila, A. (2001). The impact of culture on neuropsychological test
performance. Course 13. In Paper presented at 21st annual conference of National Academy of Neuropsychology.
Armitage, S. (1946). Analysis of certain psychological tests used for
the evaluation of brain damage. Psychological Monographs, 60
(1, Whole No. 277).
Army Individual Test Battery. (1944). Manual of Directions and
Scoring. Washington, DC: War Department, Adjutant Generals
Office.
Ashendorf, L., Jefferson, A., OConnor, M., Chaisson, C., Green, R.,
& Stern, R. (2008). Trail Making Test errors in normal aging,
mild cognitive impairment, and dementia. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2007.11.005
Ashendorf, L., Jefferson, A., Oconnor, M., Chaisson, C., Green, R., &
Stern, R. (2008). Trail Making Test errors in normal aging, mild
cognitive impairment, and dementia. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23(2), 129-137. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2007.11.005
Bezdicek, O., Motak, L., Axelrod, B., Preiss, M., Nikolai, T.,
Vyhnalek, M., Poreh, A., & Ruzicka, E. (2012). Czech version
of the Trail Making Test: Normative data and clinical utility.
Bornstein, R., & Suga, L. (1988). Educational level and neuropsychological performance in healthy elderly subjects. Developmental
Chalermchai, T., Valcour, V., Sithinamsuwan, P., Pinyakorn, S.,
Clifford, D., Paul, R. H., Tipsuk, S., Fletcher, J., DeGruttola, V.,
Ratto-Kim, S., Hutchings, N., Shikuma, C., Ananworanich, J, &
The SEARCH 007 and 011 Study Groups. (2013). Trail Making
Test A improves performance characteristics of the International
HIV Dementia Scale to identify symptomatic HAND. Journal of
NeuroVirology, 19(2), 137-143.
Conn, H. (1977). Trail making and number-connection tests in the
assessment of mental state in portal systemic encephalopathy.
American Journal of Digestive Diseases, 22(6), 541-550.
647
Crowe, S. (1998). The differential contribution of mental tracking,

cognitive flexibility, visual search, and motor speed to performance on parts A and B of the Trail Making Test. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 54(5), 585-591.
Drane, D. L., Yuspeh, R. L., Huthwaite, J. S., & Klingler, L. K.
(2002). Demographic characteristics and normative observations
for derived-trail making test indices. Cognitive and Behavioral
Neurology, 15(1), 39-43.
Egeland, J., & Langfjaeran, T. (2007). Differentiating malingering
from genuine cognitive dysfunction using the Trail Making Testratio and Stroop interference scores. Applied Neuropsychology,
14(2), 113-119.
Fernandez, A. L., & Marcopulos, B. A. (2008). A comparison of
normative data for the Trail Making Test from several countries: Equivalence of norms and considerations for interpretation.
Fernandez, A., Marino, J. & Alderete, A. (2002). Estandarizacion y
validez conceptual del Test del Trazo en una muestra de adultos argentinos [Normative data and conceptual validity of the
Trail Making Test in a sample of Argentinean adults]. Revista
Neurologica Argentina, 27(2), 83-88.
189-198.
Golden, C., & Thomas, R. (2000). Cross-cultural application of the
Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Test Battery and Lurian
principles of syndrome analysis. In E. Fletcher-Janzen, T. L.
Strickland, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of CrossCultural Neuropsychology (pp. 305-315). New York: Kluwer/
Plenum.
Goul, W. & Brown, M. (1970). Effects of age and intelligence on Trail
Making Test performance and validity. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 30(1), 319-326.
Guàrdia-Olmos, J., Pero-Cebollero, M., Rivera, D., & ArangoLasprilla, J. C. (2015). Methodology for the development of
493-499.
Hashimoto, R., Meguro, K., Lee, E., Kasai, M., Ishii, H., & Yamaguchi, S. (2006). Effect of age and education on the Trail Making
Test and determination of normative data for Japanese elderly people: The Tajiri Project. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences,
60(4), 422-428.
Horton, A. M., & Roberts, C. (2003). Demographic effects on the
Trail Making Test in a drug abuse treatment sample. Archives of
Jacobson, S. C., Blanchard, M., Connolly, C. C., Cannon, M., &
Garavan, H. (2011). An fMRI investigation of a novel analogue
to the Trail-Making Test. Brain and Cognition, 77(1), 60-70.
Leininger, B., Gramling, S., Farrell, A., Kreutzer, J., & Peck, E.
(1990). Neuropsychological deficits in symptomatic minor head
injury after concussion and mild concussion. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 53(4), 293-296.
Lezak, M., Howieson, D., & Loring, D. (2004). Neuropsychological
assessment (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
648
McCaffrey, R., Krahula, M., & Heimberg, R. (1989). An analysis of

the significance of performance errors on the Trail Making Test in
polysubstance users. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 4(4),
393-398.
Mitrushina, M. N., Boone, K. B., & DElla, L. (1999). Handbook of
Normative Data for Neuropsychological Assessment. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Pellecchia, M. T., Picillo, M., Santangelo, G., Longo, K., Moccia, M.,
Erro, R., Amboni, M., Vitale, C., Vicidomini, C., Salvatore, M.,
Barone, P., & Pappata, S. (2015). Cognitive performances and
DAT imaging in early Parkinsons disease with mild cognitive
impairment: A preliminary study. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 131(5), 275-281.
Pena-Casanova, J., Quinones-Ubeda,

S., Quintana-Aparicio, M.,
Aguilar, M., Badenes, D., Molinuevo, J. L., et al. NEURONORMA Study Team. (2009). Spanish Multicenter Normative
Studies (NEURONORMA Project): Norms for verbal span, visuospatial span, letter and number sequencing, trail making test, and
symbol digit modalities test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24(4), 321-341.
Perianez, J. A., Rios-Lago, M., Rodriguez-Sanchez, J. M., AdroverRoig, D., Sanchez-Cubillo, I., Crespo-Farroco, B., Quemada, J.,
& Barcelo, F. (2007). Trail Making Test in traumatic brain injury,
schizophrenia, and normal ageing: Sample comparisons and normative data. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 433-447.
Pillon, B., Gouider-Khouja, N., Deweer, B., Vidailhet, M., Malapani,
C., Dubois, B., & Agid, Y. (1995). Neuropsychological pattern
of striatonigral degeneration: Comparison with Parkinsons disease and progressive supranuclear palsy. Journal of Neurology,
Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 58(2), 174-179.
Rabin, L., Barr, W., & Burton, L. (2005). Assessment practices of
clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada: A
survey of INS, NAN, and APA Division 40 members. Archives of
Reitan, R. M., & Wolfson, D. (1985). The HalsteadReitan Neuropsycholgical Test Battery: Therapy and Clinical Interpretation.
Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychological Press.
Riggio, O., Ridola, L., Pasquale, C., Nardelli, S., Pentassuglio, I.,
Moscucci, F., & Merli, M. (2011). Evidence of persistent cognitive impairment after resolution of overt hepatic encephalopathy.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 9(2), 181-183.
Sanchez-Cubillo, I., Perianez, J. A., Adrover-Roig, D., RodriguezSanchez, J. M., Rios-Lago, M., Tirapu, J., & Barcelo, F. (2009).
Construct validity of the Trail Making Test: Role of taskswitching, working memory, inhibition/interference control, and
visuomotor abilities. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15(03), 438-450.
Selnes, O., Jaconson, L., Machado, A., Becker, J., Wesch, J., Miller,
E., Visscher, B., & McArthur, J. (1991). Normative data for a brief
neuropsychological screening battery. Multicenter AIDS Cohort
Study. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 73(2), 539-550.
Seo, E., Lee, D., Kim, K., Lee, J., Jhoo, J., Youn, J., Choo, I., Ha,
J., & Woo, J. (2006). A normative study of the Trail Making Test
in Korean elders. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry,
21(9), 844-852.
Spreen, O., & Benton, A. (1965). Comparative studies of some psychological tests for cerebral damage. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 140(5), 323-333.
Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1998). A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary (2nd ed.).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of
neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary. New York. Oxford University Press.
Stuss, D. T., Stethem, L. L., & Poirier, C. A. (1987). Comparison of
three tests of attention and rapid information processing across
six age groups. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 1(2), 139-152.
Terada, S., Sato, S., Nagao, S., Ikeda, C., Shindo, A., Hayashi, S.,
Oshima, E., Yokota, O., & Uchitomi, Y. (2013). Trail Making Test
B and brain perfusion imaging in mild cognitive impairment and
mild Alzheimers disease. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging,
213(3), 249-255.
Thaler, N. S., Allen, D. N., Hart, J. S., Boucher, J. R., McMurray, J.
C., & Mayfield, J. (2012). Neurocognitive correlates of the Trail
Making Test for older children in patients with traumatic brain
injury. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27(4), 446-452.
Tombaugh, T. (2004). Trail Making Test A and B: Normative data
stratified by age and education. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19(2), 203-214.
Wagner, S., Helmreich, I., Dahmen, N., Lieb, K., & Tadic, A. (2011).
Reliability of three alternate forms of the trail making tests a and
B. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 26(4), 314-321.
Wang, Q., Sun, J., Ma, X., Wang, Y., Yao, J., Deng, W., Liu, X.,
Collier, D., & Li, T. (2011). Normative data on a battery of neuropsychological tests in the Han Chinese population. Journal of
Wecker, N. S., Kramer, J. H., Wisniewski, A., Delis, D., & Kaplan, E.
(2000). Age effects on executive ability. Neuropsychology, 14(3),
409-414.
Woods, D. L., Wyma, J. M., Herron, T. J., & Yund, E. W. (2015).
The Effects of Aging, Malingering, and Traumatic Brain Injury
on Computerized Trail-Making Test Performance. PLoS ONE,
10(6), e0124345. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124345
Yochim, B., Baldo, J., Nelson, A., & Delis, D. C. (2007). D-KEFS
Trail Making Test performance in patients with lateral prefrontal
cortex lesions. Journal of the International Neuropsychological
Society, 13(04), 704-709.
649
Appendix
Table A1
Normative data for the TMT-A stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
8.0
11.7
14.1
16.2
19.5
22.3
24.8
27.4
30.2
33.4
35.5
38.0
41.7
9.1
12.8
15.3
17.3
20.6
23.4
26.0
28.5
31.3
34.6
36.6
39.1
42.8
10.3
14.0
16.4
18.5
21.8
24.5
27.1
29.7
32.4
35.7
37.8
40.2
43.9
11.4
15.1
17.6
19.6
22.9
25.7
28.2
30.8
33.6
36.9
38.9
41.4
45.1
12.5
16.2
18.7
20.8
24.0
26.8
29.4
31.9
34.7
38.0
40.1
42.5
46.2
13.7
17.4
19.8
21.9
25.2
28.0
30.5
33.1
35.9
39.1
41.2
43.7
47.4
14.8
18.5
21.0
23.0
26.3
29.1
31.7
34.2
37.0
40.3
42.3
44.8
48.5
16.0
19.7
22.1
24.2
27.5
30.2
32.8
35.4
38.1
41.4
43.5
45.9
49.6
17.1
20.8
23.3
25.3
28.6
31.4
33.9
36.5
39.3
42.6
44.6
47.1
50.8
18.2
21.9
24.4
26.5
29.7
32.5
35.1
37.6
40.4
43.7
45.8
48.2
51.9
19.4
23.1
25.5
27.6
30.9
33.7
36.2
38.8
41.6
44.8
46.9
49.4
53.1
20.5
24.2
26.7
28.7
32.0
34.8
37.4
39.9
42.7
46.0
48.0
50.5
54.2
21.7
25.4
27.8
29.9
33.2
35.9
38.5
41.1
43.8
47.1
49.2
51.6
55.3
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
14.1
17.8
20.3
22.3
25.6
28.4
31.0
33.5
36.3
39.6
41.6
44.1
47.8
15.3
19.0
21.4
23.5
26.8
29.5
32.1
34.7
37.4
40.7
42.8
45.2
48.9
16.4
20.1
22.6
24.6
27.9
30.7
33.2
35.8
38.6
41.9
43.9
46.4
50.1
17.6
21.3
23.7
25.8
29.1
31.8
34.4
37.0
39.7
43.0
45.1
47.5
51.2
18.7
22.4
24.9
26.9
30.2
33.0
35.5
38.1
40.9
44.1
46.2
48.7
52.4
19.8
23.5
26.0
28.0
31.3
34.1
36.7
39.2
42.0
45.3
47.3
49.8
53.5
21.0
24.7
27.1
29.2
32.5
35.2
37.8
40.4
43.1
46.4
48.5
50.9
54.6
22.1
25.8
28.3
30.3
33.6
36.4
38.9
41.5
44.3
47.6
49.6
52.1
55.8
23.3
26.9
29.4
31.5
34.7
37.5
40.1
42.7
45.4
48.7
50.8
53.2
56.9
24.4
28.1
30.6
32.6
35.9
38.7
41.2
43.8
46.6
49.8
51.9
54.4
58.1
25.5
29.2
31.7
33.7
37.0
39.8
42.4
44.9
47.7
51.0
53.0
55.5
59.2
26.7
30.4
32.8
34.9
38.2
40.9
43.5
46.1
48.8
52.1
54.2
56.6
60.3
27.8
31.5
34.0
36.0
39.3
42.1
44.6
47.2
50.0
53.3
55.3
57.8
61.5
Table A2
Normative data for the TMT-A stratified by age and education levels for BOLIVIA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
13.6
20.6
25.2
29.0
35.2
40.4
45.2
50.0
55.2
61.4
65.2
69.9
76.8
16.6
23.5
28.1
32.0
38.1
43.3
48.2
53.0
58.2
64.3
68.2
72.8
79.7
19.5
26.4
31.1
34.9
41.1
46.3
51.1
55.9
61.1
67.3
71.1
75.7
82.7
22.5
29.4
34.0
37.9
44.0
49.2
54.0
58.8
64.0
70.2
74.1
78.7
85.6
25.4
32.3
36.9
40.8
47.0
52.2
57.0
61.8
67.0
73.1
77.0
81.6
88.5
28.3
35.3
39.9
43.7
49.9
55.1
59.9
64.7
69.9
76.1
79.9
84.6
91.5
31.3
38.2
42.8
46.7
52.8
58.0
62.9
67.7
72.9
79.0
82.9
87.5
94.4
34.2
41.1
45.8
49.6
55.8
61.0
65.8
70.6
75.8
82.0
85.8
90.4
97.4
37.2
44.1
48.7
52.6
58.7
63.9
68.7
73.5
78.7
84.9
88.8
93.4
100.0
40.1
47.0
51.6
55.5
61.7
66.9
71.7
76.5
81.7
87.8
91.7
96.3
100.0
43.0
50.0
54.6
58.4
64.6
69.8
74.6
79.4
84.6
90.8
94.6
99.3
100.0
46.0
52.9
57.5
61.4
67.5
72.7
77.6
82.4
87.6
93.7
97.6
100.0
48.9
55.8
60.5
64.3
70.5
75.7
80.5
85.3
90.5
96.7
100.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
24.6
31.6
36.2
40.1
46.2
51.4
56.2
61.0
66.2
72.4
76.3
80.9
87.8
27.6
34.5
39.1
43.0
49.2
54.4
59.2
64.0
69.2
75.3
79.2
83.8
90.7
30.5
37.5
42.1
45.9
52.1
57.3
62.1
66.9
72.1
78.3
82.1
86.8
93.7
33.5
40.4
45.0
48.9
55.0
60.2
65.0
69.9
75.1
81.2
85.1
89.7
96.6
36.4
43.3
48.0
51.8
58.0
63.2
68.0
72.8
78.0
84.2
88.0
92.6
99.6
39.3
46.3
50.9
54.8
60.9
66.1
70.9
75.7
80.9
87.1
91.0
95.6
100.0
42.3
49.2
53.8
57.7
63.9
69.1
73.9
78.7
83.9
90.0
93.9
98.5
100.0
45.2
52.2
56.8
60.6
66.8
72.0
76.8
81.6
86.8
93.0
96.8
100.0
48.2
55.1
59.7
63.6
69.7
74.9
79.7
84.6
89.8
95.9
99.8
100.0
51.1
58.0
62.7
66.5
72.7
77.9
82.7
87.5
92.7
98.9
100.0
54.0
61.0
65.6
69.5
75.6
80.8
85.6
90.4
95.6
100.0
57.0
63.9
68.5
72.4
78.6
83.8
88.6
93.4
98.6
100.0
59.9
66.9
71.5
75.3
81.5
86.7
91.5
96.3
100.0
650
Table A3
Normative data for the TMT-A stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
5.6
11.1
15.7
20.0
24.3
28.9
34.4
37.9
42.0
48.2
5.4
8.8
14.3
18.9
23.2
27.5
32.1
37.6
41.1
45.2
51.4
4.4
8.6
12.0
17.5
22.1
26.4
30.7
35.3
40.8
44.3
48.4
54.6
7.6
11.8
15.2
20.7
25.3
29.6
33.9
38.5
44.0
47.4
51.6
57.7
4.7
10.8
15.0
18.4
23.9
28.5
32.8
37.1
41.7
47.2
50.6
54.8
60.9
7.9
14.0
18.1
21.6
27.1
31.7
36.0
40.3
44.9
50.4
53.8
58.0
64.1
11.0
17.2
21.3
24.8
30.3
34.9
39.2
43.5
48.1
53.6
57.0
61.1
67.3
14.2
20.4
24.5
28.0
33.5
38.1
42.4
46.7
51.3
56.8
60.2
64.3
70.5
17.4
23.6
27.7
31.2
36.7
41.3
45.6
49.9
54.5
60.0
63.4
67.5
73.7
20.6
26.8
30.9
34.4
39.8
44.5
48.8
53.1
57.7
63.2
66.6
70.7
76.9
23.8
30.0
34.1
37.5
43.0
47.7
52.0
56.3
60.9
66.4
69.8
73.9
80.1
27.0
33.2
37.3
40.7
46.2
50.9
55.2
59.4
64.1
69.6
73.0
77.1
83.3
30.2
36.4
40.5
43.9
49.4
54.1
58.3
62.6
67.3
72.8
76.2
80.3
86.5
Age (Years)
4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
7.0
13.2
17.3
20.7
26.2
30.8
35.1
39.4
44.0
49.5
53.0
57.1
63.3
10.2
16.3
20.5
23.9
29.4
34.0
38.3
42.6
47.2
52.7
56.2
60.3
66.4
13.4
19.5
23.7
27.1
32.6
37.2
41.5
45.8
50.4
55.9
59.3
63.5
69.6
16.6
22.7
26.9
30.3
35.8
40.4
44.7
49.0
53.6
59.1
62.5
66.7
72.8
19.7
25.9
30.0
33.5
39.0
43.6
47.9
52.2
56.8
62.3
65.7
69.9
76.0
22.9
29.1
33.2
36.7
42.2
46.8
51.1
55.4
60.0
65.5
68.9
73.0
79.2
26.1
32.3
36.4
39.9
45.4
50.0
54.3
58.6
63.2
68.7
72.1
76.2
82.4
29.3
35.5
39.6
43.1
48.5
53.2
57.5
61.8
66.4
71.9
75.3
79.4
85.6
32.5
38.7
42.8
46.3
51.7
56.4
60.7
65.0
69.6
75.1
78.5
82.6
88.8
35.7
41.9
46.0
49.4
54.9
59.6
63.9
68.1
72.8
78.3
81.7
85.8
92.0
38.9
45.1
49.2
52.6
58.1
62.8
67.1
71.3
76.0
81.5
84.9
89.0
95.2
42.1
48.3
52.4
55.8
61.3
66.0
70.2
74.5
79.2
84.7
88.1
92.2
98.4
45.3
51.5
55.6
59.0
64.5
69.2
73.4
77.7
82.4
87.9
91.3
95.4
100.0
Table A4
Normative data for the TMT-A stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
5.7
12.3
16.7
20.4
26.3
31.3
35.9
40.5
45.5
51.4
55.1
59.5
66.1
8.6
15.3
19.7
23.4
29.3
34.2
38.8
43.4
48.4
54.3
58.0
62.4
69.1
11.6
18.2
22.6
26.3
32.2
37.2
41.8
46.4
51.4
57.3
61.0
65.4
72.0
14.5
21.2
25.6
29.3
35.2
40.1
44.7
49.4
54.3
60.2
63.9
68.3
75.0
17.5
24.1
28.5
32.2
38.1
43.1
47.7
52.3
57.3
63.2
66.9
71.3
77.9
20.4
27.1
31.5
35.2
41.1
46.0
50.6
55.3
60.2
66.1
69.8
74.2
80.9
23.4
30.0
34.4
38.1
44.0
49.0
53.6
58.2
63.2
69.1
72.8
77.2
83.8
26.3
33.0
37.4
41.1
47.0
51.9
56.6
61.2
66.1
72.0
75.7
80.1
86.8
29.3
35.9
40.3
44.0
49.9
54.9
59.5
64.1
69.1
75.0
78.7
83.1
89.7
32.2
38.9
43.3
47.0
52.9
57.8
62.5
67.1
72.0
77.9
81.6
86.0
92.7
35.2
41.8
46.2
49.9
55.8
60.8
65.4
70.0
75.0
80.9
84.6
89.0
95.6
38.1
44.8
49.2
52.9
58.8
63.8
68.4
73.0
77.9
83.8
87.5
91.9
98.6
41.1
47.7
52.2
55.8
61.7
66.7
71.3
75.9
80.9
86.8
90.5
94.9
100.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
16.2
22.8
27.2
30.9
36.8
41.8
46.4
51.0
55.9
61.8
65.5
69.9
76.6
19.1
25.7
30.2
33.8
39.7
44.7
49.3
53.9
58.9
64.8
68.5
72.9
79.5
22.1
28.7
33.1
36.8
42.7
47.7
52.3
56.9
61.8
67.7
71.4
75.8
82.5
25.0
31.6
36.1
39.7
45.6
50.6
55.2
59.8
64.8
70.7
74.4
78.8
85.4
28.0
34.6
39.0
42.7
48.6
53.6
58.2
62.8
67.8
73.6
77.3
81.8
88.4
30.9
37.5
42.0
45.6
51.5
56.5
61.1
65.7
70.7
76.6
80.3
84.7
91.3
33.9
40.5
44.9
48.6
54.5
59.5
64.1
68.7
73.7
79.5
83.2
87.7
94.3
36.8
43.4
47.9
51.6
57.4
62.4
67.0
71.6
76.6
82.5
86.2
90.6
97.2
39.8
46.4
50.8
54.5
60.4
65.4
70.0
74.6
79.6
85.5
89.1
93.6
100.0
42.7
49.3
53.8
57.5
63.4
68.3
72.9
77.5
82.5
88.4
92.1
96.5
100.0
45.7
52.3
56.7
60.4
66.3
71.3
75.9
80.5
85.5
91.4
95.0
99.5
100.0
48.6
55.3
59.7
63.4
69.3
74.2
78.8
83.4
88.4
94.3
98.0
100.0
51.6
58.2
62.6
66.3
72.2
77.2
81.8
86.4
91.4
97.3
100.0
651
Table A5
Normative data for the TMT-A stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
5.0
8.9
15.1
20.3
25.2
30.1
35.3
41.5
45.4
50.1
57.1
7.6
11.5
17.7
22.9
27.8
32.7
37.9
44.1
48.0
52.7
59.7
5.5
10.2
14.1
20.3
25.5
30.4
35.3
40.5
46.7
50.6
55.3
62.3
8.1
12.8
16.7
22.9
28.2
33.0
37.9
43.1
49.4
53.2
57.9
64.9
3.7
10.7
15.4
19.3
25.5
30.8
35.6
40.5
45.7
52.0
55.9
60.5
67.5
6.3
13.3
18.0
21.9
28.1
33.4
38.2
43.1
48.3
54.6
58.5
63.1
70.1
8.9
15.9
20.6
24.5
30.7
36.0
40.8
45.7
51.0
57.2
61.1
65.7
72.7
11.5
18.5
23.2
27.1
33.3
38.6
43.4
48.3
53.6
59.8
63.7
68.3
75.3
14.2
21.2
25.8
29.7
35.9
41.2
46.1
50.9
56.2
62.4
66.3
70.9
78.0
16.8
23.8
28.4
32.3
38.5
43.8
48.7
53.5
58.8
65.0
68.9
73.6
80.6
19.4
26.4
31.0
34.9
41.2
46.4
51.3
56.1
61.4
67.6
71.5
76.2
83.2
22.0
29.0
33.6
37.5
43.8
49.0
53.9
58.7
64.0
70.2
74.1
78.8
85.8
24.6
31.6
36.3
40.1
46.4
51.6
56.5
61.3
66.6
72.8
76.7
81.4
88.4
Age (Years)
4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
21.8
28.8
33.4
37.3
43.5
48.8
53.7
58.5
63.8
70.0
73.9
78.6
85.6
24.4
31.4
36.0
39.9
46.1
51.4
56.3
61.1
66.4
72.6
76.5
81.2
88.2
27.0
34.0
38.6
42.5
48.8
54.0
58.9
63.7
69.0
75.2
79.1
83.8
90.8
29.6
36.6
41.2
45.1
51.4
56.6
61.5
66.3
71.6
77.8
81.7
86.4
93.4
32.2
39.2
43.9
47.7
54.0
59.2
64.1
68.9
74.2
80.4
84.3
89.0
96.0
34.8
41.8
46.5
50.4
56.6
61.8
66.7
71.6
76.8
83.0
86.9
91.6
98.6
37.4
44.4
49.1
53.0
59.2
64.4
69.3
74.2
79.4
85.6
89.5
94.2
100.0
40.0
47.0
51.7
55.6
61.8
67.0
71.9
76.8
82.0
88.2
92.1
96.8
100.0
42.6
49.6
54.3
58.2
64.4
69.7
74.5
79.4
84.6
90.9
94.7
99.4
100.0
45.2
52.2
56.9
60.8
67.0
72.3
77.1
82.0
87.2
93.5
97.3
100.0
47.8
54.8
59.5
63.4
69.6
74.9
79.7
84.6
89.8
96.1
100.0
50.4
57.4
62.1
66.0
72.2
77.5
82.3
87.2
92.4
98.7
100.0
53.0
60.0
64.7
68.6
74.8
80.1
84.9
89.8
95.1
100.0
Table A6
Normative data for the TMT-A stratified by age and education levels for GUATEMALA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
3.2
7.3
13.9
19.5
24.6
29.8
35.4
42.0
46.1
51.0
58.4
5.4
9.6
16.2
21.7
26.9
32.0
37.6
44.2
48.3
53.3
60.7
7.7
11.8
18.4
23.9
29.1
34.2
39.8
46.4
50.5
55.5
62.9
4.9
9.9
14.0
20.6
26.2
31.3
36.5
42.0
48.6
52.8
57.7
65.1
7.2
12.1
16.2
22.8
28.4
33.5
38.7
44.3
50.9
55.0
59.9
67.3
9.4
14.3
18.5
25.1
30.6
35.8
40.9
46.5
53.1
57.2
62.1
69.6
4.2
11.6
16.6
20.7
27.3
32.8
38.0
43.1
48.7
55.3
59.4
64.4
71.8
6.4
13.8
18.8
22.9
29.5
35.1
40.2
45.4
50.9
57.5
61.7
66.6
74.0
8.6
16.1
21.0
25.1
31.7
37.3
42.4
47.6
53.2
59.8
63.9
68.8
76.2
10.9
18.3
23.2
27.4
34.0
39.5
44.7
49.8
55.4
62.0
66.1
71.0
78.5
13.1
20.5
25.5
29.6
36.2
41.7
46.9
52.0
57.6
64.2
68.3
73.3
80.7
15.3
22.7
27.7
31.8
38.4
44.0
49.1
54.3
59.8
66.4
70.5
75.5
82.9
17.5
25.0
29.9
34.0
40.6
46.2
51.3
56.5
62.1
68.7
72.8
77.7
85.1
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.5
19.9
24.8
29.0
35.6
41.1
46.3
51.4
57.0
63.6
67.7
72.6
80.1
14.7
22.1
27.1
31.2
37.8
43.3
48.5
53.6
59.2
65.8
69.9
74.9
82.3
16.9
24.3
29.3
33.4
40.0
45.6
50.7
55.9
61.4
68.0
72.2
77.1
84.5
19.1
26.6
31.5
35.6
42.2
47.8
52.9
58.1
63.7
70.3
74.4
79.3
86.7
21.4
28.8
33.7
37.9
44.4
50.0
55.2
60.3
65.9
72.5
76.6
81.5
89.0
23.6
31.0
36.0
40.1
46.7
52.2
57.4
62.5
68.1
74.7
78.8
83.8
91.2
25.8
33.2
38.2
42.3
48.9
54.5
59.6
64.8
70.3
76.9
81.0
86.0
93.4
28.0
35.5
40.4
44.5
51.1
56.7
61.8
67.0
72.6
79.2
83.3
88.2
95.6
30.3
37.7
42.6
46.8
53.3
58.9
64.1
69.2
74.8
81.4
85.5
90.4
97.9
32.5
39.9
44.9
49.0
55.6
61.1
66.3
71.4
77.0
83.6
87.7
92.7
100.0
34.7
42.1
47.1
51.2
57.8
63.4
68.5
73.7
79.2
85.8
89.9
94.9
100.0
36.9
44.4
49.3
53.4
60.0
65.6
70.7
75.9
81.5
88.0
92.2
97.1
100.0
39.2
46.6
51.5
55.7
62.2
67.8
73.0
78.1
83.7
90.3
94.4
99.3
100.0
652
Table A7
Normative data for the TMT-A stratified by age and education levels and gender for HONDURAS: MALES only
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
13.0
19.4
23.7
27.3
33.0
37.8
42.3
46.7
51.6
57.3
60.8
65.1
71.5
14.9
21.3
25.6
29.1
34.8
39.7
44.1
48.6
53.4
59.1
62.7
67.0
73.4
16.7
23.1
27.4
31.0
36.7
41.5
46.0
50.4
55.2
61.0
64.5
68.8
75.2
18.6
25.0
29.3
32.8
38.5
43.4
47.8
52.3
57.1
62.8
66.4
70.6
77.1
20.4
26.8
31.1
34.7
40.4
45.2
49.7
54.1
58.9
64.6
68.2
72.5
78.9
22.3
28.7
33.0
36.5
42.2
47.1
51.5
56.0
60.8
66.5
70.1
74.3
80.8
24.1
30.5
34.8
38.4
44.1
48.9
53.4
57.8
62.6
68.3
71.9
76.2
82.6
26.0
32.4
36.7
40.2
45.9
50.7
55.2
59.7
64.5
70.2
73.8
78.0
84.5
27.8
34.2
38.5
42.1
47.8
52.6
57.1
61.5
66.3
72.0
75.6
79.9
86.3
29.7
36.1
40.4
43.9
49.6
54.4
58.9
63.4
68.2
73.9
77.5
81.7
88.2
31.5
37.9
42.2
45.8
51.5
56.3
60.7
65.2
70.0
75.7
79.3
83.6
90.0
33.3
39.8
44.0
47.6
53.3
58.1
62.6
67.1
71.9
77.6
81.1
85.4
91.8
35.2
41.6
45.9
49.5
55.2
60.0
64.4
68.9
73.7
79.4
83.0
87.3
93.7
Age (Years)
4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
35.9
42.4
46.6
50.2
55.9
60.7
65.2
69.7
74.5
80.2
83.7
88.0
94.5
37.8
44.2
48.5
52.1
57.8
62.6
67.0
71.5
76.3
82.0
85.6
89.9
96.3
39.6
46.1
50.3
53.9
59.6
64.4
68.9
73.4
78.2
83.9
87.4
91.7
98.1
41.5
47.9
52.2
55.8
61.5
66.3
70.7
75.2
80.0
85.7
89.3
93.6
100.0
43.3
49.8
54.0
57.6
63.3
68.1
72.6
77.0
81.9
87.6
91.1
95.4
100.0
45.2
51.6
55.9
59.5
65.2
70.0
74.4
78.9
83.7
89.4
93.0
97.3
100.0
47.0
53.5
57.7
61.3
67.0
71.8
76.3
80.7
85.6
91.3
94.8
99.1
100.0
48.9
55.3
59.6
63.1
68.9
73.7
78.1
82.6
87.4
93.1
96.7
100.0
50.7
57.1
61.4
65.0
70.7
75.5
80.0
84.4
89.3
95.0
98.5
100.0
52.6
59.0
63.3
66.8
72.5
77.4
81.8
86.3
91.1
96.8
100.0
54.4
60.8
65.1
68.7
74.4
79.2
83.7
88.1
92.9
98.7
100.0
56.3
62.7
67.0
70.5
76.2
81.1
85.5
90.0
94.8
100.0
58.1
64.5
68.8
72.4
78.1
82.9
87.4
91.8
96.6
100.0
Table A8
Normative data for the TMT-A stratified by age education level, and gender for HONDURAS: FEMALES only
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
23.3
29.8
34.0
37.6
43.3
48.1
52.6
57.0
61.9
67.6
71.1
75.4
81.8
25.2
31.6
35.9
39.5
45.2
50.0
54.4
58.9
63.7
69.4
73.0
77.3
83.7
27.0
33.5
37.7
41.3
47.0
51.8
56.3
60.7
65.6
71.3
74.8
79.1
85.5
28.9
35.3
39.6
43.2
48.9
53.7
58.1
62.6
67.4
73.1
76.7
81.0
87.4
30.7
37.1
41.4
45.0
50.7
55.5
60.0
64.4
69.3
75.0
78.5
82.8
89.2
32.6
39.0
43.3
46.8
52.6
57.4
61.8
66.3
71.1
76.8
80.4
84.7
91.1
34.4
40.8
45.1
48.7
54.4
59.2
63.7
68.1
72.9
78.7
82.2
86.5
92.9
36.3
42.7
47.0
50.5
56.2
61.1
65.5
70.0
74.8
80.5
84.1
88.4
94.8
38.1
44.5
48.8
52.4
58.1
62.9
67.4
71.8
76.6
82.4
85.9
90.2
96.6
40.0
46.4
50.7
54.2
59.9
64.8
69.2
73.7
78.5
84.2
87.8
92.0
98.5
41.8
48.2
52.5
56.1
61.8
66.6
71.1
75.5
80.3
86.0
89.6
93.9
100.0
43.7
50.1
54.4
57.9
63.6
68.5
72.9
77.4
82.2
87.9
91.5
95.7
100.0
45.5
51.9
56.2
59.8
65.5
70.3
74.8
79.2
84.0
89.7
93.3
97.6
100.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
46.3
52.7
57.0
60.5
66.2
71.1
75.5
80.0
84.8
90.5
94.1
98.3
100.0
48.1
54.5
58.8
62.4
68.1
72.9
77.4
81.8
86.6
92.3
95.9
100.0
50.0
56.4
60.7
64.2
69.9
74.7
79.2
83.7
88.5
94.2
97.8
100.0
51.8
58.2
62.5
66.1
71.8
76.6
81.1
85.5
90.3
96.0
99.6
100.0
53.7
60.1
64.4
67.9
73.6
78.4
82.9
87.4
92.2
97.9
100.0
55.5
61.9
66.2
69.8
75.5
80.3
84.7
89.2
94.0
99.7
100.0
57.3
63.8
68.0
71.6
77.3
82.1
86.6
91.1
95.9
100.0
59.2
65.6
69.9
73.5
79.2
84.0
88.4
92.9
97.7
100.0
61.0
67.5
71.7
75.3
81.0
85.8
90.3
94.7
99.6
100.0
62.9
69.3
73.6
77.2
82.9
87.7
92.1
96.6
100.0
64.7
71.2
75.4
79.0
84.7
89.5
94.0
98.4
100.0
66.6
73.0
77.3
80.8
86.6
91.4
95.8
100.0
68.4
74.8
79.1
82.7
88.4
93.2
97.7
100.0
653
Table A9
Normative data for the TMT-A stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
5.9
10.4
14.2
20.2
25.2
29.9
34.6
39.6
45.6
49.4
53.9
60.6
9.1
13.6
17.4
23.4
28.4
33.1
37.8
42.9
48.9
52.6
57.1
63.8
5.6
12.4
16.9
20.6
26.6
31.7
36.3
41.0
46.1
52.1
55.8
60.3
67.1
8.8
15.6
20.1
23.8
29.8
34.9
39.6
44.2
49.3
55.3
59.0
63.5
70.3
12.1
18.8
23.3
27.0
33.0
38.1
42.8
47.5
52.5
58.5
62.3
66.8
73.5
15.3
22.0
26.5
30.3
36.3
41.3
46.0
50.7
55.7
61.7
65.5
70.0
76.7
18.5
25.2
29.7
33.5
39.5
44.5
49.2
53.9
59.0
64.9
68.7
73.2
79.9
21.7
28.5
32.9
36.7
42.7
47.7
52.4
57.1
62.2
68.2
71.9
76.4
83.2
24.9
31.7
36.2
39.9
45.9
51.0
55.6
60.3
65.4
71.4
75.1
79.6
86.4
28.1
34.9
39.4
43.1
49.1
54.2
58.9
63.5
68.6
74.6
78.3
82.8
89.6
31.4
38.1
42.6
46.3
52.3
57.4
62.1
66.8
71.8
77.8
81.6
86.1
92.8
34.6
41.3
45.8
49.6
55.6
60.6
65.3
70.0
75.0
81.0
84.8
89.3
96.0
37.8
44.5
49.0
52.8
58.8
63.8
68.5
73.2
78.3
84.3
88.0
92.5
99.2
Age (Years)
4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
7.5
14.3
18.7
22.5
28.5
33.5
38.2
42.9
48.0
54.0
57.7
62.2
69.0
10.7
17.5
22.0
25.7
31.7
36.8
41.4
46.1
51.2
57.2
60.9
65.4
72.2
13.9
20.7
25.2
28.9
34.9
40.0
44.7
49.3
54.4
60.4
64.1
68.6
75.4
17.2
23.9
28.4
32.1
38.1
43.2
47.9
52.6
57.6
63.6
67.4
71.9
78.6
20.4
27.1
31.6
35.4
41.4
46.4
51.1
55.8
60.8
66.8
70.6
75.1
81.8
23.6
30.3
34.8
38.6
44.6
49.6
54.3
59.0
64.1
70.1
73.8
78.3
85.0
26.8
33.6
38.1
41.8
47.8
52.9
57.5
62.2
67.3
73.3
77.0
81.5
88.3
30.0
36.8
41.3
45.0
51.0
56.1
60.8
65.4
70.5
76.5
80.2
84.7
91.5
33.3
40.0
44.5
48.2
54.2
59.3
64.0
68.7
73.7
79.7
83.5
88.0
94.7
36.5
43.2
47.7
51.5
57.5
62.5
67.2
71.9
76.9
82.9
86.7
91.2
97.9
39.7
46.4
50.9
54.7
60.7
65.7
70.4
75.1
80.2
86.1
89.9
94.4
100.0
42.9
49.7
54.1
57.9
63.9
68.9
73.6
78.3
83.4
89.4
93.1
97.6
100.0
46.1
52.9
57.4
61.1
67.1
72.2
76.8
81.5
86.6
92.6
96.3
100.0
Table A10
Normative data for the TMT-A stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
2.8
8.2
11.8
14.8
19.6
23.6
27.4
31.1
35.2
39.9
42.9
46.5
51.9
5.6
11.0
14.6
17.6
22.3
26.4
30.1
33.9
37.9
42.7
45.7
49.3
54.7
8.3
13.7
17.3
20.3
25.1
29.1
32.9
36.6
40.7
45.5
48.5
52.0
57.4
11.1
16.5
20.1
23.1
27.9
31.9
35.6
39.4
43.4
48.2
51.2
54.8
60.2
13.8
19.2
22.8
25.8
30.6
34.6
38.4
42.1
46.2
51.0
54.0
57.6
62.9
16.6
22.0
25.6
28.6
33.4
37.4
41.1
44.9
48.9
53.7
56.7
60.3
65.7
19.4
24.7
28.3
31.3
36.1
40.2
43.9
47.6
51.7
56.5
59.5
63.1
68.5
22.1
27.5
31.1
34.1
38.9
42.9
46.7
50.4
54.4
59.2
62.2
65.8
71.2
24.9
30.2
33.8
36.8
41.6
45.7
49.4
53.2
57.2
62.0
65.0
68.6
74.0
27.6
33.0
36.6
39.6
44.4
48.4
52.2
55.9
59.9
64.7
67.7
71.3
76.7
30.4
35.8
39.4
42.3
47.1
51.2
54.9
58.7
62.7
67.5
70.5
74.1
79.5
33.1
38.5
42.1
45.1
49.9
53.9
57.7
61.4
65.5
70.2
73.2
76.8
82.2
35.9
41.3
44.9
47.9
52.6
56.7
60.4
64.2
68.2
73.0
76.0
79.6
85.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
28.2
33.6
37.2
40.2
45.0
49.1
52.8
56.5
60.6
65.4
68.4
72.0
77.3
31.0
36.4
40.0
43.0
47.8
51.8
55.6
59.3
63.3
68.1
71.1
74.7
80.1
33.8
39.1
42.7
45.7
50.5
54.6
58.3
62.0
66.1
70.9
73.9
77.5
82.9
36.5
41.9
45.5
48.5
53.3
57.3
61.1
64.8
68.8
73.6
76.6
80.2
85.6
39.3
44.7
48.2
51.2
56.0
60.1
63.8
67.6
71.6
76.4
79.4
83.0
88.4
42.0
47.4
51.0
54.0
58.8
62.8
66.6
70.3
74.4
79.1
82.1
85.7
91.1
44.8
50.2
53.8
56.8
61.5
65.6
69.3
73.1
77.1
81.9
84.9
88.5
93.9
47.5
52.9
56.5
59.5
64.3
68.3
72.1
75.8
79.9
84.7
87.6
91.2
96.6
50.3
55.7
59.3
62.3
67.1
71.1
74.8
78.6
82.6
87.4
90.4
94.0
99.4
53.0
58.4
62.0
65.0
69.8
73.8
77.6
81.3
85.4
90.2
93.2
96.8
100.0
55.8
61.2
64.8
67.8
72.6
76.6
80.3
84.1
88.1
92.9
95.9
99.5
100.0
58.5
63.9
67.5
70.5
75.3
79.4
83.1
86.8
90.9
95.7
98.7
100.0
61.3
66.7
70.3
73.3
78.1
82.1
85.9
89.6
93.6
98.4
100.0
100.0
654
Table A11
Normative data for the TMT-A stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
3.3
9.5
13.5
16.9
22.4
26.9
31.2
35.4
40.0
45.4
48.8
52.9
59.0
6.3
12.5
16.5
19.9
25.4
29.9
34.2
38.4
43.0
48.4
51.8
55.9
62.0
9.3
15.5
19.5
22.9
28.4
32.9
37.2
41.4
46.0
51.4
54.8
58.9
65.0
12.3
18.5
22.5
25.9
31.4
35.9
40.2
44.4
49.0
54.4
57.8
61.9
68.0
15.3
21.4
25.5
28.9
34.3
38.9
43.2
47.4
52.0
57.4
60.8
64.9
71.0
18.3
24.4
28.5
31.9
37.3
41.9
46.2
50.4
55.0
60.4
63.8
67.9
74.0
21.3
27.4
31.5
34.9
40.3
44.9
49.2
53.4
58.0
63.4
66.8
70.9
77.0
24.3
30.4
34.5
37.9
43.3
47.9
52.2
56.4
61.0
66.4
69.8
73.9
80.0
27.3
33.4
37.5
40.9
46.3
50.9
55.2
59.4
64.0
69.4
72.8
76.9
83.0
30.3
36.4
40.5
43.9
49.3
53.9
58.2
62.4
67.0
72.4
75.8
79.9
86.0
33.3
39.4
43.5
46.9
52.3
56.9
61.2
65.4
70.0
75.4
78.8
82.9
89.0
36.3
42.4
46.5
49.9
55.3
59.9
64.2
68.4
73.0
78.4
81.8
85.9
92.0
39.3
45.4
49.5
52.9
58.3
62.9
67.2
71.4
76.0
81.4
84.8
88.9
95.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
13.6
19.7
23.7
27.1
32.6
37.2
41.4
45.6
50.2
55.7
59.0
63.1
69.2
16.6
22.7
26.7
30.1
35.6
40.2
44.4
48.6
53.2
58.6
62.0
66.1
72.2
19.6
25.7
29.7
33.1
38.6
43.1
47.4
51.6
56.2
61.6
65.0
69.1
75.2
22.6
28.7
32.7
36.1
41.6
46.1
50.4
54.6
59.2
64.6
68.0
72.1
78.2
25.6
31.7
35.7
39.1
44.6
49.1
53.4
57.6
62.2
67.6
71.0
75.1
81.2
28.6
34.7
38.7
42.1
47.6
52.1
56.4
60.6
65.2
70.6
74.0
78.1
84.2
31.6
37.7
41.7
45.1
50.6
55.1
59.4
63.6
68.2
73.6
77.0
81.1
87.2
34.6
40.7
44.7
48.1
53.6
58.1
62.4
66.6
71.2
76.6
80.0
84.1
90.2
37.5
43.7
47.7
51.1
56.6
61.1
65.4
69.6
74.2
79.6
83.0
87.1
93.2
40.5
46.7
50.7
54.1
59.6
64.1
68.4
72.6
77.2
82.6
86.0
90.1
96.2
43.5
49.7
53.7
57.1
62.6
67.1
71.4
75.6
80.2
85.6
89.0
93.1
99.2
46.5
52.7
56.7
60.1
65.6
70.1
74.4
78.6
83.2
88.6
92.0
96.1
100.0
49.5
55.7
59.7
63.1
68.6
73.1
77.4
81.6
86.2
91.6
95.0
99.1
100.0
Table A12
Normative data for the TMT-A stratified by age for PUERTO RICO
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
6.2
10.3
17.0
22.7
27.9
33.1
38.7
45.4
49.6
54.6
62.1
4.3
9.3
13.5
20.2
25.8
31.1
36.3
41.9
48.6
52.8
57.8
65.3
7.5
12.5
16.7
23.4
29.0
34.2
39.4
45.1
51.8
55.9
60.9
68.5
3.2
10.7
15.7
19.9
26.5
32.2
37.4
42.6
48.3
54.9
59.1
64.1
71.6
6.3
13.8
18.9
23.0
29.7
35.3
40.6
45.8
51.4
58.1
62.3
67.3
74.8
9.5
17.0
22.0
26.2
32.9
38.5
43.7
49.0
54.6
61.3
65.5
70.5
78.0
12.7
20.2
25.2
29.4
36.1
41.7
46.9
52.1
57.8
64.4
68.6
73.6
81.2
15.8
23.4
28.4
32.5
39.2
44.9
50.1
55.3
60.9
67.6
71.8
76.8
84.3
19.0
26.5
31.5
35.7
42.4
48.0
53.3
58.5
64.1
70.8
75.0
80.0
87.5
22.2
29.7
34.7
38.9
45.6
51.2
56.4
61.6
67.3
74.0
78.1
83.1
90.7
25.4
32.9
37.9
42.1
48.7
54.4
59.6
64.8
70.5
77.1
81.3
86.3
93.8
28.5
36.0
41.1
45.2
51.9
57.5
62.8
68.0
73.6
80.3
84.5
89.5
97.0
31.7
39.2
44.2
48.4
55.1
60.7
65.9
71.2
76.8
83.5
87.7
92.7
100.0
655
Table A13
Normative data for the TMT-B stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.6
28.4
38.4
48.4
59.2
72.0
80.0
89.6
104.0
8.8
21.6
32.4
42.4
52.4
63.2
76.0
84.0
93.6
108.0
4.8
12.8
25.6
36.4
46.4
56.4
67.3
80.1
88.1
97.7
112.1
8.9
16.9
29.7
40.5
50.5
60.5
71.3
84.1
92.1
101.7
116.1
3.3
12.9
20.9
33.7
44.5
54.5
64.5
75.3
88.1
96.1
105.7
120.1
7.4
17.0
25.0
37.8
48.6
58.6
68.6
79.4
92.2
100.2
109.8
124.2
11.4
21.0
29.0
41.8
52.6
62.6
72.6
83.4
96.2
104.2
113.8
128.2
15.4
25.0
33.0
45.8
56.6
66.6
76.6
87.4
100.2
108.2
117.8
132.2
19.5
29.1
37.1
49.9
60.7
70.7
80.7
91.5
104.3
112.3
121.9
136.3
9.1
23.5
33.1
41.1
53.9
64.7
74.7
84.7
95.5
108.3
116.3
125.9
140.3
13.1
27.5
37.1
45.1
57.9
68.7
78.7
88.7
99.5
112.3
120.3
129.9
144.4
17.2
31.6
41.2
49.2
62.0
72.8
82.8
92.8
103.6
116.4
124.4
134.0
148.4
21.2
35.6
45.2
53.2
66.0
76.8
86.8
96.8
107.6
120.4
128.4
138.0
152.4
Age (Years)
4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
16.6
26.2
34.2
47.0
57.8
67.8
77.8
88.6
101.4
109.4
119.0
133.4
20.6
30.2
38.2
51.0
61.8
71.8
81.8
92.6
105.4
113.4
123.0
137.4
10.2
24.6
34.2
42.2
55.1
65.9
75.9
85.9
96.7
109.5
117.5
127.1
141.5
14.3
28.7
38.3
46.3
59.1
69.9
79.9
89.9
100.7
113.5
121.5
131.1
145.5
18.3
32.7
42.3
50.3
63.1
73.9
83.9
93.9
104.7
117.5
125.5
135.1
149.5
22.4
36.8
46.4
54.4
67.2
78.0
88.0
98.0
108.8
121.6
129.6
139.2
153.6
26.4
40.8
50.4
58.4
71.2
82.0
92.0
102.0
112.8
125.6
133.6
143.2
157.6
30.4
44.8
54.4
62.4
75.2
86.0
96.0
106.0
116.8
129.6
137.6
147.2
161.6
34.5
48.9
58.5
66.5
79.3
90.1
100.1
110.1
120.9
133.7
141.7
151.3
165.7
38.5
52.9
62.5
70.5
83.3
94.1
104.1
114.1
124.9
137.7
145.7
155.3
169.7
42.5
56.9
66.5
74.5
87.3
98.1
108.1
118.1
129.0
141.8
149.8
159.4
173.8
46.6
61.0
70.6
78.6
91.4
102.2
112.2
122.2
133.0
145.8
153.8
163.4
177.8
50.6
65.0
74.6
82.6
95.4
106.2
116.2
126.2
137.0
149.8
157.8
167.4
181.8
Table A14
Normative data for the TMT-B stratified by age and education levels for BOLIVIA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
15.6
34.5
51.9
69.3
88.1
110.4
124.3
141.0
166.1
27.9
46.7
64.1
81.5
100.3
122.6
136.6
153.3
178.4
17.8
40.1
58.9
76.4
93.8
112.6
134.9
148.8
165.5
190.6
16.1
30.1
52.4
71.2
88.6
106.0
124.8
147.1
161.0
177.8
202.8
11.7
28.4
42.3
64.6
83.4
100.8
118.2
137.1
159.3
173.3
190.0
215.1
23.9
40.6
54.6
76.8
95.7
113.1
130.5
149.3
171.6
185.5
202.2
227.3
11.1
36.1
52.9
66.8
89.1
107.9
125.3
142.7
161.5
183.8
197.8
214.5
239.6
23.3
48.4
65.1
79.0
101.3
120.1
137.6
155.0
173.8
196.1
210.0
226.7
251.8
35.5
60.6
77.3
91.3
113.6
132.4
149.8
167.2
186.0
208.3
222.2
239.0
264.0
47.8
72.9
89.6
103.5
125.8
144.6
162.0
179.4
198.3
220.6
234.5
251.2
276.3
60.0
85.1
101.8
115.8
138.1
156.9
174.3
191.7
210.5
232.8
246.7
263.4
288.5
72.3
97.3
114.1
128.0
150.3
169.1
186.5
203.9
222.7
245.0
259.0
275.7
300.0
84.5
109.6
126.3
140.2
162.5
181.3
198.8
216.2
235.0
257.3
271.2
287.9
300.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.4
34.1
48.1
70.4
89.2
106.6
124.0
142.8
165.1
179.0
195.7
220.8
29.7
46.4
60.3
82.6
101.4
118.8
136.2
155.0
177.3
191.3
208.0
233.1
16.8
41.9
58.6
72.5
94.8
113.6
131.1
148.5
167.3
189.6
203.5
220.2
245.3
29.1
54.1
70.9
84.8
107.1
125.9
143.3
160.7
179.5
201.8
215.8
232.5
257.5
41.3
66.4
83.1
97.0
119.3
138.1
155.5
173.0
191.8
214.1
228.0
244.7
269.8
53.5
78.6
95.3
109.3
131.6
150.4
167.8
185.2
204.0
226.3
240.2
256.9
282.0
65.8
90.9
107.6
121.5
143.8
162.6
180.0
197.4
216.2
238.5
252.5
269.2
294.3
78.0
103.1
119.8
133.7
156.0
174.8
192.3
209.7
228.5
250.8
264.7
281.4
300.0
90.3
115.3
132.1
146.0
168.3
187.1
204.5
221.9
240.7
263.0
277.0
293.7
300.0
102.5
127.6
144.3
158.2
180.5
199.3
216.7
234.2
253.0
275.3
289.2
300.0
114.7
139.8
156.5
170.5
192.8
211.6
229.0
246.4
265.2
287.5
300.0
127.0
152.1
168.8
182.7
205.0
223.8
241.2
258.6
277.5
299.7
300.0
139.2
164.3
181.0
195.0
217.2
236.1
253.5
270.9
289.7
300.0
656
Table A15
Normative data for the TMT-B stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.6
26.5
40.5
55.5
73.3
84.5
97.9
117.9
8.1
23.2
37.1
51.1
66.1
84.0
95.1
108.5
128.6
18.8
33.8
47.7
61.7
76.7
94.6
105.7
119.1
139.2
11.5
29.4
44.4
58.4
72.3
87.4
105.2
116.3
129.7
149.8
11.0
22.2
40.0
55.0
69.0
82.9
98.0
115.8
127.0
140.3
160.4
8.2
21.6
32.8
50.6
65.7
79.6
93.5
108.6
126.4
137.6
151.0
171.0
18.9
32.2
43.4
61.2
76.3
90.2
104.2
119.2
137.0
148.2
161.6
181.6
9.4
29.5
42.9
54.0
71.8
86.9
100.8
114.8
129.8
147.7
158.8
172.2
192.3
20.0
40.1
53.5
64.6
82.5
97.5
111.5
125.4
140.4
158.3
169.4
182.8
202.9
30.6
50.7
64.1
75.2
93.1
108.1
122.1
136.0
151.1
168.9
180.0
193.4
213.5
41.3
61.3
74.7
85.9
103.7
118.8
132.7
146.6
161.7
179.5
190.7
204.0
224.1
51.9
72.0
85.3
96.5
114.3
129.4
143.3
157.2
172.3
190.1
201.3
214.7
234.7
62.5
82.6
95.9
107.1
124.9
140.0
153.9
167.9
182.9
200.8
211.9
225.3
245.3
Age (Years)
4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
7.2
20.6
31.7
49.6
64.6
78.6
92.5
107.6
125.4
136.5
149.9
170.0
17.8
31.2
42.4
60.2
75.3
89.2
103.1
118.2
136.0
147.2
160.5
180.6
8.4
28.5
41.8
53.0
70.8
85.9
99.8
113.7
128.8
146.6
157.8
171.2
191.2
19.0
39.1
52.4
63.6
81.4
96.5
110.4
124.4
139.4
157.3
168.4
181.8
201.9
29.6
49.7
63.1
74.2
92.1
107.1
121.0
135.0
150.0
167.9
179.0
192.4
212.5
40.2
60.3
73.7
84.8
102.7
117.7
131.7
145.6
160.6
178.5
189.6
203.0
223.1
50.9
70.9
84.3
95.5
113.3
128.3
142.3
156.2
171.3
189.1
200.3
213.6
233.7
61.5
81.5
94.9
106.1
123.9
139.0
152.9
166.8
181.9
199.7
210.9
224.3
244.3
72.1
92.2
105.5
116.7
134.5
149.6
163.5
177.5
192.5
210.3
221.5
234.9
254.9
82.7
102.8
116.2
127.3
145.1
160.2
174.1
188.1
203.1
221.0
232.1
245.5
265.6
93.3
113.4
126.8
137.9
155.8
170.8
184.7
198.7
213.7
231.6
242.7
256.1
276.2
103.9
124.0
137.4
148.5
166.4
181.4
195.4
209.3
224.4
242.2
253.3
266.7
286.8
114.6
134.6
148.0
159.2
177.0
192.0
206.0
219.9
235.0
252.8
264.0
277.3
297.4
Table A16
Normative data for the TMT-B stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
9.3
31.0
49.3
66.3
83.2
101.5
123.2
136.8
153.1
177.5
17.1
38.8
57.1
74.1
91.0
109.3
131.0
144.6
160.9
185.3
11.4
24.9
46.6
64.9
81.9
98.8
117.1
138.8
152.4
168.7
193.1
19.2
32.7
54.4
72.7
89.7
106.6
124.9
146.6
160.2
176.5
200.9
10.7
27.0
40.5
62.2
80.5
97.5
114.4
132.8
154.4
168.0
184.3
208.7
18.5
34.8
48.4
70.0
88.4
105.3
122.3
140.6
162.3
175.8
192.1
216.5
26.3
42.6
56.2
77.9
96.2
113.1
130.1
148.4
170.1
183.6
199.9
224.3
9.7
34.1
50.4
64.0
85.7
104.0
120.9
137.9
156.2
177.9
191.4
207.7
232.1
17.5
41.9
58.2
71.8
93.5
111.8
128.7
145.7
164.0
185.7
199.2
215.5
239.9
25.3
49.7
66.0
79.6
101.3
119.6
136.5
153.5
171.8
193.5
207.0
223.3
247.7
33.1
57.5
73.8
87.4
109.1
127.4
144.3
161.3
179.6
201.3
214.8
231.1
255.5
40.9
65.3
81.6
95.2
116.9
135.2
152.1
169.1
187.4
209.1
222.6
238.9
263.3
48.7
73.1
89.4
103.0
124.7
143.0
159.9
176.9
195.2
216.9
230.4
246.7
271.1
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
19.4
35.6
49.2
70.9
89.2
106.2
123.1
141.4
163.1
176.7
192.9
217.3
27.2
43.5
57.0
78.7
97.0
114.0
130.9
149.2
170.9
184.5
200.7
225.2
10.6
35.0
51.3
64.8
86.5
104.8
121.8
138.7
157.0
178.7
192.3
208.5
233.0
18.4
42.8
59.1
72.6
94.3
112.6
129.6
146.5
164.8
186.5
200.1
216.4
240.8
26.2
50.6
66.9
80.4
102.1
120.4
137.4
154.3
172.6
194.3
207.9
224.2
248.6
34.0
58.4
74.7
88.2
109.9
128.2
145.2
162.1
180.4
202.1
215.7
232.0
256.4
41.8
66.2
82.5
96.0
117.7
136.0
153.0
169.9
188.2
209.9
223.5
239.8
264.2
49.6
74.0
90.3
103.8
125.5
143.8
160.8
177.7
196.0
217.7
231.3
247.6
272.0
57.4
81.8
98.1
111.6
133.3
151.6
168.6
185.5
203.8
225.5
239.1
255.4
279.8
65.2
89.6
105.9
119.4
141.1
159.4
176.4
193.3
211.7
233.3
246.9
263.2
287.6
73.0
97.4
113.7
127.2
148.9
167.3
184.2
201.2
219.5
241.2
254.7
271.0
295.4
80.8
105.2
121.5
135.1
156.7
175.1
192.0
209.0
227.3
249.0
262.5
278.8
300.0
88.6
113.0
129.3
142.9
164.6
182.9
199.8
216.8
235.1
256.8
270.3
286.6
300.0
657
Table A17
Normative data for the TMT-B stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.8
31.9
51.1
71.7
96.2
111.5
129.9
157.4
21.2
40.4
59.5
80.2
104.6
119.9
138.3
165.8
9.0
29.7
48.8
67.9
88.6
113.1
128.4
146.7
174.3
17.5
38.1
57.3
76.4
97.0
121.5
136.8
155.2
182.7
25.9
46.6
65.7
84.8
105.5
130.0
145.3
163.6
191.2
9.9
34.3
55.0
74.1
93.3
113.9
138.4
153.7
172.1
199.6
18.3
42.8
63.4
82.6
101.7
122.4
146.8
162.1
180.5
208.0
11.4
26.7
51.2
71.9
91.0
110.1
130.8
155.3
170.6
188.9
216.5
19.9
35.2
59.7
80.3
99.5
118.6
139.2
163.7
179.0
197.4
224.9
10.0
28.3
43.6
68.1
88.8
107.9
127.0
147.7
172.2
187.5
205.8
233.4
18.4
36.8
52.1
76.5
97.2
116.3
135.5
156.1
180.6
195.9
214.3
241.8
26.8
45.2
60.5
85.0
105.6
124.8
143.9
164.6
189.0
204.3
222.7
250.2
35.3
53.6
68.9
93.4
114.1
133.2
152.3
173.0
197.5
212.8
231.1
258.7
Age (Years)
4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
14.0
41.6
60.0
75.3
99.7
120.4
139.5
158.6
179.3
203.8
219.1
237.4
265.0
22.5
50.0
68.4
83.7
108.2
128.8
148.0
167.1
187.7
212.2
227.5
245.9
273.4
30.9
58.5
76.8
92.1
116.6
137.3
156.4
175.5
196.2
220.7
236.0
254.3
281.9
39.4
66.9
85.3
100.6
125.1
145.7
164.8
184.0
204.6
229.1
244.4
262.8
290.3
47.8
75.3
93.7
109.0
133.5
154.2
173.3
192.4
213.1
237.5
252.8
271.2
298.8
56.2
83.8
102.2
117.5
141.9
162.6
181.7
200.8
221.5
246.0
261.3
279.7
300.0
64.7
92.2
110.6
125.9
150.4
171.0
190.2
209.3
229.9
254.4
269.7
288.1
300.0
73.1
100.7
119.0
134.3
158.8
179.5
198.6
217.7
238.4
262.9
278.2
296.5
300.0
81.6
109.1
127.5
142.8
167.3
187.9
207.0
226.2
246.8
271.3
286.6
300.0
90.0
117.5
135.9
151.2
175.7
196.4
215.5
234.6
255.3
279.7
295.0
300.0
98.4
126.0
144.4
159.7
184.1
204.8
223.9
243.0
263.7
288.2
300.0
106.9
134.4
152.8
168.1
192.6
213.2
232.4
251.5
272.1
296.6
300.0
115.3
142.9
161.2
176.5
201.0
221.7
240.8
259.9
280.6
300.0
Table A18
Normative data for the TMT-B stratified by age and education levels for GUATEMALA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
11.1
32.0
51.3
70.6
91.4
116.1
131.6
150.1
177.9
15.6
36.5
55.8
75.1
95.9
120.6
136.1
154.6
182.4
20.1
41.0
60.3
79.6
100.4
125.1
140.6
159.1
186.9
24.6
45.5
64.8
84.1
104.9
129.6
145.1
163.6
191.4
29.1
50.0
69.3
88.6
109.4
134.2
149.6
168.1
195.9
8.9
33.6
54.5
73.8
93.1
113.9
138.7
154.1
172.6
200.4
13.4
38.2
59.0
78.3
97.6
118.5
143.2
158.6
177.1
204.9
18.0
42.7
63.5
82.8
102.1
123.0
147.7
163.1
181.6
209.4
7.0
22.5
47.2
68.0
87.3
106.6
127.5
152.2
167.6
186.1
213.9
11.5
27.0
51.7
72.5
91.8
111.1
132.0
156.7
172.1
190.7
218.4
16.0
31.5
56.2
77.0
96.3
115.6
136.5
161.2
176.6
195.2
223.0
20.5
36.0
60.7
81.5
100.8
120.1
141.0
165.7
181.1
199.7
227.5
6.5
25.0
40.5
65.2
86.0
105.3
124.6
145.5
170.2
185.6
204.2
232.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
11.9
39.7
58.2
73.7
98.4
119.2
138.5
157.9
178.7
203.4
218.9
237.4
265.2
16.4
44.2
62.8
78.2
102.9
123.8
143.1
162.4
183.2
207.9
223.4
241.9
269.7
20.9
48.7
67.3
82.7
107.4
128.3
147.6
166.9
187.7
212.4
227.9
246.4
274.2
25.4
53.2
71.8
87.2
111.9
132.8
152.1
171.4
192.2
216.9
232.4
250.9
278.7
29.9
57.7
76.3
91.7
116.4
137.3
156.6
175.9
196.7
221.4
236.9
255.4
283.2
34.4
62.2
80.8
96.2
120.9
141.8
161.1
180.4
201.2
225.9
241.4
259.9
287.7
39.0
66.8
85.3
100.7
125.4
146.3
165.6
184.9
205.7
230.4
245.9
264.4
292.2
43.5
71.3
89.8
105.2
129.9
150.8
170.1
189.4
210.2
234.9
250.4
268.9
296.7
48.0
75.8
94.3
109.7
134.4
155.3
174.6
193.9
214.7
239.4
254.9
273.4
300.0
52.5
80.3
98.8
114.2
138.9
159.8
179.1
198.4
219.2
244.0
259.4
277.9
300.0
57.0
84.8
103.3
118.7
143.5
164.3
183.6
202.9
223.8
248.5
263.9
282.4
300.0
61.5
89.3
107.8
123.2
148.0
168.8
188.1
207.4
228.3
253.0
268.4
286.9
300.0
66.0
93.8
112.3
127.8
152.5
173.3
192.6
211.9
232.8
257.5
272.9
291.4
300.0
658
Table A19
Normative data for the TMT-B stratified by age and education levels for HONDURAS
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
15.4
35.7
52.8
68.6
84.4
101.6
121.8
134.5
149.7
172.5
13.6
26.2
46.5
63.6
79.5
95.3
112.4
132.7
145.4
160.6
183.4
9.2
24.4
37.1
57.4
74.5
90.3
106.2
123.3
143.6
156.2
171.4
194.3
20.1
35.3
48.0
68.2
85.4
101.2
117.0
134.2
154.4
167.1
182.3
205.1
8.1
31.0
46.2
58.8
79.1
96.2
112.1
127.9
145.0
165.3
178.0
193.2
216.0
19.0
41.8
57.0
69.7
90.0
107.1
122.9
138.8
155.9
176.2
188.8
204.0
226.9
29.9
52.7
67.9
80.6
100.8
118.0
133.8
149.6
166.7
187.0
199.7
214.9
237.7
40.7
63.6
78.8
91.4
111.7
128.8
144.7
160.5
177.6
197.9
210.6
225.8
248.6
51.6
74.4
89.6
102.3
122.6
139.7
155.5
171.4
188.5
208.8
221.4
236.6
259.5
62.5
85.3
100.5
113.2
133.4
150.6
166.4
182.2
199.3
219.6
232.3
247.5
270.3
73.3
96.1
111.4
124.0
144.3
161.4
177.3
193.1
210.2
230.5
243.2
258.4
281.2
84.2
107.0
122.2
134.9
155.2
172.3
188.1
204.0
221.1
241.4
254.0
269.2
292.0
95.1
117.9
133.1
145.8
166.0
183.1
199.0
214.8
231.9
252.2
264.9
280.1
300.0
Age (Years)
4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
55.8
78.6
93.8
106.5
126.7
143.8
159.7
175.5
192.6
212.9
225.6
240.8
263.6
66.6
89.4
104.6
117.3
137.6
154.7
170.6
186.4
203.5
223.8
236.5
251.7
274.5
77.5
100.3
115.5
128.2
148.5
165.6
181.4
197.3
214.4
234.6
247.3
262.5
285.3
88.4
111.2
126.4
139.1
159.3
176.4
192.3
208.1
225.2
245.5
258.2
273.4
296.2
99.2
122.0
137.2
149.9
170.2
187.3
203.1
219.0
236.1
256.4
269.0
284.3
300.0
110.1
132.9
148.1
160.8
181.1
198.2
214.0
229.9
247.0
267.2
279.9
295.1
300.0
121.0
143.8
159.0
171.6
191.9
209.0
224.9
240.7
257.8
278.1
290.8
300.0
131.8
154.6
169.8
182.5
202.8
219.9
235.7
251.6
268.7
289.0
300.0
142.7
165.5
180.7
193.4
213.7
230.8
246.6
262.5
279.6
299.8
300.0
153.6
176.4
191.6
204.2
224.5
241.6
257.5
273.3
290.4
300.0
164.4
187.2
202.4
215.1
235.4
252.5
268.3
284.2
300.0
175.3
198.1
213.3
226.0
246.3
263.4
279.2
295.0
300.0
186.1
209.0
224.2
236.8
257.1
274.2
290.1
300.0
Table A20
Normative data for the TMT-B stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
9.4
26.5
42.4
58.2
75.4
95.6
108.3
123.5
146.3
18.1
35.2
51.0
66.9
84.0
104.3
117.0
132.2
155.0
6.4
26.7
43.8
59.7
75.5
92.7
112.9
125.6
140.8
163.6
15.1
35.4
52.5
68.3
84.2
101.3
121.6
134.3
149.5
172.3
11.1
23.7
44.0
61.1
77.0
92.8
109.9
130.2
142.9
158.1
180.9
19.7
32.4
52.7
69.8
85.6
101.5
118.6
138.9
151.6
166.8
189.6
13.2
28.4
41.0
61.3
78.4
94.3
110.1
127.2
147.5
160.2
175.4
198.2
21.8
37.0
49.7
70.0
87.1
102.9
118.8
135.9
156.2
168.9
184.1
206.9
7.6
30.4
45.7
58.3
78.6
95.7
111.6
127.4
144.5
164.8
177.5
192.7
215.5
16.3
39.1
54.3
67.0
87.3
104.4
120.2
136.1
153.2
173.5
186.2
201.4
224.2
24.9
47.7
63.0
75.6
95.9
113.0
128.9
144.7
161.8
182.1
194.8
210.0
232.8
33.6
56.4
71.6
84.3
104.6
121.7
137.5
153.4
170.5
190.8
203.5
218.7
241.5
42.2
65.0
80.3
92.9
113.2
130.3
146.2
162.0
179.1
199.4
212.1
227.3
250.1
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
8.5
21.2
41.5
58.6
74.5
90.3
107.4
127.7
140.4
155.6
178.4
17.2
29.9
50.1
67.3
83.1
98.9
116.1
136.3
149.0
164.2
187.1
10.6
25.8
38.5
58.8
75.9
91.8
107.6
124.7
145.0
157.7
172.9
195.7
19.3
34.5
47.2
67.4
84.6
100.4
116.2
133.4
153.6
166.3
181.5
204.4
27.9
43.1
55.8
76.1
93.2
109.0
124.9
142.0
162.3
175.0
190.2
213.0
13.7
36.6
51.8
64.5
84.7
101.9
117.7
133.5
150.7
170.9
183.6
198.8
221.7
22.4
45.2
60.4
73.1
93.4
110.5
126.3
142.2
159.3
179.6
192.3
207.5
230.3
31.0
53.9
69.1
81.8
102.0
119.1
135.0
150.8
168.0
188.2
200.9
216.1
239.0
39.7
62.5
77.7
90.4
110.7
127.8
143.6
159.5
176.6
196.9
209.6
224.8
247.6
48.3
71.2
86.4
99.0
119.3
136.4
152.3
168.1
185.3
205.5
218.2
233.4
256.2
57.0
79.8
95.0
107.7
128.0
145.1
160.9
176.8
193.9
214.2
226.9
242.1
264.9
65.6
88.5
103.7
116.3
136.6
153.7
169.6
185.4
202.6
222.8
235.5
250.7
273.5
74.3
97.1
112.3
125.0
145.3
162.4
178.2
194.1
211.2
231.5
244.2
259.4
282.2
659
Table A21
Normative data for the TMT-B stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
10.3
25.8
38.9
51.0
63.2
76.3
91.8
101.5
113.1
130.6
7.9
17.6
33.1
46.2
58.4
70.5
83.6
99.1
108.8
120.5
137.9
15.2
24.9
40.4
53.5
65.7
77.8
90.9
106.4
116.1
127.8
145.2
10.9
22.5
32.2
47.8
60.9
73.0
85.1
98.2
113.7
123.4
135.1
152.6
18.2
29.9
39.6
55.1
68.2
80.3
92.4
105.5
121.1
130.8
142.4
159.9
8.1
25.5
37.2
46.9
62.4
75.5
87.6
99.8
112.9
128.4
138.1
149.7
167.2
15.4
32.8
44.5
54.2
69.7
82.8
94.9
107.1
120.2
135.7
145.4
157.0
174.5
22.7
40.2
51.8
61.5
77.0
90.1
102.3
114.4
127.5
143.0
152.7
164.4
181.8
30.0
47.5
59.1
68.8
84.4
97.5
109.6
121.7
134.8
150.3
160.0
171.7
189.1
37.3
54.8
66.4
76.1
91.7
104.8
116.9
129.0
142.1
157.7
167.4
179.0
196.5
44.7
62.1
73.8
83.5
99.0
112.1
124.2
136.3
149.4
165.0
174.7
186.3
203.8
52.0
69.4
81.1
90.8
106.3
119.4
131.5
143.7
156.8
172.3
182.0
193.6
211.1
59.3
76.8
88.4
98.1
113.6
126.7
138.9
151.0
164.1
179.6
189.3
201.0
218.4
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.5
30.0
41.6
51.3
66.9
80.0
92.1
104.2
117.3
132.8
142.5
154.2
171.6
19.8
37.3
48.9
58.6
74.2
87.3
99.4
111.5
124.6
140.2
149.9
161.5
179.0
27.2
44.6
56.3
66.0
81.5
94.6
106.7
118.8
131.9
147.5
157.2
168.8
186.3
34.5
51.9
63.6
73.3
88.8
101.9
114.0
126.2
139.3
154.8
164.5
176.1
193.6
41.8
59.3
70.9
80.6
96.1
109.2
121.4
133.5
146.6
162.1
171.8
183.5
200.9
49.1
66.6
78.2
87.9
103.4
116.5
128.7
140.8
153.9
169.4
179.1
190.8
208.2
56.4
73.9
85.5
95.2
110.8
123.9
136.0
148.1
161.2
176.7
186.5
198.1
215.6
63.7
81.2
92.9
102.6
118.1
131.2
143.3
155.4
168.5
184.1
193.8
205.4
222.9
71.1
88.5
100.2
109.9
125.4
138.5
150.6
162.8
175.9
191.4
201.1
212.7
230.2
78.4
95.8
107.5
117.2
132.7
145.8
157.9
170.1
183.2
198.7
208.4
220.0
237.5
85.7
103.2
114.8
124.5
140.0
153.1
165.3
177.4
190.5
206.0
215.7
227.4
244.8
93.0
110.5
122.1
131.8
147.4
160.5
172.6
184.7
197.8
213.3
223.0
234.7
252.2
100.3
117.8
129.4
139.2
154.7
167.8
179.9
192.0
205.1
220.7
230.4
242.0
259.5
Table A22
Normative data for the TMT-B stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
5.5
23.9
39.4
53.7
68.1
83.6
101.9
113.4
127.2
147.8
14.3
32.7
48.2
62.6
76.9
92.4
110.8
122.2
136.0
156.7
11.7
23.2
41.6
57.1
71.4
85.7
101.2
119.6
131.1
144.9
165.5
20.6
32.0
50.4
65.9
80.2
94.6
110.1
128.5
139.9
153.7
174.4
15.6
29.4
40.9
59.2
74.7
89.1
103.4
118.9
137.3
148.8
162.5
183.2
24.5
38.2
49.7
68.1
83.6
97.9
112.3
127.8
146.1
157.6
171.4
192.1
12.7
33.3
47.1
58.6
76.9
92.4
106.8
121.1
136.6
155.0
166.5
180.2
200.9
21.5
42.2
55.9
67.4
85.8
101.3
115.6
130.0
145.5
163.8
175.3
189.1
209.7
30.3
51.0
64.8
76.3
94.6
110.1
124.5
138.8
154.3
172.7
184.2
197.9
218.6
39.2
59.9
73.6
85.1
103.5
119.0
133.3
147.7
163.2
181.5
193.0
206.8
227.4
48.0
68.7
82.5
93.9
112.3
127.8
142.2
156.5
172.0
190.4
201.8
215.6
236.3
56.9
77.5
91.3
102.8
121.2
136.7
151.0
165.3
180.8
199.2
210.7
224.5
245.1
65.7
86.4
100.2
111.6
130.0
145.5
159.8
174.2
189.7
208.0
219.5
233.3
254.0
Age (Years)
4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
22.8
36.6
48.1
66.5
82.0
96.3
110.7
126.1
144.5
156.0
169.8
190.4
11.0
31.7
45.5
56.9
75.3
90.8
105.1
119.5
135.0
153.4
164.8
178.6
199.3
19.9
40.5
54.3
65.8
84.1
99.6
114.0
128.3
143.8
162.2
173.7
187.5
208.1
28.7
49.4
63.2
74.6
93.0
108.5
122.8
137.2
152.7
171.0
182.5
196.3
217.0
37.6
58.2
72.0
83.5
101.8
117.3
131.7
146.0
161.5
179.9
191.4
205.1
225.8
46.4
67.1
80.8
92.3
110.7
126.2
140.5
154.9
170.4
188.7
200.2
214.0
234.6
55.2
75.9
89.7
101.2
119.5
135.0
149.4
163.7
179.2
197.6
209.1
222.8
243.5
64.1
84.8
98.5
110.0
128.4
143.9
158.2
172.6
188.1
206.4
217.9
231.7
252.3
72.9
93.6
107.4
118.8
137.2
152.7
167.1
181.4
196.9
215.3
226.7
240.5
261.2
81.8
102.4
116.2
127.7
146.1
161.6
175.9
190.2
205.7
224.1
235.6
249.4
270.0
90.6
111.3
125.1
136.5
154.9
170.4
184.7
199.1
214.6
233.0
244.4
258.2
278.9
99.5
120.1
133.9
145.4
163.7
179.2
193.6
207.9
223.4
241.8
253.3
267.0
287.7
108.3
129.0
142.7
154.2
172.6
188.1
202.4
216.8
232.3
250.6
262.1
275.9
296.6
660
Table A23
Normative data for the TMT-B stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
11.1
27.4
42.5
57.7
74.0
93.4
105.5
120.0
141.8
21.7
38.0
53.2
68.3
84.6
104.0
116.1
130.6
152.4
12.9
32.3
48.6
63.8
78.9
95.2
114.6
126.7
141.2
163.0
11.4
23.5
42.9
59.2
74.4
89.5
105.8
125.2
137.3
151.8
173.6
7.5
22.1
34.2
53.5
69.9
85.0
100.1
116.4
135.8
147.9
162.4
184.2
18.1
32.7
44.8
64.1
80.5
95.6
110.7
127.0
146.4
158.5
173.0
194.8
28.7
43.3
55.4
74.7
91.1
106.2
121.3
137.7
157.0
169.1
183.6
205.4
17.6
39.4
53.9
66.0
85.3
101.7
116.8
131.9
148.3
167.6
179.7
194.2
216.0
28.2
50.0
64.5
76.6
95.9
112.3
127.4
142.5
158.9
178.2
190.3
204.9
226.6
38.8
60.6
75.1
87.2
106.6
122.9
138.0
153.1
169.5
188.8
200.9
215.5
237.2
49.4
71.2
85.7
97.8
117.2
133.5
148.6
163.8
180.1
199.4
211.6
226.1
247.9
60.0
81.8
96.3
108.4
127.8
144.1
159.2
174.4
190.7
210.1
222.2
236.7
258.5
70.6
92.4
106.9
119.0
138.4
154.7
169.8
185.0
201.3
220.7
232.8
247.3
269.1
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
7.8
27.2
43.5
58.7
73.8
90.1
109.5
121.6
136.1
157.9
18.4
37.8
54.1
69.3
84.4
100.7
120.1
132.2
146.7
168.5
17.0
29.1
48.4
64.8
79.9
95.0
111.3
130.7
142.8
157.3
179.1
13.0
27.6
39.7
59.0
75.4
90.5
105.6
122.0
141.3
153.4
167.9
189.7
23.6
38.2
50.3
69.6
86.0
101.1
116.2
132.6
151.9
164.0
178.5
200.3
12.5
34.3
48.8
60.9
80.2
96.6
111.7
126.8
143.2
162.5
174.6
189.2
210.9
23.1
44.9
59.4
71.5
90.8
107.2
122.3
137.4
153.8
173.1
185.2
199.8
221.5
33.7
55.5
70.0
82.1
101.5
117.8
132.9
148.0
164.4
183.7
195.8
210.4
232.1
44.3
66.1
80.6
92.7
112.1
128.4
143.5
158.7
175.0
194.4
206.5
221.0
242.8
54.9
76.7
91.2
103.3
122.7
139.0
154.1
169.3
185.6
205.0
217.1
231.6
253.4
65.5
87.3
101.8
113.9
133.3
149.6
164.7
179.9
196.2
215.6
227.7
242.2
264.0
76.1
97.9
112.4
124.5
143.9
160.2
175.3
190.5
206.8
226.2
238.3
252.8
274.6
86.7
108.5
123.0
135.1
154.5
170.8
186.0
201.1
217.4
236.8
248.9
263.4
285.2
Table 24
Normative data for the TMT-B stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
5.5
23.9
39.4
53.7
68.1
83.6
101.9
113.4
127.2
147.8
14.3
32.7
48.2
62.6
76.9
92.4
110.8
122.2
136.0
156.7
11.7
23.2
41.6
57.1
71.4
85.7
101.2
119.6
131.1
144.9
165.5
20.6
32.0
50.4
65.9
80.2
94.6
110.1
128.5
139.9
153.7
174.4
15.6
29.4
40.9
59.2
74.7
89.1
103.4
118.9
137.3
148.8
162.5
183.2
24.5
38.2
49.7
68.1
83.6
97.9
112.3
127.8
146.1
157.6
171.4
192.1
12.7
33.3
47.1
58.6
76.9
92.4
106.8
121.1
136.6
155.0
166.5
180.2
200.9
21.5
42.2
55.9
67.4
85.8
101.3
115.6
130.0
145.5
163.8
175.3
189.1
209.7
30.3
51.0
64.8
76.3
94.6
110.1
124.5
138.8
154.3
172.7
184.2
197.9
218.6
39.2
59.9
73.6
85.1
103.5
119.0
133.3
147.7
163.2
181.5
193.0
206.8
227.4
48.0
68.7
82.5
93.9
112.3
127.8
142.2
156.5
172.0
190.4
201.8
215.6
236.3
56.9
77.5
91.3
102.8
121.2
136.7
151.0
165.3
180.8
199.2
210.7
224.5
245.1
65.7
86.4
100.2
111.6
130.0
145.5
159.8
174.2
189.7
208.0
219.5
233.3
254.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
22.8
36.6
48.1
66.5
82.0
96.3
110.7
126.1
144.5
156.0
169.8
190.4
11.0
31.7
45.5
56.9
75.3
90.8
105.1
119.5
135.0
153.4
164.8
178.6
199.3
19.9
40.5
54.3
65.8
84.1
99.6
114.0
128.3
143.8
162.2
173.7
187.5
208.1
28.7
49.4
63.2
74.6
93.0
108.5
122.8
137.2
152.7
171.0
182.5
196.3
217.0
37.6
58.2
72.0
83.5
101.8
117.3
131.7
146.0
161.5
179.9
191.4
205.1
225.8
46.4
67.1
80.8
92.3
110.7
126.2
140.5
154.9
170.4
188.7
200.2
214.0
234.6
55.2
75.9
89.7
101.2
119.5
135.0
149.4
163.7
179.2
197.6
209.1
222.8
243.5
64.1
84.8
98.5
110.0
128.4
143.9
158.2
172.6
188.1
206.4
217.9
231.7
252.3
72.9
93.6
107.4
118.8
137.2
152.7
167.1
181.4
196.9
215.3
226.7
240.5
261.2
81.8
102.4
116.2
127.7
146.1
161.6
175.9
190.2
205.7
224.1
235.6
249.4
270.0
90.6
111.3
125.1
136.5
154.9
170.4
184.7
199.1
214.6
233.0
244.4
258.2
278.9
99.5
120.1
133.9
145.4
163.7
179.2
193.6
207.9
223.4
241.8
253.3
267.0
287.7
108.3
129.0
142.7
154.2
172.6
188.1
202.4
216.8
232.3
250.6
262.1
275.9
296.6
661
Table 25
Normative data for the TMT-B stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
11.1
27.4
42.5
57.7
74.0
93.4
105.5
120.0
141.8
21.7
38.0
53.2
68.3
84.6
104.0
116.1
130.6
152.4
12.9
32.3
48.6
63.8
78.9
95.2
114.6
126.7
141.2
163.0
11.4
23.5
42.9
59.2
74.4
89.5
105.8
125.2
137.3
151.8
173.6
7.5
22.1
34.2
53.5
69.9
85.0
100.1
116.4
135.8
147.9
162.4
184.2
18.1
32.7
44.8
64.1
80.5
95.6
110.7
127.0
146.4
158.5
173.0
194.8
28.7
43.3
55.4
74.7
91.1
106.2
121.3
137.7
157.0
169.1
183.6
205.4
17.6
39.4
53.9
66.0
85.3
101.7
116.8
131.9
148.3
167.6
179.7
194.2
216.0
28.2
50.0
64.5
76.6
95.9
112.3
127.4
142.5
158.9
178.2
190.3
204.9
226.6
38.8
60.6
75.1
87.2
106.6
122.9
138.0
153.1
169.5
188.8
200.9
215.5
237.2
49.4
71.2
85.7
97.8
117.2
133.5
148.6
163.8
180.1
199.4
211.6
226.1
247.9
60.0
81.8
96.3
108.4
127.8
144.1
159.2
174.4
190.7
210.1
222.2
236.7
258.5
70.6
92.4
106.9
119.0
138.4
154.7
169.8
185.0
201.3
220.7
232.8
247.3
269.1
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
7.8
27.2
43.5
58.7
73.8
90.1
109.5
121.6
136.1
157.9
18.4
37.8
54.1
69.3
84.4
100.7
120.1
132.2
146.7
168.5
17.0
29.1
48.4
64.8
79.9
95.0
111.3
130.7
142.8
157.3
179.1
13.0
27.6
39.7
59.0
75.4
90.5
105.6
122.0
141.3
153.4
167.9
189.7
23.6
38.2
50.3
69.6
86.0
101.1
116.2
132.6
151.9
164.0
178.5
200.3
12.5
34.3
48.8
60.9
80.2
96.6
111.7
126.8
143.2
162.5
174.6
189.2
210.9
23.1
44.9
59.4
71.5
90.8
107.2
122.3
137.4
153.8
173.1
185.2
199.8
221.5
33.7
55.5
70.0
82.1
101.5
117.8
132.9
148.0
164.4
183.7
195.8
210.4
232.1
44.3
66.1
80.6
92.7
112.1
128.4
143.5
158.7
175.0
194.4
206.5
221.0
242.8
54.9
76.7
91.2
103.3
122.7
139.0
154.1
169.3
185.6
205.0
217.1
231.6
253.4
65.5
87.3
101.8
113.9
133.3
149.6
164.7
179.9
196.2
215.6
227.7
242.2
264.0
76.1
97.9
112.4
124.5
143.9
160.2
175.3
190.5
206.8
226.2
238.3
252.8
274.6
86.7
108.5
123.0
135.1
154.5
170.8
186.0
201.1
217.4
236.8
248.9
263.4
285.2
663

DOI:10.3233/NRE-151283
IOS Press
Brief Test of Attention: Normative data

adult population
D. Riveraa , P.B. Perrinb , A. Aliagac , M.T. Garzad , C.P. Sarachoe , W. Rodrguezf , E. Justo-Guilleng ,
A. Aguayoh , S. Schebelai , S. Gulinb , C. Weilj , M. Longonik , N. Ocampo-Barbal , J. Galarza-del-Angelm ,
D. Rodrguezn , L. Esenarroo , P. Garca-Eganp , C. Martnezq and J.C. Arango-Lasprillaa,r,
a Faculty

of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA
c Servicio M
e CETYS University, Mexicali, Mexico
j Escuela de Psicologa, Universidad Dr. Jos
l Fundaci
m Universidad Aut
n Centro investigaciones Medico Quirrgicas CIMEQ, Havana, Cuba
p Departamento de Psicologa, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala
b Department
Abstract.
OBJECTIVE: To generate normative data on the Brief Test of Attention (BTA) across 11 countries in Latin America, with
country-specific adjustments for gender, age, and education, where appropriate.
METHOD: The sample consisted of 3,977 healthy adults who were recruited from Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Paraguay, Honduras,
Chile, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Bolivia. Each subject was administered the BTA as part of a larger
RESULTS: The final multiple linear regression models explained between 1141% of the variance in BTA scores. Although men
had higher scores on the BTA in Honduras, there were no other significant gender differences, and this one effect size was small.
As a result, gender-adjusted norms were not generated.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first normative multicenter study conducted in Latin America to create norms for the BTA; this
study will have an impact on the future practice of neuropsychology throughout Latin America.
Keywords: Normative data, Brief Test of Attention, Reference values, Latin America, auditory-divided attention
Address


jcarango@deusto.es.
E-mail:
664
J.C. Arango-Lasprilla et al. / Brief Test of Attention
1. Introduction
The Brief Test of Attention (BTA; Schretlen, 1997)
is a commonly used neuropsychological measure of
auditory-divided attention that was developed to reduce
the influence of confounding task demands such as
motor speed and visual scanning (Schretlen, Bobholz,
& Brandt, 1996a). Although many tests of attention
require visual acuity or manual dexterity, a primary
advantage of the BTA is that it can be used with individuals with visual and/or motor impairments (Schretlen,
1997).
The BTA is based on a theoretical framework
proposed by Cooley and Morris (1990), which conceptualizes the components of the attention system and
discusses the task demands of attention tests. Because
administration time is only 10 minutes, the instrument is
often administered bedside to detect attentional impairments (Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006). The test
was originally validated on individuals aged 17 to 82
years (Schretlen et al., 1996a). Additional normative
data have been presented for a child sample aged 6 to
14 (Schretlen at al., 1996a).
The BTA consists of two parallel forms, each orally
presented using an audio CD (Schretlen, 1997). Each
form contains a list of alpha-numeric strings which
increase in length from four to 18 characters. In the
first list (Form N), the examinee is asked to count how
many numbers have been presented, while disregarding
the letters. The exact same items are presented on the
second list (Form L), but this time the individuals task is
to count the number of letters presented while ignoring
the letters (Schretlen, 1997). Correct responses receive
a score of 1, with each list ranging in score from 0 to
10. The number of correctly identified items is summed
across both forms, with total raw scores falling between
0 and 20 (Schretlen, 1997).
In contrast to digit span tasks, the subject is not asked
to recall which numbers or letters were presented by
the audiotape. Also, the test author emphasizes that the
BTA was designed to identify deficits in attention rather
than to differentiate between levels of normal attention
(Schretlen, 1997).
Besides Schretlen et al.s (1996) original norms
study, the BTA has been validated for use in patients
with Huntingtons disease and amnesia. This study
demonstrated that non-demented Huntingtons disease
patients performed more poorly on the BTA compared
to normal controls (Schretlen, Brandt, & Bobholz,
1996b). However, the authors did not find any group differences between non-demented amnesic patients and
normal adults, suggesting that intact memory is not

necessary for successful performance (Schretlen et al.,
1996b). In addition, Valos (2006) established validity of
the BTA amongst children who had sustained moderate
and severe traumatic brain injury.
The BTA is a widely used measure of attention in the
neuropsychological literature. It has been used in studies of traumatic brain injury (Rao et al., 2010; Wong,
1999), Parkinsons disease (Troster et al., 1997), sleep
apnea (Aloia et al., 2003), and cancer (Butler et al.,
2008; Correa et al., 2004), as well as psychological
disorders such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia
(Schretlen et al., 2007).
In regard to ecological validity, the BTA has demonstrated high sensitivity (Strauss et al., 2006). Compared
to other tests of cognitive ability (e.g., VIQ, PIQ,
FAS), for example, the BTA was more sensitive in
predicting functional competence, such as activities of
daily living, among adults with severe mental disorders
(Schretlen, Jayaram, Maki, Robinson, & Devilliers,
1997). In addition, the BTA been shown to be significantly correlated with psychosocial outcome among
TBI patients (Schretlen, 1992)
The BTIs reliability is good based on the normative data, with a high coefficient alpha for the whole
test (r = 0.80). When the two forms (Forms L and N)
are compared separately, coefficients are r = 0.69 and
0.65, respectively. In a group of older normal adults
with mild hypertension tested at a 9-month interval,
test-retest stability was 0.70 (Schretlen, 1997).
An examination of correlations with other neuropsychological instruments shows that the BTA correlates
more strongly with measures of attention than with
other cognitive tests (e.g., the Rey-Osterrieth, Boston
Naming Test; Schretlen et al., 1996a). For example,
the BTA correlates with Digits Backward and Forward
(0.53 and 0.43, respectively) as well as Trails A and
B (0.55 and 0.48, respectively; Schretlen, 1997). A
study of head injury patients found that the BTA is particularly significantly correlated with backward digit
span and trail making B (Wong, 1999). Also, the BTA
was shown to be more sensitive to impairments in mild
head injury patients than both Trails A and B (Wong,
1999). Among normal adults, the BTA strongly correlates with all parts of the Stroop (r = 0.660.68), and
among patients, the BTA has the highest correlations
with the Stroop interference trial (Schretlen, 1997).
Several demographic effects (e.g., age, gender, and
ethnicity) have been reported; however, they tend to
be fairly minimal (Schretlen, 1997). Performance on
the BTA is consistently negatively associated with
age, such that starting at about age 60, performance

begins to decline (Schretlen, 1997). Schretlen (1997)
also reported gender effects, with women performing marginally better than men. There are also subtle
race/ethnicity effects, such that African American
adults score slightly lower than Caucasian adults. In the
highest age group, however, African American adults
slightly outperform Caucasians (Schretlen, 1997).
Because demographic variables are only nominally
associated with performance on the BTA, standardized
scores are based solely on age (Schretlen, 1997; Strauss
et al., 2006).
Despite the measures widespread use, only three validation studies have been completed (Schretlen et al.,
1996a, 1996b; Valos, 2006). The normative development sample consisted of individuals between the ages
of 17 and 82 who were geographically located in the
United States (either Baltimore, Maryland or Buffalo,
New York; Schretlen et al., 1996a). Men comprised
37% of the sample and women comprised 63%. The
majority were Caucasian (82%), with 18% identifying as African-American and 0.3% identifying as other
(Schretlen et al., 1996a).
Although numerous neuropsychological studies use
the BTA as a measure of attention, the normative group
was both geographically and ethnically restrictive, and
norms have not yet been established for Hispanic individuals or people living in Latin America. Given the
instruments substantial advantages (e.g., its brevity and
ease of use for individuals with motor and/or visual
impairments), the purpose of the present study was
to create normative data for healthy adult population
across 11 countries in Latin America.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
665

1965).
effect on cognitive performance. Participants were
volunteers from the community and signed an
informed consent. Seven participants were excluded
from the analyses, with a final sample of 3,970
participants. Socio-demographic and participant characteristics for each of the countries samples have been
reported elsewhere (Guàrdia-Olmos, Pero-Cebollero,
Rivera, & Arango-Lasprilla, 2015). The multi-center
study was approved by the Ethics Committee of
the coordinating site, the University of Deusto,
Spain.
The BTA test consists of two equivalent forms that
are administered consecutively (Forms N and L). In the
N form, the subject hears a list of 10 series of letters and
numbers that are intercalated (for example: 5 K 7
H), after which the subject must indicate how many
numbers were mentioned. The series of letters and numbers increase in length, from 4 to 18 items (Schretlen,
et al., 1996a; Spreen & Strauss, 1998). Subsequently,
in the form L, the subjects are presented the same list
series, but this time the subject must indicate how many
letters were mentioned (Schretlen et al., 1996a). The
test is done while the subject holds his or her hands
and keeps them in view of the examiner, in this way
the subject is unable to count with fingers (Spreen &
Strauss, 1998). The total score of each form is equal to
the number of correct answers, and the total score is the
sum of the scores in the forms N and L (Schretlen et al.,
1996a).
normative data for this test are described in GuàrdiaOlmos, et al. 2015. In summary, the data manipulation
process for each country-specific dataset involved five
steps: a) t tests for independent samples and effect
as the reference group (male = 1 and female = 0). b) A
multivariable regression model was used to specify the
predictive model including gender (if effect size was
666

Table 1
Effect of gender in the BTA
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentina
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
16.3 (2.8)
15.8 (2.9)
12.4 (3.9)
11.8 (4.2)
13.7 (3.9)
13.1 (4.2)
14.0 (3.8)
14.1 (3.8)
12.0 (4.8)
11.6 (4.1)
14.8 (3.4)
15.0 (3.8)
12.0 (4.8)
9.1 (5.1)
14.5 (3.8)
14.2 (3.9)
7.8 (4.0)
7.1 (3.0)
15.2 (3.1)
15.3 (3.4)
16.1 (2.9)
16.1 (3.3)
1.38
318
0.169
0.077
1.29
272
0.199
0.078
1.29
318
0.199
0.072
0.30
304
0.761
0.017
0.65
254
0.515
0.041
0.41
212
0.680
0.028
3.72
179
<0.001
0.268
1.23
1,297
0.221
0.034
1.63
172.2
0.106
0.123
0.27
242
0.784
0.018
0.03
291
0.977
0.002
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguaya
Peru
Puerto Rico
a Value
p < 0.001.
larger than 0.3), age as a continuous variable, and education as a dummy coded variable with 1 if the participant
had > 12 years of education and 0 if the participant
had 112 years of education. If gender, age and/or
education was not statistically significant in this multivariate model with an alpha of 0.05, the non-significant
variables were removed, and the model was re-run.
Then a final regression model was conducted that
included age (if statistically significant in the multivariable model), dichotomized education (if statistically
significant in the multivariate model), and/or gender (if
effect size was greater than 0.3) [yi = o + (Age
Agei ) + (Educ Educi ) + (Gender Genderi )]; c)
residual scores were calculated based on this final
model (ei = yi y i ); d) using the SD (residual)
value provided by the regression model, residuals were
standardized: z = ei /SDe , with SDe (residual) = the
standard deviation of the residuals in the normative
sample; and e) standardized residuals were converted
to percentile values (Strauss et al., 2006). Using each
countrys dataset, these steps were applied to BTA
scores.
3. Results
Regarding the effect of gender on BTA scores, the
women in Honduras; however, it did not have an effect

size larger than 0.3. Table 1 shows the results of the
gender analyses by country on BTA scores. As shown
in Table 1, the effect sizes for all countries were less than
generate BTA normative data for any of the countries
in the study.
The final eleven BTA multivariate linear regression
countries, the BTA score increased for those with more
than 12 years of education (see Table 2) and, in all
countries except Guatemala, BTA scores decreased in
a linear fashion as a function of age. The amount of
variance explained in BTA scores ranged from 11% (in
Mexico) to 41% (in Paraguay).
Norms (e.g., a percentile score) for the BTA
scores were established using the five-step procedure
described above. To facilitate the understanding of
the procedure to obtain the percentile associated
with a score on this test, an example will be given.
Suppose you need to find the percentile score for a
Bolivian woman, who is 60 years old and has 7 years
of education. She has a score of 12 on the BTA. The
steps to obtain the percentile for this score are: a)
Check Table 1 to determine if the effect size of gender
667

Table 2
Final multiple linear regression models for BTA
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
16.797
0.036
1.437
14.942
0.059
1.943
16.288
0.063
2.221
16.581
0.061
2.865
13.842
0.056
4.961
13.910
2.683
14.050
0.094
2.590
16.788
0.052
1.200
8.844
0.044
4.793
15.190
0.040
2.765
18.300
0.052
1.031
0.434
0.008
0.302
0.654
0.011
0.610
0.685
0.011
0.500
0.566
0.010
0.451
0.684
0.011
0.566
0.294
0.478
1.047
0.019
0.832
0.296
0.005
0.246
0.699
0.012
0.467
0.539
0.009
0.391
0.578
0.010
0.355
38.740
4.641
4.763
22.836
5.556
3.187
23.763
5.760
4.439
29.309
6.239
6.348
20.250
5.034
8.765
47.299
5.613
13.420
4.862
3.113
56.725
10.396
4.881
12.649
3.663
10.254
28.182
4.376
7.081
31.639
5.412
2.899
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.004
0.139
2.658
0.147
3.786
0.189
3.679
0.219
3.331
0.301
3.671
0.129
3.384
0.187
4.680
0.106
3.654
0.405
2.650
0.259
2.856
0.144
2.921
in the country of interest (Bolivia) on this test and

time point (BTA) is greater than 0.3 by country. The
column labeled r in Table 1 indicates the effect size.
In this example, the effect size is 0.078, which is not
greater than 0.3. For Bolivian on this test, gender does
not influence scores to a sufficient degree to take it
into account gender when determining the percentile.
b) Find Bolivia in Table 2, which provides the final
regression models by country for BTA. Use the B
weights to create an equation that will allow you to
obtain the predicted BTA score. The corresponding
B weights are multiplied by the actual age and
the predicted BTA score would be calculated using
the equation [yi = 14.942 + (0.059 Agei ) +
(1.943 Dichotomized Educational Leveli )]
(the
values have been rounded for presentation in the
formula). The subscript notation i indicates the person
of interest. The persons age is 60, but the education
variable is not continuous in the model. Years of
education is split into either 1 to 12 years (and

assigned a 0) or more than 12 years (and assigned
a 1) in the model. Since our hypothetical person
in the example has 7 years of education, her educational level value is 0. Thus the predicted value
is y i = 14.942 + (0.059 60) + (1.943 0) =
14.942 3.517 + 0 = 11.424. c) In order to
this case, it would be ei = 12 11.42 = 0.576. d)
Next, consult the SDe column in Table 2 to obtain the
country-specific SDe (residual) value. For Bolivia, it is
3.786. Using this value, we can transform the residual
value to a standardized z score using the equation
(ei /SDe ). In this case, we have 0.576/3.786 = 0.152.
This is the standardized z score for a Bolivian woman
aged 60 and 7 years of education and a score of 12 on
the BNT. e) The last step is to use look up the tables
in the statistical reference books (e.g. Strauss et al.,
2006) or use a trusted online calculator like the one
668
available at http://www.measuringu.com/pcalcz.php.
In the online calculator, you would enter the z score
and choose a one-sided test and note the percent
of area after hitting the submit button. In this case,
the probability of 0.152 corresponds to the 56th
percentile.
3.2. User-friendly normative data Tables
Guàrdia-Olmos, et al., 2015) and created tables so that
(BTA) in the Appendix. In order to obtain an approximate percentile for the above example (converting a
raw score of 12 for a Bolivian women who is 60 years
old and has 7 years of education) using the simplified normative tables provided, the following steps are
table for BTA scores for Bolivia can be found in Table
A2. (2) Note if the title of the table indicates that it is
only to be used for one specific gender. In this case,
gender is not specified. Thus Table A2 is used for both
males and females. (3) Next, the table is divided based
on educational level (1 to 12 vs. more than 12 years
of education). Since this woman has 7 years of education, she falls into the 1 to 12 years of education
category. These data can be found in the low section
of the table. (4) Determine the age range most appropriate for the individual. In this case, 60 fall into the
raw score the person obtained on the test. Reading down
the 5862 column, the score of 12 obtained by this Bolivian woman corresponds to an approximate percentile
of 60.
4. Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to generate normative data on the BTA across 11 countries in Latin
1141% of the variance in BTA scores. Although men
had higher scores on the BTA in Honduras, there were
no other significant gender differences, and this one
effect size in Honduras was small. As a result, genderadjusted norms were not generated. These findings are
generally in line with the previous literature which has
found that gender effects are quite minimal on the BTA,
although one previous study found women to perform
marginally better than men (Schretlen, 1997). In light of
the previous literature, the current results suggest that
participants percentiles for the BTA in Latin America
when using the current norms.
BTA scores increased linearly as a function of education in all countries. To the authors knowledge, no
previous studies have found BTA scores to be associated
with education, so this likely represents a unique finding
from the current study. As a result, neuropsychologists should use education-adjusted norms generated
for each country when administering the BTA in that
country, especially because of potentially major differences in the quality of education in different regions of
Latin America.
BTA scores were inversely associated with age in
all countries in the current study, and as a result, ageadjusted norms are presented by country. These age
findings are similar to those from previous studies
which have shown lower BTA scores in older adults,
especially starting at age 60 when performance begins
to decline (Schretlen, 1997). Similarly to education,
neuropsychologists in Latin America should use the
age-adjusted norms by country generated in the current
study.
This study has several limitations, and as a result
directions for future research. First, this study was subject to a number of sampling limitations. First, although
the BTA is an extremely common neuropsychological measure in Latin America, many other common
assessments need to be normed in the same manner as
the current study. Future research should examine the
psychometrics of other common instruments in Latin
America. Research should also examine the ecological validity of various neuropsychological assessments
in this region, and if not, create instruments in those
cultures that have better ecological validity. Indeed, the
BTA has been shown to have good sensitivity in predicting activities of daily living among adults with severe
mental disorders (Schretlen et al., 1997), but nonetheless the BTA was created in a Western culture that may
differ from those in Latin America. Future research
should develop culturally sensitive assessments within
local cultures, not just translate and norm tests from
other cultures and countries as occurred in the current
study.
Second, participants all spoke Spanish as their primary language, but BTA performance could be different
among people who speak various secondary languages.
An important area for future research is bilingualism and performance on the BTA which was not
assessed in the current study. Also, the data were collected in specific regions of the countries in the current
study, not nationally. This study represents the largest
neuropsychological normative study in the history of
Latin America for the BTA, as well as in any global
region, but it is only a first step in for larger studies
with nationally representative samples. Many participants had fewer than 12 years of education, but those
unable to read or write were excluded. As a result,
the norms from the current study are limited in their
ability to generalize to illiterate adults. Similarly, participants in the current study were excluded if they had
a history of neurological conditions, so future studies should include neurological populations, as well as
children.
Third, clinicians exercise caution in applying the
BTA norms from this study to individuals in countries
beyond the 11 countries from which data were collected. Future studies should establish BTA norms in
other Latin American countries including as Ecuador,
Uruguay, Venezuela, and Panama. However, these BTA
norms may be more accurate in those countries than
other norms currently in use. This generalizability is a
critical area for future research.
Despite these limitations and because no Spanish
norms have yet been established for the BTA, this study
was the first to generate BTA norms across 11 countries
in Latin America with nearly 4,000 participants. As a
result, this was the largest and most comprehensive BTA
normative study conducted in any global region, and its
norms will likely affect the standard of neuropsychological assessment with the BTA in Latin America unlike
any study before it.
669
References
Aloia, M.S., Ilniczky, N., Di Dio, P., Perlis, M.L., Greenblatt,
D.W., & Giles, D.E (2003). Neuropsychological changes and
treatment compliance in older adults with sleep apnea. Journal
of Psychosomatic Research, 54(1), 71-76. doi: 10.1016/S00223999(02)00548-2
Butler, R. W., Copeland, D. R., Fairclough, D. L., Mulhern, R.
K., Katz, E. R., Kazak, A. E., & Sahler, O. J. Z. (2008). A
multicenter, randomized clinical trial of a cognitive remediation
program for childhood survivors of a pediatric malignancy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(3), 367-378. doi:
10.1037/0022-006X.76.3.367
Cooley, E. L., & Morris, R. D. (1990). Attention in children: A neuropsychologically based model for assessment. Developmental Neuropsychology, 6(3), 239274. doi:
10.1080/87565649009540465
Correa, D. D., DeAngelis, L. M., Shi, W., Thaler, H., Glass, A., &
Abrey, L. E. (2004). Cognitive functions in survivors of primary
central nervous system lymphoma. Neurology, 62(4), 548-555.
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nor186
Folstein M.F., Folstein S.E., & McHugh P.R. (1975). Mini-mental
state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of
patients for the clinician. Journal of psychiatric research, 12(3),
189-198.
493-499.
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R.L., & Williams, J.B. (2001). The PHQ-9.
Mahoney, F.I., & Barthel, D. (1965). Functional evaluation: The
Rao, V., Bertrand, M., Rosenberg, P., Makley, M., Schretlen, D. J.,
Brandt, J., & Mielke, M. M. (2010). Predictors of new-onset
depression after mild traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 22(1), 100-104. doi:
10.1176/appi.neuropsych.22.1.100
Schretlen, D. (1992). Accounting for variance in long-term recovery
from traumatic brain injury with executive abilities and injury
severity [Abstract]. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 14, 77.
Schretlen D. (1997). Brief test of attention professional manual Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa. FL.
Schretlen, D. J., Cascella, N. G., Myer, S. M., Kingery, L. R., Testa,
S. M., Munro, C. A., et al. (2007). Neuropsychological functioning in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry,
62(2), 179-186. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.09.025
Schretlen, D., Bobholz, J., & Brandt, J. (1996a). Development and psychometric properties of the brief test of
attention. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 10(1), 80-89. doi:
10.1080/13854049608406666
Schretlen, D., Brandt, J., & Bobholz, J. H. (1996b). Validation of
the brief test of attention in patients with Huntingtons disease and amnesia. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 10(1), 9095. doi:
10.1080/13854049608406667
Schretlen D., Jayaram G., Maki P., Robinson H., & Devilliers C.
(1997). Functional correlates of neurocognitive deficits in adults
with severe mental disorders [Abstract]. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 3, 25.
670
Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary (2nd ed.)
Oxford University Press, New York.
Strauss, E., Sherman, E.M., & Spreen, O. (2006). A Compendium
of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary. New York: Oxford University Press.
Troster, A. I., Fields, J. A., Wilkinson, S. B., Pahwa, R., Miyawaki,
E., Lyons, K. E., & Koller, W. C. (1997). Unilateral pallidal
stimulation for Parkinsons disease: Neurobehavioral functioning before and 3 months after electrode implantation. Neurology,
49(4), 1078-1083. doi: 10.1212/WNL.49.4.1078
Valos A.M. (2006). Validity and sensitivity of the Brief Test of

Attention for children who have sustained moderate and severe
traumatic brain injury. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 66(7-B), 3962.
Wong, T. M. (1999). Validity and sensitivity of the brief test
of attention with acute brain injury and mild head injury
patients. [Abstract]. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14(8),
617818.
671
Appendix
Table A1
Normative data for the BTA stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
19.8
18.9
18.2
17.5
16.9
16.1
15.3
14.8
14.1
13.2
20.0
19.6
18.7
18.0
17.3
16.7
16.0
15.1
14.6
13.9
13.0
20.0
19.9
19.4
18.5
17.8
17.2
16.5
15.8
14.9
14.4
13.8
12.8
20.0
19.7
19.2
18.4
17.6
17.0
16.3
15.6
14.7
14.2
13.6
12.6
20.0
19.6
19.0
18.2
17.5
16.8
16.1
15.4
14.6
14.0
13.4
12.4
20.0
19.4
18.9
18.0
17.3
16.6
16.0
15.2
14.4
13.9
13.2
12.3
20.0
19.8
19.2
18.7
17.8
17.1
16.4
15.8
15.1
14.2
13.7
13.0
12.1
20.0
19.7
19.0
18.5
17.6
16.9
16.3
15.6
14.9
14.0
13.5
12.9
11.9
20.0
19.5
18.8
18.3
17.5
16.7
16.1
15.4
14.7
13.9
13.3
12.7
11.7
20.0
19.3
18.7
18.1
17.3
16.6
15.9
15.2
14.5
13.7
13.1
12.5
11.5
20.0
19.1
18.5
18.0
17.1
16.4
15.7
15.1
14.3
13.5
13.0
12.3
11.4
19.9
19.0
18.3
17.8
16.9
16.2
15.5
14.9
14.2
13.3
12.8
12.1
11.2
19.7
18.8
18.1
17.6
16.8
16.0
15.4
14.7
14.0
13.1
12.6
12.0
11.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
19.5
18.8
18.3
17.5
16.7
16.1
15.4
14.7
13.8
13.3
12.7
11.7
20.0
19.3
18.7
18.1
17.3
16.6
15.9
15.2
14.5
13.7
13.1
12.5
11.5
20.0
19.1
18.5
18.0
17.1
16.4
15.7
15.1
14.3
13.5
13.0
12.3
11.4
19.9
18.9
18.3
17.8
16.9
16.2
15.5
14.9
14.2
13.3
12.8
12.1
11.2
19.7
18.8
18.1
17.6
16.7
16.0
15.4
14.7
14.0
13.1
12.6
12.0
11.0
19.5
18.6
17.9
17.4
16.6
15.8
15.2
14.5
13.8
13.0
12.4
11.8
10.8
19.4
18.4
17.8
17.2
16.4
15.7
15.0
14.3
13.6
12.8
12.2
11.6
10.6
19.2
18.2
17.6
17.1
16.2
15.5
14.8
14.2
13.4
12.6
12.1
11.4
10.5
19.0
18.1
17.4
16.9
16.0
15.3
14.6
14.0
13.3
12.4
11.9
11.2
10.3
18.8
17.9
17.2
16.7
15.9
15.1
14.5
13.8
13.1
12.2
11.7
11.1
10.1
18.6
17.7
17.1
16.5
15.7
15.0
14.3
13.6
12.9
12.1
11.5
10.9
9.9
18.5
17.5
16.9
16.3
15.5
14.8
14.1
13.4
12.7
11.9
11.3
10.7
9.8
18.3
17.3
16.7
16.2
15.3
14.6
13.9
13.3
12.5
11.7
11.2
10.5
9.6
Table A2
Normative data for the BTA stratified by age and education levels for BOLIVIA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
19.6
18.9
17.7
16.7
15.7
14.8
13.7
12.5
11.8
10.9
9.5
20.0
19.4
18.6
17.4
16.4
15.4
14.5
13.5
12.2
11.5
10.6
9.2
20.0
19.1
18.3
17.1
16.1
15.1
14.2
13.2
11.9
11.2
10.3
8.9
20.0
19.7
18.8
18.0
16.8
15.8
14.8
13.9
12.9
11.7
10.9
10.0
8.6
20.0
19.4
18.5
17.7
16.5
15.5
14.5
13.6
12.6
11.4
10.6
9.7
8.3
20.0
19.1
18.2
17.4
16.2
15.2
14.2
13.3
12.3
11.1
10.3
9.4
8.0
20.0
18.8
17.9
17.1
15.9
14.9
14.0
13.0
12.0
10.8
10.0
9.1
7.7
19.9
18.5
17.6
16.8
15.6
14.6
13.7
12.7
11.7
10.5
9.7
8.8
7.5
19.6
18.2
17.3
16.5
15.3
14.3
13.4
12.4
11.4
10.2
9.4
8.5
7.2
19.3
17.9
17.0
16.3
15.0
14.0
13.1
12.1
11.1
9.9
9.1
8.2
6.9
19.0
17.6
16.7
16.0
14.7
13.7
12.8
11.8
10.8
9.6
8.8
7.9
6.6
18.7
17.3
16.4
15.7
14.5
13.4
12.5
11.5
10.5
9.3
8.6
7.6
6.3
18.4
17.0
16.1
15.4
14.2
13.1
12.2
11.2
10.2
9.0
8.3
7.3
6.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
18.6
17.7
16.9
15.7
14.7
13.8
12.8
11.8
10.6
9.8
8.9
7.6
19.7
18.3
17.4
16.7
15.4
14.4
13.5
12.5
11.5
10.3
9.5
8.6
7.3
19.4
18.0
17.1
16.4
15.2
14.1
13.2
12.2
11.2
10.0
9.2
8.3
7.0
19.1
17.7
16.8
16.1
14.9
13.8
12.9
11.9
10.9
9.7
9.0
8.0
6.7
18.8
17.4
16.5
15.8
14.6
13.5
12.6
11.7
10.6
9.4
8.7
7.8
6.4
18.5
17.1
16.2
15.5
14.3
13.2
12.3
11.4
10.3
9.1
8.4
7.5
6.1
18.2
16.9
15.9
15.2
14.0
13.0
12.0
11.1
10.0
8.8
8.1
7.2
5.8
17.9
16.6
15.7
14.9
13.7
12.7
11.7
10.8
9.7
8.5
7.8
6.9
5.5
17.6
16.3
15.4
14.6
13.4
12.4
11.4
10.5
9.5
8.2
7.5
6.6
5.2
17.3
16.0
15.1
14.3
13.1
12.1
11.1
10.2
9.2
8.0
7.2
6.3
4.9
17.0
15.7
14.8
14.0
12.8
11.8
10.8
9.9
8.9
7.7
6.9
6.0
4.6
16.8
15.4
14.5
13.7
12.5
11.5
10.5
9.6
8.6
7.4
6.6
5.7
4.3
16.5
15.1
14.2
13.4
12.2
11.2
10.3
9.3
8.3
7.1
6.3
5.4
4.0
672

Table A3
Normative data for the BTA stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
19.2
18.2
17.2
16.3
15.3
14.1
13.4
12.5
11.2
20.0
18.8
17.8
16.9
16.0
15.0
13.8
13.1
12.2
10.9
20.0
19.7
18.5
17.5
16.6
15.7
14.7
13.5
12.8
11.9
10.6
20.0
19.4
18.2
17.2
16.3
15.4
14.4
13.2
12.5
11.6
10.3
20.0
19.8
19.1
17.9
16.9
16.0
15.1
14.1
12.9
12.1
11.3
9.9
20.0
19.5
18.7
17.6
16.6
15.7
14.7
13.7
12.6
11.8
10.9
9.6
20.0
19.2
18.4
17.3
16.3
15.3
14.4
13.4
12.2
11.5
10.6
9.3
20.0
19.7
18.8
18.1
16.9
15.9
15.0
14.1
13.1
11.9
11.2
10.3
9.0
20.0
19.4
18.5
17.8
16.6
15.6
14.7
13.8
12.8
11.6
10.9
10.0
8.7
20.0
19.1
18.2
17.5
16.3
15.3
14.4
13.5
12.5
11.3
10.6
9.7
8.4
20.0
18.8
17.9
17.2
16.0
15.0
14.1
13.2
12.2
11.0
10.2
9.4
8.0
19.8
18.5
17.6
16.8
15.7
14.7
13.8
12.8
11.8
10.7
9.9
9.0
7.7
19.5
18.1
17.3
16.5
15.3
14.4
13.4
12.5
11.5
10.3
9.6
8.7
7.4
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
19.7
18.8
18.1
16.9
15.9
15.0
14.1
13.1
11.9
11.2
10.3
9.0
20.0
19.4
18.5
17.8
16.6
15.6
14.7
13.8
12.8
11.6
10.9
10.0
8.7
20.0
19.1
18.2
17.5
16.3
15.3
14.4
13.5
12.5
11.3
10.6
9.7
8.4
20.0
18.8
17.9
17.2
16.0
15.0
14.1
13.1
12.2
11.0
10.2
9.4
8.0
19.8
18.5
17.6
16.8
15.7
14.7
13.8
12.8
11.8
10.7
9.9
9.0
7.7
19.5
18.1
17.3
16.5
15.3
14.4
13.4
12.5
11.5
10.3
9.6
8.7
7.4
19.2
17.8
16.9
16.2
15.0
14.0
13.1
12.2
11.2
10.0
9.3
8.4
7.1
18.8
17.5
16.6
15.9
14.7
13.7
12.8
11.9
10.9
9.7
9.0
8.1
6.8
18.5
17.2
16.3
15.6
14.4
13.4
12.5
11.6
10.6
9.4
8.7
7.8
6.4
18.2
16.9
16.0
15.3
14.1
13.1
12.2
11.2
10.3
9.1
8.3
7.5
6.1
17.9
16.6
15.7
14.9
13.8
12.8
11.8
10.9
9.9
8.8
8.0
7.1
5.8
17.6
16.2
15.4
14.6
13.4
12.5
11.5
10.6
9.6
8.4
7.7
6.8
5.5
17.2
15.9
15.0
14.3
13.1
12.1
11.2
10.3
9.3
8.1
7.4
6.5
5.2
Table A4
Normative data for the BTA stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
19.1
18.2
17.4
16.5
15.4
14.8
14.0
12.8
20.0
19.7
18.8
17.9
17.1
16.2
15.1
14.5
13.7
12.5
20.0
19.4
18.5
17.6
16.8
15.9
14.8
14.2
13.4
12.2
20.0
19.1
18.2
17.3
16.5
15.6
14.5
13.9
13.1
11.9
20.0
19.8
18.8
17.9
17.0
16.2
15.3
14.2
13.6
12.8
11.6
20.0
19.5
18.4
17.6
16.7
15.9
15.0
13.9
13.3
12.5
11.3
20.0
19.9
19.2
18.1
17.2
16.4
15.6
14.7
13.6
13.0
12.2
11.0
20.0
19.6
18.9
17.8
16.9
16.1
15.3
14.4
13.3
12.6
11.8
10.6
20.0
19.3
18.6
17.5
16.6
15.8
15.0
14.1
13.0
12.3
11.5
10.3
20.0
19.8
19.0
18.3
17.2
16.3
15.5
14.7
13.8
12.7
12.0
11.2
10.0
20.0
19.5
18.7
18.0
16.9
16.0
15.2
14.4
13.5
12.4
11.7
10.9
9.7
20.0
19.2
18.4
17.7
16.6
15.7
14.9
14.1
13.2
12.1
11.4
10.6
9.4
20.0
18.9
18.1
17.4
16.3
15.4
14.6
13.8
12.9
11.8
11.1
10.3
9.1
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
19.6
18.8
18.2
17.1
16.2
15.4
14.5
13.6
12.6
11.9
11.1
9.9
20.0
19.3
18.5
17.9
16.8
15.9
15.1
14.2
13.3
12.3
11.6
10.8
9.6
20.0
19.0
18.2
17.6
16.5
15.6
14.8
13.9
13.0
12.0
11.3
10.5
9.3
19.9
18.7
17.9
17.3
16.2
15.3
14.5
13.6
12.7
11.7
11.0
10.2
9.0
19.6
18.4
17.6
17.0
15.9
15.0
14.2
13.3
12.4
11.4
10.7
9.9
8.7
19.3
18.1
17.3
16.7
15.6
14.7
13.9
13.0
12.1
11.1
10.4
9.6
8.4
19.0
17.8
17.0
16.3
15.3
14.4
13.5
12.7
11.8
10.8
10.1
9.3
8.1
18.7
17.5
16.7
16.0
15.0
14.1
13.2
12.4
11.5
10.4
9.8
9.0
7.8
18.4
17.2
16.4
15.7
14.7
13.8
12.9
12.1
11.2
10.1
9.5
8.7
7.5
18.1
16.9
16.1
15.4
14.4
13.5
12.6
11.8
10.9
9.8
9.2
8.4
7.2
17.8
16.6
15.8
15.1
14.1
13.2
12.3
11.5
10.6
9.5
8.9
8.1
6.9
17.5
16.3
15.5
14.8
13.8
12.9
12.0
11.2
10.3
9.2
8.6
7.8
6.6
17.2
16.0
15.2
14.5
13.5
12.6
11.7
10.9
10.0
8.9
8.3
7.5
6.3
673

Table A5
Normative data for the BTA stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
19.6
18.6
17.7
16.8
15.8
14.6
13.9
13.0
11.7
20.0
19.3
18.3
17.4
16.5
15.5
14.3
13.6
12.7
11.4
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.1
16.2
15.2
14.0
13.3
12.4
11.1
20.0
19.9
18.7
17.8
16.8
15.9
14.9
13.8
13.0
12.1
10.8
20.0
19.6
18.5
17.5
16.6
15.6
14.6
13.5
12.7
11.9
10.5
20.0
19.4
18.2
17.2
16.3
15.4
14.4
13.2
12.5
11.6
10.3
20.0
19.8
19.1
17.9
16.9
16.0
15.1
14.1
12.9
12.2
11.3
10.0
20.0
19.5
18.8
17.6
16.6
15.7
14.8
13.8
12.6
11.9
11.0
9.7
20.0
19.3
18.5
17.3
16.4
15.4
14.5
13.5
12.4
11.6
10.7
9.4
20.0
19.9
19.0
18.2
17.1
16.1
15.2
14.2
13.2
12.1
11.3
10.5
9.1
20.0
19.6
18.7
18.0
16.8
15.8
14.9
14.0
13.0
11.8
11.1
10.2
8.9
20.0
19.3
18.4
17.7
16.5
15.5
14.6
13.7
12.7
11.5
10.8
9.9
8.6
20.0
19.0
18.1
17.4
16.2
15.2
14.3
13.4
12.4
11.2
10.5
9.6
8.3
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
18.7
17.4
16.5
15.8
14.6
13.6
12.7
11.8
10.8
9.6
8.9
8.0
6.7
18.5
17.1
16.3
15.5
14.3
13.4
12.4
11.5
10.5
9.4
8.6
7.7
6.4
18.2
16.9
16.0
15.2
14.1
13.1
12.2
11.2
10.2
9.1
8.3
7.5
6.1
17.9
16.6
15.7
15.0
13.8
12.8
11.9
11.0
10.0
8.8
8.1
7.2
5.9
17.6
16.3
15.4
14.7
13.5
12.5
11.6
10.7
9.7
8.5
7.8
6.9
5.6
17.3
16.0
15.1
14.4
13.2
12.2
11.3
10.4
9.4
8.2
7.5
6.6
5.3
17.1
15.7
14.9
14.1
12.9
12.0
11.0
10.1
9.1
8.0
7.2
6.3
5.0
16.8
15.5
14.6
13.8
12.7
11.7
10.8
9.8
8.8
7.7
6.9
6.1
4.7
16.5
15.2
14.3
13.6
12.4
11.4
10.5
9.6
8.6
7.4
6.7
5.8
4.5
16.2
14.9
14.0
13.3
12.1
11.1
10.2
9.3
8.3
7.1
6.4
5.5
4.2
15.9
14.6
13.7
13.0
11.8
10.8
9.9
9.0
8.0
6.8
6.1
5.2
3.9
15.7
14.3
13.5
12.7
11.5
10.6
9.6
8.7
7.7
6.5
5.8
4.9
3.6
15.4
14.1
13.2
12.4
11.3
10.3
9.4
8.4
7.4
6.3
5.5
4.7
3.3
Table A6
Normative data for the BTA stratified by education levels for GUATEMALA
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
19.5
18.3
17.5
16.8
15.7
14.8
13.9
13.1
12.1
11.1
10.4
9.6
8.3
20.0
19.5
18.4
17.5
16.6
15.8
14.8
13.7
13.1
12.2
11.0
674

Table A7
Normative data for the BTA stratified by age and education levels for HONDURAS
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
19.6
18.7
17.2
15.9
14.8
13.6
12.3
10.8
9.9
8.8
7.1
20.0
19.2
18.2
16.7
15.5
14.3
13.1
11.9
10.4
9.4
8.3
6.6
20.0
19.8
18.7
17.8
16.3
15.0
13.8
12.7
11.4
9.9
9.0
7.8
6.2
20.0
19.4
18.2
17.3
15.8
14.5
13.4
12.2
10.9
9.4
8.5
7.4
5.7
20.0
18.9
17.8
16.8
15.3
14.1
12.9
11.7
10.5
9.0
8.0
6.9
5.2
20.0
18.4
17.3
16.4
14.9
13.6
12.4
11.3
10.0
8.5
7.6
6.4
4.8
19.6
18.0
16.8
15.9
14.4
13.1
12.0
10.8
9.5
8.0
7.1
6.0
4.3
19.2
17.5
16.4
15.4
13.9
12.7
11.5
10.3
9.1
7.6
6.6
5.5
3.8
18.7
17.0
15.9
15.0
13.5
12.2
11.0
9.9
8.6
7.1
6.2
5.0
3.4
18.2
16.6
15.4
14.5
13.0
11.7
10.6
9.4
8.1
6.6
5.7
4.6
2.9
17.8
16.1
15.0
14.0
12.5
11.3
10.1
8.9
7.7
6.2
5.2
4.1
2.4
17.3
15.6
14.5
13.6
12.1
10.8
9.6
8.5
7.2
5.7
4.8
3.6
1.9
16.8
15.1
14.0
13.1
11.6
10.3
9.2
8.0
6.7
5.2
4.3
3.2
1.5
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
19.9
18.2
17.0
16.1
14.6
13.3
12.2
11.0
9.7
8.2
7.3
6.2
4.5
19.4
17.7
16.6
15.6
14.1
12.9
11.7
10.5
9.3
7.8
6.8
5.7
4.0
18.9
17.2
16.1
15.2
13.7
12.4
11.2
10.1
8.8
7.3
6.4
5.3
3.6
18.5
16.8
15.6
14.7
13.2
11.9
10.8
9.6
8.3
6.8
5.9
4.8
3.1
18.0
16.3
15.2
14.2
12.7
11.5
10.3
9.1
7.9
6.4
5.4
4.3
2.6
17.5
15.8
14.7
13.8
12.3
11.0
9.8
8.7
7.4
5.9
5.0
3.9
2.2
17.0
15.4
14.2
13.3
11.8
10.5
9.4
8.2
6.9
5.4
4.5
3.4
1.7
16.6
14.9
13.8
12.8
11.3
10.1
8.9
7.7
6.5
5.0
4.0
2.9
1.2
16.1
14.4
13.3
12.4
10.9
9.6
8.4
7.3
6.0
4.5
3.6
2.4
0.8
15.6
14.0
12.8
11.9
10.4
9.1
8.0
6.8
5.5
4.0
3.1
2.0
0.3
15.2
13.5
12.4
11.4
9.9
8.7
7.5
6.3
5.1
3.6
2.6
1.5
14.7
13.0
11.9
11.0
9.5
8.2
7.0
5.9
4.6
3.1
2.2
1.0
14.2
12.6
11.4
10.5
9.0
7.7
6.6
5.4
4.1
2.6
1.7
.6
Table A8
Normative data for the BTA stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
18.8
17.9
16.9
16.0
15.0
13.9
13.1
12.3
11.0
20.0
19.8
18.6
17.6
16.7
15.8
14.8
13.6
12.9
12.0
10.7
20.0
19.5
18.3
17.3
16.4
15.5
14.5
13.4
12.6
11.7
10.4
20.0
19.2
18.1
17.1
16.2
15.2
14.3
13.1
12.4
11.5
10.2
20.0
19.7
19.0
17.8
16.8
15.9
15.0
14.0
12.8
12.1
11.2
9.9
20.0
19.4
18.7
17.5
16.6
15.6
14.7
13.7
12.6
11.8
11.0
9.6
20.0
19.2
18.5
17.3
16.3
15.4
14.5
13.5
12.3
11.6
10.7
9.4
20.0
19.8
18.9
18.2
17.0
16.0
15.1
14.2
13.2
12.1
11.3
10.4
9.1
20.0
19.5
18.7
17.9
16.8
15.8
14.9
13.9
13.0
11.8
11.1
10.2
8.9
20.0
19.3
18.4
17.7
16.5
15.5
14.6
13.7
12.7
11.5
10.8
9.9
8.6
20.0
19.0
18.1
17.4
16.2
15.3
14.3
13.4
12.4
11.3
10.5
9.7
8.3
20.0
18.8
17.9
17.1
16.0
15.0
14.1
13.2
12.2
11.0
10.3
9.4
8.1
19.8
18.5
17.6
16.9
15.7
14.7
13.8
12.9
11.9
10.7
10.0
9.1
7.8
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
20.0
19.5
18.8
17.6
16.7
15.7
14.8
13.8
12.7
11.9
11.1
9.8
20.0
20.0
19.3
18.6
17.4
16.4
15.5
14.6
13.6
12.4
11.7
10.8
9.5
20.0
19.9
19.0
18.3
17.1
16.1
15.2
14.3
13.3
12.2
11.4
10.5
9.2
20.0
19.6
18.8
18.0
16.9
15.9
15.0
14.0
13.1
11.9
11.2
10.3
9.0
20.0
19.4
18.5
17.8
16.6
15.6
14.7
13.8
12.8
11.6
10.9
10.0
8.7
20.0
19.1
18.2
17.5
16.3
15.4
14.4
13.5
12.5
11.4
10.6
9.8
8.4
20.0
18.9
18.0
17.3
16.1
15.1
14.2
13.3
12.3
11.1
10.4
9.5
8.2
19.9
18.6
17.7
17.0
15.8
14.8
13.9
13.0
12.0
10.9
10.1
9.2
7.9
19.7
18.3
17.5
16.7
15.6
14.6
13.7
12.7
11.8
10.6
9.9
9.0
7.7
19.4
18.1
17.2
16.5
15.3
14.3
13.4
12.5
11.5
10.3
9.6
8.7
7.4
19.1
17.8
16.9
16.2
15.0
14.1
13.1
12.2
11.2
10.1
9.3
8.5
7.1
18.9
17.6
16.7
15.9
14.8
13.8
12.9
12.0
11.0
9.8
9.1
8.2
6.9
18.6
17.3
16.4
15.7
14.5
13.5
12.6
11.7
10.7
9.5
8.8
7.9
6.6
675

Table A9
Normative data for the BTA stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
17.1
16.1
15.5
15.0
14.1
13.4
12.7
12.1
11.4
10.5
10.0
9.4
8.4
16.9
15.9
15.3
14.8
13.9
13.2
12.5
11.9
11.2
10.3
9.8
9.1
8.2
16.7
15.7
15.1
14.5
13.7
13.0
12.3
11.6
10.9
10.1
9.6
8.9
8.0
16.4
15.5
14.8
14.3
13.5
12.7
12.1
11.4
10.7
9.9
9.3
8.7
7.7
16.2
15.3
14.6
14.1
13.2
12.5
11.9
11.2
10.5
9.6
9.1
8.5
7.5
16.0
15.0
14.4
13.9
13.0
12.3
11.6
11.0
10.3
9.4
8.9
8.2
7.3
15.8
14.8
14.2
13.6
12.8
12.1
11.4
10.8
10.0
9.2
8.7
8.0
7.1
15.5
14.6
14.0
13.4
12.6
11.9
11.2
10.5
9.8
9.0
8.4
7.8
6.9
15.3
14.4
13.7
13.2
12.4
11.6
11.0
10.3
9.6
8.7
8.2
7.6
6.6
15.1
14.1
13.5
13.0
12.1
11.4
10.8
10.1
9.4
8.5
8.0
7.4
6.4
14.9
13.9
13.3
12.8
11.9
11.2
10.5
9.9
9.2
8.3
7.8
7.1
6.2
14.7
13.7
13.1
12.5
11.7
11.0
10.3
9.6
8.9
8.1
7.6
6.9
6.0
14.4
13.5
12.8
12.3
11.5
10.7
10.1
9.4
8.7
7.9
7.3
6.7
5.7
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.3
11.3
10.7
10.2
9.3
8.6
8.0
7.3
6.6
5.7
5.2
4.6
3.6
12.1
11.1
10.5
10.0
9.1
8.4
7.7
7.1
6.4
5.5
5.0
4.3
3.4
11.9
10.9
10.3
9.7
8.9
8.2
7.5
6.9
6.1
5.3
4.8
4.1
3.2
11.6
10.7
10.0
9.5
8.7
8.0
7.3
6.6
5.9
5.1
4.5
3.9
2.9
11.4
10.5
9.8
9.3
8.4
7.7
7.1
6.4
5.7
4.8
4.3
3.7
2.7
11.2
10.2
9.6
9.1
8.2
7.5
6.8
6.2
5.5
4.6
4.1
3.5
2.5
11.0
10.0
9.4
8.9
8.0
7.3
6.6
6.0
5.2
4.4
3.9
3.2
2.3
10.7
9.8
9.2
8.6
7.8
7.1
6.4
5.7
5.0
4.2
3.6
3.0
2.1
10.5
9.6
8.9
8.4
7.6
6.8
6.2
5.5
4.8
4.0
3.4
2.8
1.8
10.3
9.4
8.7
8.2
7.3
6.6
6.0
5.3
4.6
3.7
3.2
2.6
1.6
10.1
9.1
8.5
8.0
7.1
6.4
5.7
5.1
4.4
3.5
3.0
2.3
1.4
9.9
8.9
8.3
7.7
6.9
6.2
5.5
4.9
4.1
3.3
2.8
2.1
1.2
9.6
8.7
8.0
7.5
6.7
6.0
5.3
4.6
3.9
3.1
2.5
1.9
.9
Table A10
Normative data for the BTA stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
19.6
18.6
17.9
17.2
16.4
15.7
14.8
14.2
13.5
12.5
20.0
19.4
18.4
17.7
17.0
16.2
15.5
14.6
14.0
13.3
12.3
20.0
19.7
19.2
18.2
17.5
16.8
16.0
15.3
14.4
13.8
13.1
12.1
20.0
19.5
19.0
18.0
17.3
16.6
15.8
15.1
14.2
13.6
12.9
11.9
20.0
19.3
18.8
17.8
17.1
16.4
15.6
14.9
14.0
13.4
12.7
11.7
20.0
19.8
19.1
18.6
17.6
16.9
16.2
15.4
14.7
13.8
13.2
12.5
11.5
20.0
19.6
18.9
18.4
17.4
16.7
16.0
15.2
14.5
13.6
13.0
12.3
11.3
20.0
19.4
18.7
18.2
17.2
16.5
15.8
15.0
14.3
13.4
12.8
12.1
11.1
20.0
19.2
18.5
18.0
17.0
16.3
15.6
14.8
14.1
13.2
12.6
11.9
10.9
20.0
19.0
18.3
17.8
16.8
16.1
15.4
14.7
13.9
13.0
12.4
11.7
10.7
19.8
18.8
18.1
17.6
16.7
15.9
15.2
14.5
13.7
12.8
12.2
11.5
10.5
19.7
18.6
17.9
17.4
16.5
15.7
15.0
14.3
13.5
12.6
12.0
11.3
10.3
19.5
18.4
17.7
17.2
16.3
15.5
14.8
14.1
13.3
12.4
11.8
11.1
10.1
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
19.1
18.0
17.4
16.8
15.9
15.1
14.4
13.7
12.9
12.0
11.4
10.7
9.7
18.9
17.8
17.2
16.6
15.7
14.9
14.2
13.5
12.7
11.8
11.2
10.5
9.5
18.7
17.7
17.0
16.4
15.5
14.7
14.0
13.3
12.5
11.6
11.0
10.3
9.3
18.5
17.5
16.8
16.2
15.3
14.5
13.8
13.1
12.3
11.4
10.8
10.1
9.1
18.3
17.3
16.6
16.0
15.1
14.3
13.6
12.9
12.1
11.2
10.6
9.9
8.9
18.1
17.1
16.4
15.8
14.9
14.1
13.4
12.7
11.9
11.0
10.4
9.7
8.7
17.9
16.9
16.2
15.6
14.7
13.9
13.2
12.5
11.7
10.8
10.2
9.5
8.5
17.7
16.7
16.0
15.4
14.5
13.7
13.0
12.3
11.5
10.6
10.0
9.3
8.3
17.5
16.5
15.8
15.2
14.3
13.5
12.8
12.1
11.3
10.4
9.8
9.1
8.1
17.3
16.3
15.6
15.0
14.1
13.3
12.6
11.9
11.1
10.2
9.6
8.9
7.9
17.1
16.1
15.4
14.8
13.9
13.1
12.4
11.7
10.9
10.0
9.4
8.7
7.7
16.9
15.9
15.2
14.6
13.7
12.9
12.2
11.5
10.7
9.8
9.2
8.5
7.5
16.7
15.7
15.0
14.4
13.5
12.7
12.0
11.3
10.5
9.6
9.0
8.3
7.3
676

Table A11
Normative data for the BTA stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
19.8
19.0
18.3
17.6
16.8
15.8
15.3
14.6
13.5
20.0
19.5
18.8
18.0
17.3
16.5
15.6
15.0
14.3
13.2
20.0
19.3
18.5
17.8
17.0
16.3
15.3
14.7
14.0
13.0
20.0
19.0
18.2
17.5
16.8
16.0
15.1
14.5
13.8
12.7
20.0
19.7
18.8
18.0
17.3
16.5
15.7
14.8
14.2
13.5
12.5
20.0
19.4
18.5
17.7
17.0
16.3
15.5
14.5
14.0
13.3
12.2
20.0
19.8
19.2
18.3
17.5
16.7
16.0
15.2
14.3
13.7
13.0
11.9
20.0
19.5
18.9
18.0
17.2
16.5
15.7
15.0
14.0
13.4
12.7
11.7
20.0
19.2
18.7
17.7
16.9
16.2
15.5
14.7
13.8
13.2
12.5
11.4
20.0
19.7
19.0
18.4
17.5
16.7
16.0
15.2
14.4
13.5
12.9
12.2
11.2
20.0
19.4
18.7
18.1
17.2
16.4
15.7
15.0
14.2
13.2
12.7
12.0
10.9
20.0
19.2
18.5
17.9
17.0
16.2
15.4
14.7
13.9
13.0
12.4
11.7
10.6
20.0
18.9
18.2
17.6
16.7
15.9
15.2
14.4
13.7
12.7
12.1
11.4
10.4
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
20.0
19.7
18.8
18.0
17.3
16.5
15.7
14.8
14.2
13.5
12.5
20.0
19.5
18.5
17.7
17.0
16.3
15.5
14.5
14.0
13.3
12.2
20.0
19.8
19.2
18.3
17.5
16.7
16.0
15.2
14.3
13.7
13.0
12.0
20.0
19.5
18.9
18.0
17.2
16.5
15.8
15.0
14.0
13.4
12.7
11.7
20.0
19.3
18.7
17.7
17.0
16.2
15.5
14.7
13.8
13.2
12.5
11.4
20.0
19.7
19.0
18.4
17.5
16.7
16.0
15.2
14.4
13.5
12.9
12.2
11.2
20.0
19.4
18.7
18.2
17.2
16.4
15.7
15.0
14.2
13.2
12.7
12.0
10.9
20.0
19.2
18.5
17.9
17.0
16.2
15.4
14.7
13.9
13.0
12.4
11.7
10.7
20.0
18.9
18.2
17.6
16.7
15.9
15.2
14.5
13.7
12.7
12.1
11.4
10.4
19.7
18.7
18.0
17.4
16.4
15.7
14.9
14.2
13.4
12.5
11.9
11.2
10.1
19.5
18.4
17.7
17.1
16.2
15.4
14.7
13.9
13.1
12.2
11.6
10.9
9.9
19.2
18.1
17.4
16.9
15.9
15.1
14.4
13.7
12.9
11.9
11.4
10.7
9.6
18.9
17.9
17.2
16.6
15.7
14.9
14.1
13.4
12.6
11.7
11.1
10.4
9.4

DOI:10.3233/NRE-151285
IOS Press
677
ReyOsterrieth Complex Figure copy and

immediate recall: Normative data for the Latin
American Spanish speaking adult population
D. Riveraa , P.B. Perrinb , A. Morlett-Paredesb , J. Galarza-del-Angelc , C. Martnezd , M.T. Garzae ,
C.P. Sarachof , W. Rodrguezg , Y. Rodrguez-Agudeloh , B. Rabagoi , A. Aliagaj , S. Schebelak ,
M. Lunal , M. Longonim , N. Ocampo-Barban , E. Fernandezo , L. Esenarrop , P. Garca-Eganq
and J.C. Arango-Lasprillar,a,
a Faculty

c Universidad Aut
d Departamento de Medicina de Rehabilitaci
e Facultad de Psicologa, Universidad Aut
f CETYS University, Mexicali, Mexico
j Servicio M
k Instituto de Prevenci
l Universidad Dr. Jos
m Clnica de rehabilitaci
n Fundaci
o International center for neurological Restoration CIREN, Havana, Cuba
q Departamento de Psicologa, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala
b Department
Abstract.
OBJECTIVE: To generate normative data on the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCF) across 11 countries in Latin
America, with country-specific adjustments for gender, age, and education, where appropriate.
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and, Puerto Rico. Each subject was administered the ROCF as part of a larger
Address

for Science, Bilbao, Spain. Tel.: +34 804 859 4329; E-mail:
jcarango@deusto.es.
678
D. Rivera et al. / ReyOsterrieth Complex Figure copy and immediate recall
RESULTS: The final multiple linear regression models explained 734% of the variance in ROCF copy scores and 21-41% of
the variance in immediate recall scores. Although t-tests showed significant differences between men and women on ROCF copy
and immediate recall scores, none of the countries had an effect size larger than 0.3. As a result, gender-adjusted norms were not
generated.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study is the first to create norms for the ROCF in Latin America. As a result, this study will have
important implications for the formation and practice of neuropsychology in this region.
Keywords: Normative data, ReyOsterrieth Complex Figure, Latin America, visual perception, visual-spatial constructional
ability, visual memory
1. Introduction
The Complex Figure Test was created to assess
visual perception, visual-spatial constructional ability,
and visual memory and was developed by Swiss psychologist Andre Rey in 1941 (Rey, 1941). In 1944,
Paul-Alexandre Osterrieth developed a scoring system to standardize Reys administration method and
provided initial normative data on 230 children (ages
415) and 60 adults (1660; Osterrieth, 1944, Meyers &
Meyers, 1995; Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006). He
proposed to subcategorize the figure into 18 elements
and score them based on their presence, completeness,
and correct placement.
Subsequently, the test has been referred to as the ReyOsterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCF) and is one
of the most widely used neuropsychological tests for
both clinical and research settings to examine visual
spatial constructional ability and nonverbal memory
skills (Somervile, Tremont, & Stern, 2000). It also has
been theorized or shown to measure various cognitive
dimensions, including problem and planning solving
strategies (Lezak, Howieson, & Loring, 2004; Meyers
& Meyers, 1995; Mitrushina, Boone, Razani, & DElia,
2005), attention and concentration levels, fine-motor
coordination, and organizational skills (Helmes, 2000).
In its recall conditions, it also aids the investigator
to measure visual-spatial memory within declarative
memory, which is connected to the hippocampus and
related regions in the right temporal lobe (Lezak, 1995;
Goder et al., 2004; Milner, 1975).
The ROCF is made up of a complex series of rectangles, lines, circles, triangles, and other geometric
components (Rey, 1941). Participants are supplied with
a sheet of paper and a pencil. Copying the ROCF by
hand is a challenging task involving cognitively organizing the figure into a meaningful perceptual unit in
order to reproduce it. Then, the participant must reproduce it again from memory three minutes later, although
some authors have used a 30-minute delay (PenaCasanova et al., 2009). Outcome measures include an
copy score (which reflects the accuracy of the original

copy and is a measure of visual-spatial constructional
ability), time required to copy the figure, and immediate
recall score (Pena-Casanova et al., 2009). The figure
is distributed into 18 scored elements. Between 0 and
2 points are given for each element depending on the
accuracy, distortion, and location of its duplication; 36
is the maximum score.
The ROCF has been used to examine impairments
or cognitive processes in a plethora of neurological disorders (Machulda et al., 2007). Studies using
the ROCF have revealed visual memory disturbance
and recall deficits in individuals with schizophrenia
(Calev, Edeist, Kugelmass, & Lerer, 1991; Knight,
Sims-Knight, & Petchers-Cassell, 1977; Silverstein,
Osborn, & Palumbo, 1998). Similarly, individuals with
Alzheimers disease (AD), Huntingtons disease (HD),
and Korsakoffs syndrome have shown poorer copy
and recognition on the ROCF than controls (Shimamura, Salmon, Squire, & Butters, 1987; Tierney,
Nores, Snow, Fisher, Zorzitto, & Reid, 1994). The
ROCF has also been used in individuals with traumatic brain injury (Ashton, Donders, & Hoffman,
2005) and individuals with aneurysms of the anterior
communicating artery (Diamon & DeLucas, 1996).
Within the pediatric literature, the ROCF has been
used to measure visuospatial perception, learning, and
memory (Baron, 2000) in research with several populations including typically developing youth (Beebe,
Ris, Brown, & Dietrich, 2004), and preterm children
(Waber & McCormick, 1995), as well as children
with phenylketonuria (Antshel & Waisbren, 2003),
epilepsy (Hernandez et al., 2003), learning disabilities
(Kirkwood, Weiler, Berstein, Forbes, & Waber, 2001),
and ADHD (Sami, Carte, Hinshaw, & Zupan, 2003;
Seidman et al.,1995).
A wide variety of studies have suggested demographic differences on the ROCF. Copy scores increase
with age, with adult levels being reached at about age
17 (Meyers & Meyers, 1995). However, scores tend
to decrease with advancing age, particularly after age

70 (Chervinsky, Mitrushina, & Satz, 1992; Rosselli
& Ardila, 1991; Chiulli, Haaland, LaRue, & Garry,
1995). Some studies have shown men to score better
than women, but overall gender differences are minor
or nonexistent (Berry, Allen, & Schmitt, 1991; Boone,
Lesser, Hill-Gutierrez, Berman, & DElia, 1993; PenaCasanova et al., 2009), and scores are also positively
associated with education level (Ardila, Rosselli, &
Rosas, 1989; Berry et al., 1991; Caffarra, Vezzadini,
Dieci, Zonato, & Venneri, 2002). Additionally, African
Americans have been shown to have lowers scores than
Caucasians and Asian Americans, especially in visuoconstruction. Moreover, those who spoke English as
a native versus second language revealed significantly
better ROCF copy. However, within the Hispanic group
specifically, a comparison between those who spoke
English as a first versus second language revealed superior performance by the latter group on ROCF copy
(Boone, Victor, Wen, Razani, Ponton, 2007).
A series of limited studies have tried to establish
norms for the ROCF in various populations. Palomo
and colleagues (2013) provided normative data for the
ROCF in a younger Spanish population from Andalusia, the Basque Country, Catalonia, Galicia, Madrid,
and Murcia. Normative data based on a sample of 624
Spanish-Speaking children and adults living in Bogota
Colombia, are reported by Rosselli and Ardila (2003).
Caffarra et al. (2002) collected normative data in a
large Italian sample with a wide age range from 20
to 89 years. Vogel, Stokholm and Jorgensen (2012),
found normative data for an elderly Danish sample on
the ROCF test. Moreover, normative data for Canadian children and adults aged 670 years old were
found by Strauss et al. (2006). Finally, Fernando, Chard,
Butcher, and McKay (2003) produced comprehensive
New Zealand norms for children and adolescents, but
not for adults.
Appropriate normative data are needed in order to
assess memory correctly in other countries outside of
the United Stated. Concerns have risen about the validity of using such norms when applied to other ethnic
and cultural backgrounds (Knight et al., 1997; Lezak,
1995). To date, only limited normative data have been
generated on the ROCF in Spanish or in Latin America,
with samples limited to Colombia and Spain. Having
different educational programs and cultural influences
highlights the need for norms that are standardized for
the Latin America population hence the purpose of
this study. Investigators need to be very careful when
using neuropsychological tests with individuals from
679
cultures different from the one that provided the normative sample. The interpretation of the performance
of individuals from Latin America using norms from
other countries and languages might result in significant errors in assessment. In light of this situation, when
individuals from Latin America are being evaluated, it is
important to do so with Latin American norms that take
into consideration age, gender, and formal education.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
1965).
consent. Nine participants were excluded from the
The examiner administered the ROCF Figure A
(copy), and after 3 minutes, the immediate recall. The
Spanish-language ROCF manual scoring guidelines
were followed (Rey, 2009). The ROCF includes 18 elements, and the maximum score for each of the two tasks
(copy and immediate recall) is 36. Two points are given
680

than 0.3) [yi = 0 + (Age Age i ) + (Educ Educ i ) +
(Gender Gender i )]; c) residual scores were calculated
based on this final model (ei = yi y i ); d) using the
residuals were standardized: z = ei /SDe , with SDe
(residual) = the standard deviation of the residuals in
the normative sample; and e) standardized residuals
were converted to percentile values (Strauss et al.,
applied to ROCF copy scores and ROCF immediate
recall scores.
when the element is correctly reproduced, 1 point when

the reproduction is distorted, incomplete but placed
properly, or complete but placed poorly; 0.5 point is
credited when the element is distorted or incomplete
and placed poorly. A 0 score is given when the element
is absent or is not recognizable (Osterrieth, 1944).
normative data for this test are described in GuàrdiaOlmos, et al., 2015. In summary, the data manipulation
process for each country-specific dataset involved five
steps: a) t tests for independent samples and effect
1 if the participant had >12 years of education and
0 if the participant had 112 years of education.
of 0.05, the non-significant variables were removed,
3. Results
3.1. ROCF copy
Regarding the effect of gender on the ROCF
copy scores, the t-tests showed significant differences
between men and women in the countries of Bolivia,
Honduras, Mexico, and Puerto Rico; however, none of
these four countries had an effect size larger than 0.3.
Table 1 shows the results of the gender analyses by
country on the ROCF copy scores. As shown in Table 1,
Table 1
Effect of gender in the ROCF copy
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentina
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
34.9 (2.4)
34.7 (2.8)
27.6 (6.7)
24.8 (8.2)
28.8 (8.4)
27.6 (8.3)
31.4 (7.3)
31.8 (6.6)
25.1 (9.1)
24.1 (9.0)
30.2 (6.4)
31.9(5.4)
29.5 (7.8)
25.8 (9.1)
31.7 (5.8)
30.0 (6.5)
29.5 (4.4)
28.6 (3.6)
34.3 (3.4)
34.2 (4.2)
32.5 (5.2)
31.0 (6.6)
0.43
318
0.668
0.024
3.13
239
0.002
0.198
1.28
318
0.200
0.072
0.46
304
0.646
0.026
0.88
254
0.382
0.055
1.42
210
0.156
0.098
2.88
155.71
0.005
0.225
4.74
947.96
<0.001
0.152
1.76
261
0.079
0.108
0.31
239
0.759
0.020
2.17
289.03
0.031
0.127
Boliviaa
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Hondurasa
Mexicoa
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Ricoa
a Value
p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001.
681

Table 2
Final multiple linear regression models for ROCF copy
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
35.030
0.018
1.169
33.123
0.147
5.212
36.459
0.164
2.793
38.546
0.143
2.682
29.457
0.121
8.695
29.575
0.059
4.395
32.994
0.148
5.699
34.330
0.081
2.194
34.043
0.106
3.046
36.290
0.079
2.272
38.189
0.146
1.910
0.419
0.007
0.292
1.163
0.019
1.084
1.384
0.022
1.010
1.054
0.018
0.841
1.468
0.024
1.216
0.522
0.025
0.852
1.749
0.032
1.400
0.485
0.008
0.403
0.845
0.015
0.565
0.635
0.011
0.459
1.045
0.017
0.642
83.557
2.464
4.007
28.487
7.836
4.810
26.342
7.363
2.765
36.565
7.874
3.189
20.065
5.065
7.154
56.585
2.352
5.154
18.868
4.647
4.071
70.791
9.852
5.442
40.301
7.264
5.394
57.158
7.400
4.949
36.552
8.406
2.972
<0.001
0.014
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.006
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.020
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
0.074
2.570
0.263
6.728
0.203
7.430
0.200
6.206
0.245
7.885
0.130
6.302
0.210
7.877
0.103
5.993
0.342
3.201
0.286
3.354
0.254
5.275
ROCF copy normative data for any of the countries in
the study.
The final eleven ROCF copy multivariate linear
Table 2. In all countries, the ROCF copy score increased
for those with more than 12 years of education (see
Table 2) and, in all countries, ROCF copy scores
amount of variance explained in ROCF copy scores
ranged from 7% (in Argentina) to 34% (in Paraguay).
3.2. ROCF immediate recall
Regarding the effect of gender on the ROCF immediate recall scores, the t-tests showed significant
differences between men and women in the countries
of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, Honduras, Mexico,
Paraguay, and Puerto Rico. Table 3 shows the results
of the gender analysis by country on ROCF immediate

recall scores. As shown in Table 3, the effect sizes for
all countries except Honduras were less than 0.3, and
therefore gender was only taken into account to generate the ROCF immediate recall normative data for the
Honduras sample.
The final eleven ROCF immediate recall multivariate
linear regression models for each country are shown in
Table 4. In all countries, ROCF immediate recall score
increased for those with more than 12 years of education
(see Table 4) and decreased in a linear fashion as a
function of age. The amount of variance explained in
ROCF immediate recall scores ranged from 21% (in
Guatemala) to 41% (in El Salvador).
Norms (e.g., a percentile score) for the ROCF copy
and immediate recall scores were established using the
five-step procedure described above. To facilitate the
682

Table 3
Effect of gender in the ROCF immediate recall
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Argentina
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
24.7 (7.6)
21.8 (7.4)
16.0 (8.5)
13.9 (7.9)
15.8 (9.0)
13.7 (7.9)
20.9 (9.7)
18.4 (8.8)
15.5 (8.5)
13.9 (7.8)
17.0 (7.4)
16.5 (7.3)
18.2 (8.5)
12.9 (7.5)
19.5 (7.6)
16.7 (7.6)
17.7 (5.6)
15.9 (4.5)
19.9 (6.6)
20.0 (8.2)
20.3 (9.2)
17.8 (8.5)
3.25
318
0.001
0.179
2.07
272
0.039
0.125
2.22
262.53
0.027
0.136
2.40
304
0.017
0.136
1.55
254
0.121
0.097
0.48
210
631
0.033
4.45
182
<0.001
0.313b
6.34
1,296
<0.001
0.173
2.70
178.97
0.008
0.198
0.07
203.49
0.944
0.005
2.36
290
0.019
0.138
Bolivia
Chilea
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguaya
Perua
Puerto Rico
a Value
Sig. (2-tailed)
b r > 0.3, p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001.
understanding of the procedure to obtain the percentile

associated with a score on this test, an example will be
given. Suppose you need to find the percentile score
for a Chilean woman, who is 43 years old and has 14
years of education. She has a score of 30 on the ROCF
copy test. The steps to obtain the percentile for this
score are: a) Check Table 1 to determine if the effect
size of gender in the country of interest (Chile) on this
test and time point (ROCF copy) is greater than 0.3
by country. The column labelled r in Table 1 indicates
the effect size and the superscript notation b next to
the number indicates that the number is larger than
0.3. In this example, the effect size is 0.072, which
is not greater than 0.3. For Chileans on this test, gender does not influence scores to a sufficient degree to
take it into account when determining the percentile. b)
Find Chile in Table 2, which provides the final regression models by country for ROCF copy. Use the B
weights to create an equation that will allow you to
obtain the predicted ROCF copy score. The corresponding B weights are multiplied by the actual age and
the predicted ROCF copy score would be calculated
(2.793 Dichotomized Educational Level i )] (the values have been rounded for presentation in the formula).
The subscript notation i indicates the person of interest. The persons age is 43, but the education variable
split into either 1 to 12 years (and assigned a 0) or more
than 12 years (and assigned a 1) in the model. Since
our hypothetical person in the example has 14 years
of education, her educational level value is 1. Thus the
predicted value is 36.459 + (0.164 43) + (2.793
1) = 36.459 7.052 + 2.793 = 32.2. c) In order to
this case, it would be ei = 30 32.2 = 2.2. d) Next,
consult the SDe column in Table 2 to obtain the countryspecific SDe (residual) value. For Chile, it is 7.430.
Using this value, we can transform the residual value to
a standardized z score using the equation (ei /SDe ). In
this case, we have (2.2)/7.430 = 0.296. This is the
standardized z score for a Chilean woman aged 43 and
14 years of education and a score of 30 on the ROCF
copy test. e) The last step is to look up the tables in the
calculator, you would enter the z score and choose a onesided test and note the percent of area after hitting the
submit button. In this case, the probability of 0.296
683

Table 4
Final multiple linear regression models for ROCF immediate recall
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Gender (Female)
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
27.935
0.158
3.685
23.489
0.169
3.744
23.533
0.175
3.009
29.961
0.208
3.026
23.383
0.188
8.005
23.495
0.155
3.687
19.640
0.159
6.148
4.049
25.146
0.156
3.117
21.482
0.104
3.569
26.392
0.195
3.404
31.879
0.279
2.520
1.064
0.019
0.741
1.217
0.020
1.134
1.380
0.022
1.007
1.392
0.024
1.111
1.177
0.019
0.975
1.500
0.026
0.930
1.555
0.027
1.172
1.027
0.546
0.009
0.454
1.155
0.020
0.772
1.166
0.020
0.844
1.364
0.023
0.839
26.244
8.364
4.974
19.296
8.631
3.300
17.059
7.918
2.988
21.517
8.715
2.724
19.863
9.798
8.212
15.666
5.959
3.965
12.628
5.922
5.247
3.944
46.039
16.845
6.864
18.600
5.200
4.622
22.631
9.889
4.034
23.375
12.289
3.005
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
<0.001
<0.001
0.007
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
0.254
6.526
0.260
7.044
0.227
7.405
0.223
8.198
0.409
6.323
0.210
6.327
0.371
6.567
0.226
6.750
0.237
4.377
0.360
6.147
0.398
6.886
corresponds to the 38th percentile. Please remember

to use the appropriate tables that correspond to each
test (copy vs. immediate recall) when performing these
calculations. If the percentile for the ROCF immediate
recall score is desired, Tables 3 and 4 must be used.
Guàrdia-Olmos et al., 2015) and created tables that clinicians can more easily use to obtain a percentile range
associated with a given raw score on this test. These
tables are available by country and type of test (ROCF
copy vs. ROCF immediate recall) in the Appendix. In
order to obtain an approximate percentile for the above

example (converting a raw score of 30 for a Chilean
woman who is 43 years old and has 14 years of education) using the simplified normative tables provided,
the following steps are recommended. (1) First, identify
the appropriate table ensuring the specific country and
test. In this case, the table for the ROCF copy scores
for Chile can be found in Table A3. (2) Note if the title
of the table indicates that it is only to be used for one
specific gender. In this case, gender is not specified.
woman has 14 years of education, she falls into the >12
684
the raw score the person obtained on the test. Reading down the 4347 column, the score of 30 obtained
by this Chilean woman corresponds to an approximate
percentile of 40.
4. Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to generate normative data on the ROCF across 11 countries in Latin
7.434% of the variance in the ROCF copy scores and
between 2140% in immediate recall scores.
Although men outperformed women on the ROCF
copy in four of the 11 countries, the effect sizes were
all small, and therefore gender-adjusted norms were
not generated. For the ROCF immediate recall, men
outperformed women in seven countries, with only the
difference in Honduras reaching a medium-sized effect.
As a result, gender-adjusted norms were only generated
for Honduras on the immediate recall. These findings
are generally consistent with the previous literature,
where some studies have shown men to outperform
women on the ROCF, although these effects have been
inconsistent or small when present (Berry et al., 1991;
Boone et al., 1993; Pena-Casanova et al., 2009). In light
of the previous literature, the current results suggest that
participants percentiles for the ROCF in the vast majority of countries in Latin America when using the current
norms, with the exception of Honduras on the ROCF
immediate recall.
The ROCF copy and immediate recall scores both
increased linearly as a function of education in all countries. These findings were extremely consistent within
the current study, as well as with previous studies on
the ROCF (Ardila, Rosselli, & Rosas, 1989; Berry et al.,
1991; Caffarra et al., 2002). Because of potentially substantial differences in the quality of education across
different countries in Latin America, it is extremely
important to use the specific education-adjusted norms
generated for a single country when administering the

ROCF to individuals from that country.
Age was inversely associated with ROCF copy scores
in all countries except Guatemala, and age was also
inversely associated with immediate recall scores in all
countries. As a result, age-adjusted norms were calculated for all countries except for Guatemala on the
ROCF copy. The current findings are in line with the
previous literature which has shown that ROCF scores
tend to decrease with advancing age, especially in individuals who are above age 70 (Chervinsky et al., 1992;
Rosselli & Ardila, 1991; Chiulli et al., 1995). As with
education, it is important that neuropsychologists in
Latin America use the current age-adjusted norms for
their specific country, with the exception of Guatemala
on the copy only.
The current study has several limitations, and as a
result directions for future research. First, although
the study was conducted in 11 countries, caution
should be exercised in generalizing the norms of the
ROCF from this study to other countries in Latin
America where data were not collected. Future studies
should establish norms for the ROCF in countries like
Ecuador, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Panama, among
others. However, the ROCF norms from the current
study may be more accurate in these countries than the
norms from Spain or English-speaking countries with
different cultures which are likely currently being used,
although this assertion direly needs support from future
research.
Second, several sampling limitations are notable. It is
important to emphasize that although participants were
included with fewer than 12 years of education, illiterate individuals were excluded from the current study, so
the ROCF norms cannot generalize to this population.
Future studies should norm the ROCF in individuals who are unable to read and write. Similarly, no
participants in the current study had neurological conditions, and all participants were adults; future similar
studies should be conducted in populations of various
neurological conditions, as well as among pediatric
populations. Future research should also collect data
on participants bilingualism, which was not controlled
for in the current study. Participants only had to have
Spanish as their primary language, and performance
on the ROCF could be different if people speak other
languages such as English, or local dialects such as
Quechua or Guaran. Future research should explore
the possible influence of bilingualism on ROCF performance. A final sampling limitation is that the data were
generally collected in specific regions of the countries
in the current study, as opposed to nationally in those
countries. Although the current study was the largest
neuropsychological normative study in the history of
Latin America, it should be seen as a first step in conducting more rigorous and larger studies with nationally
representative samples.
Third, although the ROCF is a one of the most
common neuropsychological instruments used in Latin
America, many other instruments are also common in
Latin America that should be normed in the same manner. Despite its commonness, the ROCF was created in
a Western culture that may be different from those in
Latin America. There is a great need for future research
to develop more culturally sensitive tests that are bound
in local cultures, not just translate and norm those that
were developed in other countries and cultures. Future
research should examine the psychometric properties
of common neuropsychological instruments in Latin
America, as well as test whether the instruments have
strong ecological validity, and if not, develop instruments in those cultures that are more ecologically valid.
Despite these limitations and although previous studies have produced Spanish-language norms for the
ROCF in Spain (Palomo et al., 2013) and Colombia
(Rosselli & Ardila, 2003), this study was the first to
generate ROCF norms across 11 countries in Latin
America with nearly 4,000 participants. This study was
the largest and most comprehensive ROCF normative
study conducted to date in any global region, and as a
result, its norms have the potential to affect the standard of neuropsychological assessment with the ROCF
in Latin America unlike any study before it.
References
Antshel, K. M., & Waisbren, S. E. (2003). Timing is everything:
Executive functions in children exposed to elevated levels of
phenylalanine. Neuropsychology, 17(3), 458-468.
Ardila, A., Rosselli, M., & Rosas, P. (1989). Neuropsychological
assessment in illiterates: Visuospatial and memory abilities. Brain
and Cognition, 11(2), 147-166.
Ashton, V.L., Donders, J. & Hoffman, N.F. (2005). Rey Complex
Figure Test Performance After Traumatic Brain Injury. Journal
Baron, I. S. (2000). Clinical implications and practical applications
of child neuropsychological evaluations.In K. O. Yeates, M. D.
Ris, & H. G. Taylor (eds.), Pediatric Neuropsychology: Research,
theory and practice (pp. 439456). New York: Guilford Publications.
685
Beebe, D.W., Ris, M. D., Brown, T. M., Dietrich, K. N. (2004). Executive functioning and memory for the Rey-Osterreith complex
figure task among community adolescents. Applied Neuropsychology, 11(2), 91-98.
Berry, D. T., Allen, R., & Schmitt, F. A. (1991). Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure: Psychometric characteristics in a geriatric sample.
Clinical Neuropsychologist, 5(2), 143-153.
Boone, K. B., Lesser, I. A., Hill-Gutierrez, E., Berman, N. G., &
DElia, L. S. (1993). Rey-Osterrieth complex figure performance
in healthy, older adults: Relationship to age, education, sex, and
IQ. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7(1), 22-28.
Boone, K. B., Victor, T. L., Wen, J., Razani, J. & Ponton, M.
(2007). The association between neuropsychological scores and
ethnicity, language, and acculturation variables in a large patient
population. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22(2007),
355-365.
Caffarra, P., Vezzadini, G., Dieci, F., Zonato, F. & Venneri, A. (2002).
Rey-Osterrieth complex figure: Normative values in an Italian
population sample. Neurological Sciences, 22(6), 443-447.
Calev, A., Edelist, S., Kugelmass, S., & Lerer, B. (1991). Performance
of long-stay schizophrenics on matched verbal and visuospatial
recall tasks. Psychological Medicine, 21(3), 655-660.
Chervinsky, A. B., Mitrushina, M., & Satz, P. (1992). Comparison
of four methods of scoring the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Drawing Test on four age groups of normal elderly. Brain
Dysfunction, 5, 267-287
Chiulli, S. J., Haaland, K. Y., LaRue, A., & Garry, P. (1995). Impact
of age in drawing the Rey-Osterrieth Figure. The Clinical Neurophysiologist, 9(3), 219-224.
Diamond, B. J., & DeLuca, J. (1996). Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test performance following anterior communicating artery
aneurysm. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11(1), 21-28.
Fernando, K., Chard, L., Butcher, M., & McKay, C. (2003). Standardisation of the Rey Complex Figure Test in New Zealand
children and adolescents. New Zealand Journal of Psychology,
32(1), 33-38.
189-198.
Goder, R., Boigs, M., Braun, S., Friege, L., Fritzer, G., Aldenhoff, J.
B., & Hinze-Selch, D. (2004). Impairment of visuospatial memory is associated with decreased slow wave sleep in schizophrenia.
Journal of Psychiatric Research, 38(6), 591-599.
493-499.
Helms, E. (2000). Learning and memory. In Groth-Marnat, G.
(ed.), Neuropsychological Assessment in Clinical Practice (pp.
293334). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hernandez, M. T., Sauerwein, H. C., Jambaque, I., de Guise, E.,
Lussier, F., Lortie, A., Dulac, O., & Lassonde, M. (2003). Attention, memory, and behavioral adjustment in children with frontal
lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 4(5), 522-536.
Kirkwood, M.,Weiler, M. D., Berstein, J. H., Forbes, P.W., & Waber,
D. P. (2001). Sources of poor performance on the Rey-Osterrieth
Complex Figure Test among children with learning difficulties: A
dynamic assessment approach. The Clinical Neuropsychologist,
15(3), 345-356.
686
Knight, R.A., Sims-Knight, J., & Petchers-Cassell, M. (1997). Over

inclusion, broad scanning, and picture recognition in schizophrenics. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 635-642
Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Machulda, M. M., Ivnik, R. J., Smith, G. E., Ferman, T. J., Boeve,
B. F., Kopman, D., et al. (2007). Mayos Older Americans Normative Studies: Visual form discrimination and copy trial of the
ReyOsterrieth complex figure. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29(4), 377-384.
Meyers, J. E., & Meyers, K. R. (1995). Rey complex figure test under
four different administration procedures. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9(1), 63-67.
Milner, B. (1975). Psychological aspects of focal epilepsy and its
neurological management. Advances in Neurology, 8, 299-321.
Mitrushina, M., Boone, K. B., Razani, J., & DElia, L. F. (2005).
Handbook of normative data for neuropsychological assessment.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Osterrieth, P. A. (1944). Le test de copie dune figure complexe:
Contributiona letude de la perception et la memoire. Archives de
Psychologie, 30, 286-356.
Palomo, R., Casals-Coll M., Sanchez-Benavides, G., Quintana, M.,
Manero, R. M., Rognoni, T., Calvo, L., Aranciva, F., Tamayo, F.
& Pena-Casanova, J. (2013). Spanish normative studies in young
adults (NEURONORMA young adults project): Norms for the
ReyOsterrieth Complex Figure (copy and memory) and Free
and Cued Selective Reminding Test, Neurlogia, 28(4), 226-235
Pena-Casanova J., Gramunt-Fombuna N., Quinones-Ubeda, S.,
Sanchez-Benavides G., Aguilar, M., Badanes, D., Molinuevo J.
L., Robles, A., Barquero, S., Payno, M., Atunez, C., MartinezParra, C., Frank-Garcia, A. F.,Fernandez, M., Alfonso, V., Sol, J.
M., & Blesa, R. (2009). Spanish Multicenter Normative Studies (NEURONORMA Project): Norms for the ReyOsterrieth
Complex Figure (Copy and Memory), and Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
24(2009), 371-393.
Rey, A. (1941). Lexamen psychologique dans les cas
dencephalopathie traumatique. Archives de Psychologie,
28, 286-340.
Rey, A. (2009). Test de Copia y Reproduccion de una Figura Compleja. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
Roselli, M. & Ardila, A. (1991). Effects of age, education, and gender
on the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 5(4), 371-376.
Rosselli, M. & Ardila, A. (2003). The impact of culture and education on nonverbal neuropsychological measurements: A critical
review. Brain and Cognition, 52(3), 326-333.
Sami, N., Carte, E. T., Hinshaw, S. P., & Zupan, B. A. (2003).
Performance of girls with ADHD and comparison girls on the
Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure: Evidence for executive processing deficits. Child Neuropsychology, 9(4), 237-254.
Seidman, L. J., Benedict, K. B., Biederman, J., Bernstein, J. H.,
Seiverd, K., Milberger, S., Norman, D., Mick, E. M., & Faraone,
S. V. (1995). Performance of Children with ADHD on the ReyOsterrieth Complex Figure: A Pilot Neuropsychological Study.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36(8), 1459-1473.
Shimamura, A. P., Salmon, D. P., Squire, L. R., & Butters, N. (1987).
Memory dysfunction and word priming in dementia and amnesia.
Behavioral Neuroscience, 101(3), 347-351.
Silverstein S. M., Osborn L. M., & Palumbo D. R. (1998). ReyOsterrieth Complex Figure test Perfomance in Acute, Chronic,
and Remitted Schizophrenia Patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(7), 985-994.
Somervile, J., Tremont, G. & Stern, R.A. (2000). The Boston Qualitative Scoring System as a measure of executive functioning in
ReyOsterrieth Complex Figure performance. Journal of Clinical
Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium
of neuropsychological tests. Administration, norms, and commentary. New York: Oxford University.
Tierney, M. C., Nores A. N., Snow W. G., Fisher, R. H., Zorzitto,
M. L., & Reid, D. W. (1994). Use of the Key Auditory Verbal
Learning Test in Differentiating Normal Aging From Alzheimers
and Parkinsons Dementia. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 129134.
Vogel, A., Stokholm, J., & Jorgensen, K. (2012). Performances on
Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and Rey Complex Figure Test
in a healthy, elderly Danish sample reference data and validity
issues, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53(1), 26-31.
Waber, D. P., & McCormick, M. C. (1995). Late neuropsychological
outcomes in preterm infants of normal IQ: Selective vulnerability of the visual system. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 20(6),
721-735.
687
Appendix
Table A1
Normative data for the ROCF copy stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.8
35.2
34.5
33.7
33.2
32.5
31.6
36.0
35.7
35.1
34.4
33.6
33.1
32.4
31.5
36.0
35.6
35.0
34.3
33.5
33.0
32.4
31.4
36.0
35.6
34.9
34.2
33.4
32.9
32.3
31.3
36.0
35.5
34.8
34.1
33.3
32.8
32.2
31.2
36.0
35.4
34.7
34.0
33.2
32.7
32.1
31.2
36.0
35.9
35.3
34.6
33.9
33.1
32.6
32.0
31.1
36.0
35.8
35.2
34.5
33.9
33.0
32.5
31.9
31.0
36.0
35.7
35.1
34.5
33.8
32.9
32.4
31.8
30.9
36.0
35.6
35.0
34.4
33.7
32.8
32.3
31.7
30.8
36.0
35.6
34.9
34.3
33.6
32.8
32.2
31.6
30.7
36.0
35.5
34.8
34.2
33.5
32.7
32.1
31.5
30.6
36.0
35.4
34.7
34.1
33.4
32.6
32.1
31.4
30.5
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.3
34.7
34.0
33.3
32.5
32.0
31.4
30.4
36.0
35.9
35.2
34.6
33.9
33.2
32.4
31.9
31.3
30.4
36.0
35.8
35.1
34.5
33.8
33.1
32.3
31.8
31.2
30.3
36.0
35.7
35.0
34.4
33.7
33.0
32.2
31.7
31.1
30.2
36.0
35.6
34.9
34.3
33.7
33.0
32.1
31.6
31.0
30.1
36.0
35.5
34.8
34.2
33.6
32.9
32.0
31.5
30.9
30.0
36.0
35.4
34.8
34.1
33.5
32.8
32.0
31.4
30.8
29.9
36.0
35.4
34.7
34.0
33.4
32.7
31.9
31.3
30.7
29.8
36.0
35.3
34.6
33.9
33.3
32.6
31.8
31.3
30.6
29.7
36.0
35.2
34.5
33.8
33.2
32.5
31.7
31.2
30.5
29.6
36.0
35.9
35.1
34.4
33.7
33.1
32.4
31.6
31.1
30.5
29.5
36.0
35.8
35.0
34.3
33.7
33.0
32.3
31.5
31.0
30.4
29.4
36.0
35.7
34.9
34.2
33.6
32.9
32.2
31.4
30.9
30.3
29.3
Table A2
Normative data for the ROCF copy stratified by age and education levels for BOLIVIA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.4
33.7
31.9
29.7
28.4
26.8
24.4
36.0
34.7
33.0
31.2
29.0
27.7
26.0
23.6
36.0
35.6
33.9
32.2
30.4
28.3
26.9
25.3
22.9
36.0
34.9
33.2
31.5
29.7
27.5
26.2
24.6
22.2
36.0
34.1
32.5
30.8
29.0
26.8
25.5
23.8
21.4
36.0
35.2
33.4
31.7
30.0
28.2
26.1
24.7
23.1
20.7
36.0
34.5
32.7
31.0
29.3
27.5
25.3
24.0
22.4
20.0
36.0
35.9
33.8
31.9
30.3
28.6
26.8
24.6
23.3
21.6
19.2
36.0
35.2
33.0
31.2
29.5
27.8
26.0
23.9
22.5
20.9
18.5
36.0
35.8
34.4
32.3
30.5
28.8
27.1
25.3
23.1
21.8
20.2
17.8
36.0
35.0
33.7
31.5
29.7
28.0
26.4
24.6
22.4
21.1
19.4
17.0
36.0
35.9
34.3
33.0
30.8
29.0
27.3
25.6
23.8
21.7
20.3
18.7
16.3
36.0
35.2
33.6
32.2
30.1
28.3
26.6
24.9
23.1
20.9
19.6
18.0
15.5
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.8
33.7
31.9
30.2
28.5
26.7
24.5
23.2
21.6
19.2
36.0
35.1
32.9
31.1
29.4
27.8
26.0
23.8
22.5
20.8
18.4
36.0
35.7
34.4
32.2
30.4
28.7
27.0
25.2
23.1
21.7
20.1
17.7
36.0
35.0
33.6
31.5
29.7
28.0
26.3
24.5
22.3
21.0
19.4
16.9
36.0
35.9
34.2
32.9
30.7
28.9
27.2
25.6
23.7
21.6
20.2
18.6
16.2
36.0
35.1
33.5
32.2
30.0
28.2
26.5
24.8
23.0
20.9
19.5
17.9
15.5
36.0
34.4
32.8
31.4
29.3
27.5
25.8
24.1
22.3
20.1
18.8
17.2
14.7
36.0
33.7
32.0
30.7
28.5
26.7
25.0
23.4
21.5
19.4
18.0
16.4
14.0
35.3
32.9
31.3
30.0
27.8
26.0
24.3
22.6
20.8
18.7
17.3
15.7
13.3
34.6
32.2
30.6
29.2
27.1
25.3
23.6
21.9
20.1
17.9
16.6
15.0
12.5
33.9
31.4
29.8
28.5
26.3
24.5
22.8
21.2
19.3
17.2
15.8
14.2
11.8
33.1
30.7
29.1
27.8
25.6
23.8
22.1
20.4
18.6
16.5
15.1
13.5
11.1
32.4
30.0
28.4
27.0
24.9
23.1
21.4
19.7
17.9
15.7
14.4
12.8
10.3
688

Table A3
Normative data for the ROCF copy stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
34.1
32.1
29.7
28.3
26.5
23.8
36.0
35.2
33.3
31.3
28.9
27.4
25.6
23.0
36.0
34.3
32.5
30.5
28.1
26.6
24.8
22.2
36.0
35.4
33.5
31.7
29.7
27.3
25.8
24.0
21.3
36.0
34.6
32.7
30.8
28.8
26.5
25.0
23.2
20.5
36.0
35.7
33.7
31.9
30.0
28.0
25.6
24.2
22.4
19.7
36.0
34.9
32.9
31.1
29.2
27.2
24.8
23.3
21.6
18.9
36.0
34.1
32.1
30.2
28.4
26.4
24.0
22.5
20.7
18.1
36.0
35.7
33.3
31.3
29.4
27.6
25.6
23.2
21.7
19.9
17.2
36.0
34.9
32.5
30.5
28.6
26.8
24.7
22.4
20.9
19.1
16.4
36.0
35.5
34.0
31.7
29.7
27.8
25.9
23.9
21.6
20.1
18.3
15.6
36.0
34.7
33.2
30.8
28.8
27.0
25.1
23.1
20.7
19.2
17.5
14.8
36.0
35.7
33.9
32.4
30.0
28.0
26.2
24.3
22.3
19.9
18.4
16.6
14.0
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.0
33.2
31.3
29.3
26.9
25.5
23.7
21.0
36.0
34.2
32.4
30.5
28.5
26.1
24.6
22.9
20.2
36.0
35.4
33.4
31.5
29.7
27.7
25.3
23.8
22.0
19.4
36.0
34.6
32.6
30.7
28.9
26.9
24.5
23.0
21.2
18.5
36.0
33.8
31.8
29.9
28.1
26.0
23.7
22.2
20.4
17.7
36.0
35.3
33.0
31.0
29.1
27.2
25.2
22.9
21.4
19.6
16.9
36.0
34.5
32.1
30.1
28.3
26.4
24.4
22.0
20.5
18.8
16.1
36.0
35.2
33.7
31.3
29.3
27.5
25.6
23.6
21.2
19.7
17.9
15.3
36.0
34.4
32.9
30.5
28.5
26.6
24.8
22.8
20.4
18.9
17.1
14.5
36.0
35.3
33.5
32.1
29.7
27.7
25.8
24.0
22.0
19.6
18.1
16.3
13.6
36.0
34.5
32.7
31.2
28.9
26.9
25.0
23.1
21.1
18.8
17.3
15.5
12.8
36.0
33.7
31.9
30.4
28.0
26.0
24.2
22.3
20.3
17.9
16.5
14.7
12.0
35.5
32.9
31.1
29.6
27.2
25.2
23.4
21.5
19.5
17.1
15.6
13.9
11.2
Table A4
Normative data for the ROCF copy stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.1
33.2
31.9
30.4
28.2
36.0
34.4
32.5
31.2
29.7
27.5
36.0
35.4
33.7
31.7
30.5
29.0
26.8
36.0
34.7
33.0
31.0
29.8
28.3
26.1
36.0
35.5
34.0
32.3
30.3
29.1
27.6
25.3
36.0
34.8
33.3
31.6
29.6
28.4
26.9
24.6
36.0
35.7
34.1
32.5
30.9
28.9
27.6
26.2
23.9
36.0
34.9
33.4
31.8
30.2
28.2
26.9
25.4
23.2
36.0
35.9
34.2
32.7
31.1
29.4
27.5
26.2
24.7
22.5
36.0
35.2
33.5
32.0
30.4
28.7
26.7
25.5
24.0
21.8
36.0
34.5
32.8
31.2
29.7
28.0
26.0
24.8
23.3
21.1
36.0
35.7
33.8
32.1
30.5
29.0
27.3
25.3
24.1
22.6
20.4
36.0
35.0
33.1
31.4
29.8
28.3
26.6
24.6
23.4
21.9
19.6
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.7
34.1
32.5
30.5
29.2
27.8
25.5
36.0
35.0
33.4
31.8
29.8
28.5
27.0
24.8
36.0
35.8
34.3
32.7
31.0
29.1
27.8
26.3
24.1
36.0
35.1
33.6
32.0
30.3
28.3
27.1
25.6
23.4
36.0
34.4
32.8
31.3
29.6
27.6
26.4
24.9
22.7
36.0
35.4
33.7
32.1
30.6
28.9
26.9
25.7
24.2
22.0
36.0
34.6
33.0
31.4
29.9
28.2
26.2
25.0
23.5
21.2
36.0
35.9
33.9
32.3
30.7
29.2
27.5
25.5
24.3
22.8
20.5
36.0
35.2
33.2
31.5
30.0
28.4
26.8
24.8
23.5
22.0
19.8
36.0
35.7
34.5
32.5
30.8
29.3
27.7
26.1
24.1
22.8
21.3
19.1
36.0
35.0
33.8
31.8
30.1
28.6
27.0
25.3
23.4
22.1
20.6
18.4
36.0
35.8
34.3
33.1
31.1
29.4
27.9
26.3
24.6
22.6
21.4
19.9
17.7
36.0
35.1
33.6
32.4
30.4
28.7
27.1
25.6
23.9
21.9
20.7
19.2
17.0
689

Table A5
Normative data for the ROCF copy stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.7
33.8
31.6
29.1
27.5
25.6
22.8
36.0
35.1
33.1
31.0
28.5
26.9
25.0
22.2
36.0
34.5
32.5
30.4
27.9
26.3
24.4
21.6
36.0
35.9
33.9
31.9
29.8
27.3
25.7
23.8
21.0
36.0
35.3
33.3
31.3
29.2
26.7
25.1
23.2
20.4
36.0
34.7
32.7
30.7
28.6
26.1
24.5
22.6
19.8
36.0
34.1
32.1
30.1
28.0
25.5
23.9
22.0
19.2
36.0
35.6
33.5
31.5
29.5
27.4
24.9
23.3
21.4
18.6
36.0
35.0
32.8
30.9
28.9
26.8
24.3
22.7
20.8
17.9
36.0
34.4
32.2
30.3
28.3
26.2
23.6
22.1
20.2
17.3
36.0
33.8
31.6
29.7
27.7
25.6
23.0
21.5
19.6
16.7
36.0
35.7
33.2
31.0
29.1
27.1
25.0
22.4
20.9
19.0
16.1
36.0
35.1
32.6
30.4
28.5
26.5
24.4
21.8
20.3
18.4
15.5
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.2
33.7
31.1
29.0
27.0
25.1
22.9
20.4
18.8
16.9
14.1
36.0
34.6
33.0
30.5
28.4
26.4
24.5
22.3
19.8
18.2
16.3
13.5
36.0
35.9
34.0
32.4
29.9
27.8
25.8
23.8
21.7
19.2
17.6
15.7
12.9
36.0
35.3
33.4
31.8
29.3
27.2
25.2
23.2
21.1
18.6
17.0
15.1
12.3
36.0
34.7
32.8
31.2
28.7
26.6
24.6
22.6
20.5
18.0
16.4
14.5
11.7
36.0
34.1
32.2
30.6
28.1
26.0
24.0
22.0
19.9
17.4
15.8
13.9
11.1
36.0
33.5
31.6
30.0
27.5
25.4
23.4
21.4
19.3
16.8
15.2
13.3
10.5
35.7
32.9
31.0
29.4
26.9
24.8
22.8
20.8
18.7
16.2
14.6
12.7
9.9
35.1
32.3
30.4
28.8
26.3
24.2
22.2
20.2
18.1
15.6
14.0
12.1
9.3
34.5
31.7
29.8
28.2
25.7
23.5
21.6
19.6
17.5
15.0
13.4
11.5
8.6
33.9
31.1
29.2
27.6
25.1
22.9
21.0
19.0
16.9
14.3
12.8
10.9
8.0
33.3
30.5
28.6
27.0
24.5
22.3
20.4
18.4
16.3
13.7
12.2
10.3
7.4
32.7
29.8
28.0
26.4
23.9
21.7
19.8
17.8
15.7
13.1
11.6
9.7
6.8
Table A6
Normative data for the ROCF copy stratified by age and education levels for GUATEMALA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.5
33.9
32.2
30.2
28.9
27.4
25.2
36.0
35.2
33.6
31.9
29.9
28.7
27.1
24.9
36.0
34.9
33.3
31.6
29.6
28.4
26.8
24.6
36.0
34.6
33.0
31.3
29.3
28.1
26.5
24.3
36.0
35.9
34.3
32.7
31.0
29.0
27.8
26.3
24.0
36.0
35.6
34.0
32.5
30.7
28.7
27.5
26.0
23.7
36.0
35.3
33.7
32.2
30.5
28.4
27.2
25.7
23.4
36.0
35.0
33.4
31.9
30.2
28.1
26.9
25.4
23.1
36.0
34.7
33.1
31.6
29.9
27.8
26.6
25.1
22.8
36.0
34.4
32.8
31.3
29.6
27.6
26.3
24.8
22.5
36.0
35.8
34.1
32.6
31.0
29.3
27.3
26.0
24.5
22.2
36.0
35.5
33.8
32.3
30.7
29.0
27.0
25.7
24.2
21.9
36.0
35.2
33.5
32.0
30.4
28.7
26.7
25.4
23.9
21.6
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
34.3
32.6
31.0
29.4
27.7
25.7
24.5
22.9
20.7
36.0
34.0
32.3
30.7
29.1
27.4
25.4
24.2
22.6
20.4
36.0
35.7
33.7
32.0
30.4
28.8
27.1
25.1
23.9
22.3
20.1
36.0
35.4
33.4
31.7
30.1
28.5
26.8
24.8
23.6
22.1
19.8
36.0
35.1
33.1
31.4
29.8
28.3
26.5
24.5
23.3
21.8
19.5
36.0
34.8
32.8
31.1
29.5
28.0
26.3
24.2
23.0
21.5
19.2
36.0
35.8
34.5
32.5
30.8
29.2
27.7
26.0
23.9
22.7
21.2
18.9
36.0
35.5
34.2
32.2
30.5
28.9
27.4
25.7
23.6
22.4
20.9
18.6
36.0
35.2
33.9
31.9
30.2
28.6
27.1
25.4
23.4
22.1
20.6
18.3
36.0
34.9
33.6
31.6
29.9
28.4
26.8
25.1
23.1
21.8
20.3
18.0
36.0
34.6
33.4
31.3
29.6
28.1
26.5
24.8
22.8
21.5
20.0
17.7
36.0
35.8
34.3
33.1
31.0
29.3
27.8
26.2
24.5
22.5
21.2
19.7
17.4
36.0
35.5
34.0
32.8
30.7
29.0
27.5
25.9
24.2
22.2
20.9
19.4
17.1
690

Table A7
Normative data for the ROCF copy stratified by age and education levels for HONDURAS
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.7
33.8
31.6
29.1
27.5
25.7
22.8
36.0
35.0
33.0
30.9
28.4
26.8
24.9
22.1
36.0
34.3
32.3
30.2
27.6
26.1
24.2
21.3
36.0
35.5
33.5
31.6
29.4
26.9
25.3
23.4
20.6
36.0
34.7
32.8
30.8
28.7
26.2
24.6
22.7
19.9
36.0
34.0
32.0
30.1
27.9
25.4
23.8
22.0
19.1
36.0
35.4
33.3
31.3
29.3
27.2
24.7
23.1
21.2
18.4
36.0
34.7
32.5
30.6
28.6
26.5
23.9
22.4
20.5
17.6
36.0
33.9
31.8
29.8
27.9
25.7
23.2
21.6
19.7
16.9
36.0
35.7
33.2
31.1
29.1
27.1
25.0
22.5
20.9
19.0
16.2
36.0
35.0
32.4
30.3
28.3
26.4
24.3
21.7
20.2
18.3
15.4
36.0
35.8
34.2
31.7
29.6
27.6
25.6
23.5
21.0
19.4
17.5
14.7
36.0
35.1
33.5
31.0
28.8
26.9
24.9
22.8
20.3
18.7
16.8
14.0
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
34.1
32.0
30.0
28.1
25.9
23.4
21.8
20.0
17.1
36.0
33.4
31.3
29.3
27.3
25.2
22.7
21.1
19.2
16.4
36.0
35.2
32.7
30.5
28.6
26.6
24.5
21.9
20.4
18.5
15.6
36.0
34.4
31.9
29.8
27.8
25.9
23.7
21.2
19.6
17.7
14.9
36.0
35.3
33.7
31.2
29.1
27.1
25.1
23.0
20.5
18.9
17.0
14.2
36.0
34.5
33.0
30.4
28.3
26.3
24.4
22.2
19.7
18.2
16.3
13.4
36.0
35.7
33.8
32.2
29.7
27.6
25.6
23.6
21.5
19.0
17.4
15.5
12.7
36.0
34.9
33.1
31.5
29.0
26.8
24.9
22.9
20.8
18.2
16.7
14.8
11.9
36.0
34.2
32.3
30.7
28.2
26.1
24.1
22.2
20.0
17.5
15.9
14.0
11.2
36.0
33.5
31.6
30.0
27.5
25.4
23.4
21.4
19.3
16.8
15.2
13.3
10.5
35.6
32.7
30.8
29.3
26.7
24.6
22.6
20.7
18.6
16.0
14.5
12.6
9.7
34.8
32.0
30.1
28.5
26.0
23.9
21.9
19.9
17.8
15.3
13.7
11.8
9.0
34.1
31.3
29.4
27.8
25.3
23.1
21.2
19.2
17.1
14.6
13.0
11.1
8.3
Table A8
Normative data for the ROCF copy stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
34.9
33.4
31.8
29.9
28.7
27.2
25.1
36.0
34.5
33.0
31.4
29.5
28.3
26.8
24.7
36.0
35.6
34.1
32.6
31.0
29.1
27.9
26.4
24.3
36.0
35.2
33.7
32.2
30.6
28.7
27.5
26.0
23.9
36.0
34.8
33.3
31.8
30.2
28.3
27.1
25.6
23.5
36.0
34.4
32.9
31.4
29.8
27.8
26.6
25.2
23.1
36.0
35.6
34.0
32.5
31.0
29.4
27.4
26.2
24.8
22.6
36.0
35.2
33.6
32.1
30.6
29.0
27.0
25.8
24.4
22.2
36.0
34.8
33.2
31.7
30.2
28.6
26.6
25.4
24.0
21.8
36.0
34.4
32.8
31.3
29.8
28.1
26.2
25.0
23.6
21.4
36.0
35.9
34.0
32.4
30.9
29.4
27.7
25.8
24.6
23.2
21.0
36.0
35.5
33.6
32.0
30.5
29.0
27.3
25.4
24.2
22.8
20.6
36.0
35.1
33.2
31.5
30.0
28.6
26.9
25.0
23.8
22.4
20.2
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.8
34.2
32.7
31.2
29.6
27.7
26.5
25.0
22.9
36.0
35.4
33.8
32.3
30.8
29.2
27.3
26.1
24.6
22.5
36.0
35.0
33.4
31.9
30.4
28.8
26.9
25.7
24.2
22.1
36.0
34.6
33.0
31.5
30.0
28.4
26.5
25.3
23.8
21.7
36.0
34.2
32.6
31.1
29.6
28.0
26.1
24.9
23.4
21.3
36.0
35.7
33.8
32.2
30.7
29.2
27.6
25.7
24.5
23.0
20.9
36.0
35.3
33.4
31.8
30.3
28.8
27.2
25.2
24.1
22.6
20.5
36.0
34.9
33.0
31.4
29.9
28.4
26.8
24.8
23.6
22.2
20.0
36.0
35.7
34.5
32.6
31.0
29.5
28.0
26.4
24.4
23.2
21.8
19.6
36.0
35.3
34.1
32.2
30.6
29.1
27.6
26.0
24.0
22.8
21.4
19.2
36.0
34.9
33.7
31.8
30.2
28.7
27.2
25.5
23.6
22.4
21.0
18.8
36.0
35.9
34.5
33.3
31.4
29.8
28.3
26.8
25.1
23.2
22.0
20.6
18.4
36.0
35.5
34.1
32.9
31.0
29.4
27.9
26.4
24.7
22.8
21.6
20.2
18.0
691

Table A9
Normative data for the ROCF copy stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.8
35.0
34.2
33.3
32.3
31.6
30.9
29.7
36.0
35.2
34.4
33.6
32.8
31.7
31.1
30.3
29.2
36.0
35.6
34.7
33.9
33.1
32.2
31.2
30.6
29.8
28.6
36.0
35.0
34.2
33.4
32.6
31.7
30.7
30.0
29.3
28.1
36.0
35.5
34.5
33.6
32.8
32.0
31.2
30.1
29.5
28.7
27.6
36.0
35.6
35.0
34.0
33.1
32.3
31.5
30.6
29.6
29.0
28.2
27.1
36.0
35.9
35.1
34.5
33.4
32.6
31.8
31.0
30.1
29.1
28.4
27.7
26.5
36.0
35.3
34.6
33.9
32.9
32.0
31.2
30.4
29.6
28.6
27.9
27.1
26.0
36.0
34.8
34.0
33.4
32.4
31.5
30.7
29.9
29.0
28.0
27.4
26.6
25.5
35.4
34.3
33.5
32.9
31.8
31.0
30.2
29.4
28.5
27.5
26.8
26.1
24.9
34.9
33.7
33.0
32.3
31.3
30.4
29.6
28.8
28.0
27.0
26.3
25.5
24.4
34.4
33.2
32.4
31.8
30.8
29.9
29.1
28.3
27.4
26.4
25.8
25.0
23.9
33.8
32.7
31.9
31.3
30.2
29.4
28.6
27.8
26.9
25.9
25.3
24.5
23.3
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.2
34.6
33.6
32.7
31.9
31.1
30.3
29.2
28.6
27.8
26.7
36.0
35.5
34.7
34.1
33.0
32.2
31.4
30.6
29.7
28.7
28.1
27.3
26.1
36.0
35.0
34.2
33.5
32.5
31.7
30.9
30.1
29.2
28.2
27.5
26.8
25.6
35.6
34.4
33.7
33.0
32.0
31.1
30.3
29.5
28.7
27.6
27.0
26.2
25.1
35.0
33.9
33.1
32.5
31.5
30.6
29.8
29.0
28.1
27.1
26.5
25.7
24.5
34.5
33.4
32.6
31.9
30.9
30.1
29.3
28.5
27.6
26.6
25.9
25.2
24.0
34.0
32.8
32.1
31.4
30.4
29.5
28.7
27.9
27.1
26.0
25.4
24.6
23.5
33.4
32.3
31.5
30.9
29.9
29.0
28.2
27.4
26.5
25.5
24.9
24.1
22.9
32.9
31.8
31.0
30.4
29.3
28.5
27.7
26.9
26.0
25.0
24.3
23.6
22.4
32.4
31.2
30.5
29.8
28.8
27.9
27.1
26.3
25.5
24.4
23.8
23.0
21.9
31.8
30.7
29.9
29.3
28.3
27.4
26.6
25.8
24.9
23.9
23.3
22.5
21.4
31.3
30.2
29.4
28.8
27.7
26.9
26.1
25.3
24.4
23.4
22.7
22.0
20.8
30.8
29.6
28.9
28.2
27.2
26.3
25.5
24.7
23.9
22.8
22.2
21.4
20.3
Table A10
Normative data for the ROCF copy stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.2
34.2
33.5
32.7
31.5
36.0
34.8
33.8
33.1
32.3
31.1
36.0
35.3
34.4
33.4
32.7
31.9
30.7
36.0
35.8
34.9
34.0
33.0
32.3
31.5
30.3
36.0
35.4
34.5
33.6
32.6
31.9
31.1
29.9
36.0
35.8
35.0
34.1
33.2
32.2
31.5
30.7
29.5
36.0
35.4
34.6
33.7
32.8
31.8
31.1
30.3
29.1
36.0
35.9
35.0
34.2
33.4
32.4
31.4
30.7
29.9
28.7
36.0
35.5
34.6
33.8
33.0
32.0
31.0
30.3
29.5
28.3
36.0
35.1
34.2
33.4
32.6
31.6
30.6
29.9
29.1
27.9
36.0
35.8
34.7
33.8
33.0
32.2
31.3
30.2
29.5
28.7
27.5
36.0
35.4
34.3
33.4
32.6
31.8
30.9
29.8
29.1
28.3
27.1
36.0
35.7
35.0
33.9
33.0
32.2
31.4
30.5
29.4
28.7
27.9
26.7
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.5
34.7
33.9
33.0
31.9
31.2
30.4
29.2
36.0
35.1
34.3
33.5
32.6
31.5
30.8
30.0
28.8
36.0
35.6
34.7
33.9
33.1
32.2
31.1
30.4
29.6
28.4
36.0
35.3
34.3
33.5
32.7
31.8
30.7
30.0
29.2
28.0
36.0
35.9
34.9
33.9
33.1
32.3
31.4
30.3
29.6
28.8
27.6
36.0
35.5
34.5
33.6
32.7
31.9
31.0
29.9
29.2
28.4
27.2
36.0
35.8
35.1
34.1
33.2
32.3
31.5
30.6
29.5
28.8
28.0
26.8
36.0
35.4
34.7
33.7
32.8
31.9
31.1
30.2
29.1
28.4
27.6
26.4
36.0
35.8
35.0
34.3
33.3
32.4
31.5
30.7
29.8
28.7
28.0
27.2
26.0
36.0
35.4
34.6
33.9
32.9
32.0
31.1
30.3
29.4
28.3
27.6
26.8
25.6
36.0
35.0
34.2
33.5
32.5
31.6
30.7
29.9
29.0
27.9
27.2
26.4
25.2
35.8
34.6
33.8
33.1
32.1
31.2
30.3
29.5
28.6
27.5
26.8
26.0
24.8
35.4
34.2
33.4
32.7
31.7
30.8
29.9
29.1
28.2
27.1
26.4
25.6
24.4
692

Table A11
Normative data for the ROCF copy stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.9
34.4
32.7
31.7
30.4
28.5
36.0
35.1
33.7
32.0
31.0
29.7
27.8
36.0
35.7
34.4
33.0
31.3
30.2
29.0
27.1
36.0
35.0
33.7
32.2
30.6
29.5
28.2
26.3
36.0
35.6
34.3
32.9
31.5
29.8
28.8
27.5
25.6
36.0
34.8
33.5
32.2
30.8
29.1
28.0
26.8
24.9
36.0
35.5
34.1
32.8
31.5
30.1
28.4
27.3
26.0
24.1
36.0
34.8
33.4
32.1
30.7
29.3
27.6
26.6
25.3
23.4
36.0
35.8
34.1
32.7
31.3
30.0
28.6
26.9
25.8
24.6
22.7
36.0
35.0
33.3
31.9
30.6
29.3
27.9
26.2
25.1
23.9
22.0
36.0
35.4
34.3
32.6
31.2
29.9
28.6
27.1
25.4
24.4
23.1
21.2
36.0
35.9
34.6
33.6
31.9
30.5
29.1
27.8
26.4
24.7
23.7
22.4
20.5
36.0
35.2
33.9
32.8
31.2
29.7
28.4
27.1
25.7
24.0
22.9
21.7
19.8
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.3
33.9
32.5
30.8
29.8
28.5
26.6
36.0
34.5
33.2
31.8
30.1
29.1
27.8
25.9
36.0
35.1
33.8
32.5
31.1
29.4
28.3
27.1
25.2
36.0
35.8
34.4
33.1
31.8
30.3
28.6
27.6
26.3
24.4
36.0
35.1
33.7
32.3
31.0
29.6
27.9
26.9
25.6
23.7
36.0
34.4
32.9
31.6
30.3
28.9
27.2
26.1
24.9
23.0
36.0
35.3
33.6
32.2
30.9
29.6
28.1
26.5
25.4
24.1
22.2
36.0
35.6
34.6
32.9
31.5
30.2
28.8
27.4
25.7
24.7
23.4
21.5
36.0
34.9
33.9
32.2
30.7
29.4
28.1
26.7
25.0
23.9
22.7
20.8
36.0
35.4
34.2
33.1
31.4
30.0
28.7
27.4
26.0
24.3
23.2
21.9
20.0
36.0
34.7
33.5
32.4
30.7
29.3
28.0
26.6
25.2
23.5
22.5
21.2
19.3
35.9
34.0
32.7
31.7
30.0
28.6
27.2
25.9
24.5
22.8
21.7
20.5
18.6
35.2
33.3
32.0
30.9
29.2
27.8
26.5
25.2
23.8
22.1
21.0
19.8
17.9
Table A12
Normative data for the ROCF immediate recall stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.2
33.9
31.8
30.1
28.5
26.8
25.1
23.0
21.7
20.1
17.7
36.0
34.4
33.1
31.1
29.3
27.7
26.0
24.3
22.2
20.9
19.3
17.0
36.0
35.2
33.7
32.3
30.3
28.5
26.9
25.2
23.5
21.4
20.1
18.5
16.2
36.0
34.4
32.9
31.6
29.5
27.7
26.1
24.4
22.7
20.6
19.3
17.7
15.4
36.0
33.6
32.1
30.8
28.7
26.9
25.3
23.6
21.9
19.8
18.5
16.9
14.6
35.2
32.8
31.3
30.0
27.9
26.1
24.5
22.9
21.1
19.0
17.7
16.1
13.8
34.4
32.0
30.5
29.2
27.1
25.3
23.7
22.1
20.3
18.2
16.9
15.3
13.0
33.6
31.3
29.7
28.4
26.3
24.5
22.9
21.3
19.5
17.4
16.1
14.6
12.2
32.8
30.5
28.9
27.6
25.5
23.7
22.1
20.5
18.7
16.6
15.3
13.8
11.4
32.0
29.7
28.1
26.8
24.7
23.0
21.3
19.7
17.9
15.8
14.5
13.0
10.6
31.2
28.9
27.3
26.0
23.9
22.2
20.5
18.9
17.1
15.0
13.7
12.2
9.8
30.4
28.1
26.5
25.2
23.1
21.4
19.7
18.1
16.3
14.3
12.9
11.4
9.0
29.6
27.3
25.7
24.4
22.3
20.6
18.9
17.3
15.5
13.5
12.2
10.6
8.2
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
35.5
33.1
31.6
30.2
28.2
26.4
24.8
23.1
21.4
19.3
18.0
16.4
14.1
34.7
32.3
30.8
29.5
27.4
25.6
24.0
22.3
20.6
18.5
17.2
15.6
13.3
33.9
31.5
30.0
28.7
26.6
24.8
23.2
21.5
19.8
17.7
16.4
14.8
12.5
33.1
30.7
29.2
27.9
25.8
24.0
22.4
20.8
19.0
16.9
15.6
14.0
11.7
32.3
29.9
28.4
27.1
25.0
23.2
21.6
20.0
18.2
16.1
14.8
13.2
10.9
31.5
29.2
27.6
26.3
24.2
22.4
20.8
19.2
17.4
15.3
14.0
12.5
10.1
30.7
28.4
26.8
25.5
23.4
21.6
20.0
18.4
16.6
14.5
13.2
11.7
9.3
29.9
27.6
26.0
24.7
22.6
20.9
19.2
17.6
15.8
13.7
12.4
10.9
8.5
29.1
26.8
25.2
23.9
21.8
20.1
18.4
16.8
15.0
12.9
11.6
10.1
7.7
28.3
26.0
24.4
23.1
21.0
19.3
17.6
16.0
14.2
12.2
10.8
9.3
6.9
27.5
25.2
23.6
22.3
20.2
18.5
16.8
15.2
13.4
11.4
10.1
8.5
6.1
26.8
24.4
22.8
21.5
19.4
17.7
16.0
14.4
12.7
10.6
9.3
7.7
5.3
26.0
23.6
22.0
20.7
18.7
16.9
15.3
13.6
11.9
9.8
8.5
6.9
4.6
693

Table A13
Normative data for the ROCF immediate recall stratified by age and education levels for BOLIVIA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
35.4
32.9
31.2
29.8
27.5
25.6
23.8
22.1
20.2
17.9
16.5
14.8
12.3
34.5
32.0
30.3
28.9
26.7
24.8
23.0
21.2
19.3
17.1
15.7
14.0
11.4
33.7
31.2
29.5
28.1
25.8
23.9
22.2
20.4
18.5
16.2
14.8
13.1
10.6
32.9
30.3
28.6
27.2
25.0
23.1
21.3
19.5
17.6
15.4
14.0
12.3
9.8
32.0
29.5
27.8
26.4
24.1
22.2
20.5
18.7
16.8
14.5
13.1
11.4
8.9
31.2
28.6
26.9
25.5
23.3
21.4
19.6
17.8
15.9
13.7
12.3
10.6
8.1
30.3
27.8
26.1
24.7
22.4
20.5
18.8
17.0
15.1
12.8
11.4
9.7
7.2
29.5
26.9
25.2
23.8
21.6
19.7
17.9
16.2
14.3
12.0
10.6
8.9
6.4
28.6
26.1
24.4
23.0
20.7
18.8
17.1
15.3
13.4
11.2
9.7
8.1
5.5
27.8
25.2
23.5
22.1
19.9
18.0
16.2
14.5
12.6
10.3
8.9
7.2
4.7
26.9
24.4
22.7
21.3
19.0
17.1
15.4
13.6
11.7
9.5
8.0
6.4
3.8
26.1
23.5
21.9
20.4
18.2
16.3
14.5
12.8
10.9
8.6
7.2
5.5
3.0
25.2
22.7
21.0
19.6
17.3
15.4
13.7
11.9
10.0
7.8
6.4
4.7
2.1
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
31.7
29.1
27.4
26.0
23.8
21.9
20.1
18.3
16.4
14.2
12.8
11.1
8.5
30.8
28.3
26.6
25.2
22.9
21.0
19.3
17.5
15.6
13.3
11.9
10.2
7.7
30.0
27.4
25.7
24.3
22.1
20.2
18.4
16.6
14.7
12.5
11.1
9.4
6.9
29.1
26.6
24.9
23.5
21.2
19.3
17.6
15.8
13.9
11.6
10.2
8.5
6.0
28.3
25.7
24.0
22.6
20.4
18.5
16.7
15.0
13.0
10.8
9.4
7.7
5.2
27.4
24.9
23.2
21.8
19.5
17.6
15.9
14.1
12.2
9.9
8.5
6.8
4.3
26.6
24.0
22.3
20.9
18.7
16.8
15.0
13.3
11.4
9.1
7.7
6.0
3.5
25.7
23.2
21.5
20.1
17.8
15.9
14.2
12.4
10.5
8.3
6.8
5.2
2.6
24.9
22.3
20.6
19.2
17.0
15.1
13.3
11.6
9.7
7.4
6.0
4.3
1.8
24.0
21.5
19.8
18.4
16.1
14.2
12.5
10.7
8.8
6.6
5.2
3.5
0.9
23.2
20.6
19.0
17.5
15.3
13.4
11.6
9.9
8.0
5.7
4.3
2.6
0.1
22.3
19.8
18.1
16.7
14.4
12.5
10.8
9.0
7.1
4.9
3.5
1.8
21.5
19.0
17.3
15.9
13.6
11.7
9.9
8.2
6.3
4.0
2.6
0.9
Table A14
Normative data for the ROCF immediate recall stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
35.2
32.5
30.7
29.3
26.9
24.9
23.0
21.2
19.2
16.8
15.3
13.6
10.9
34.3
31.6
29.9
28.4
26.0
24.0
22.2
20.3
18.3
15.9
14.5
12.7
10.0
33.4
30.8
29.0
27.5
25.1
23.1
21.3
19.4
17.4
15.1
13.6
11.8
9.1
32.5
29.9
28.1
26.6
24.3
22.3
20.4
18.6
16.6
14.2
12.7
10.9
8.3
31.7
29.0
27.2
25.7
23.4
21.4
19.5
17.7
15.7
13.3
11.8
10.0
7.4
30.8
28.1
26.3
24.9
22.5
20.5
18.6
16.8
14.8
12.4
10.9
9.2
6.5
29.9
27.2
25.5
24.0
21.6
19.6
17.8
15.9
13.9
11.5
10.1
8.3
5.6
29.0
26.4
24.6
23.1
20.7
18.7
16.9
15.0
13.0
10.7
9.2
7.4
4.7
28.2
25.5
23.7
22.2
19.9
17.9
16.0
14.2
12.2
9.8
8.3
6.5
3.9
27.3
24.6
22.8
21.4
19.0
17.0
15.1
13.3
11.3
8.9
7.4
5.7
3.0
26.4
23.7
22.0
20.5
18.1
16.1
14.3
12.4
10.4
8.0
6.6
4.8
2.1
25.5
22.9
21.1
19.6
17.2
15.2
13.4
11.5
9.5
7.2
5.7
3.9
1.2
24.7
22.0
20.2
18.7
16.4
14.4
12.5
10.7
8.7
6.3
4.8
3.0
0.4
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
32.2
29.5
27.7
26.2
23.9
21.9
20.0
18.2
16.2
13.8
12.3
10.5
7.9
31.3
28.6
26.8
25.4
23.0
21.0
19.1
17.3
15.3
12.9
11.4
9.7
7.0
30.4
27.7
26.0
24.5
22.1
20.1
18.3
16.4
14.4
12.0
10.6
8.8
6.1
29.5
26.9
25.1
23.6
21.2
19.2
17.4
15.5
13.5
11.2
9.7
7.9
5.2
28.7
26.0
24.2
22.7
20.4
18.4
16.5
14.7
12.7
10.3
8.8
7.0
4.4
27.8
25.1
23.3
21.9
19.5
17.5
15.6
13.8
11.8
9.4
7.9
6.2
3.5
26.9
24.2
22.5
21.0
18.6
16.6
14.8
12.9
10.9
8.5
7.1
5.3
2.6
26.0
23.4
21.6
20.1
17.7
15.7
13.9
12.0
10.0
7.7
6.2
4.4
1.7
25.2
22.5
20.7
19.2
16.9
14.9
13.0
11.2
9.2
6.8
5.3
3.5
0.9
24.3
21.6
19.8
18.3
16.0
14.0
12.1
10.3
8.3
5.9
4.4
2.7
23.4
20.7
19.0
17.5
15.1
13.1
11.3
9.4
7.4
5.0
3.6
1.8
22.5
19.9
18.1
16.6
14.2
12.2
10.4
8.5
6.5
4.2
2.7
0.9
21.6
19.0
17.2
15.7
13.3
11.3
9.5
7.6
5.6
3.3
1.8
694

Table A15
Normative data for the ROCF immediate recall stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.7
33.1
30.9
28.8
26.8
24.6
21.9
20.3
18.3
15.4
36.0
34.7
32.0
29.8
27.8
25.7
23.5
20.9
19.3
17.3
14.3
36.0
35.3
33.6
31.0
28.8
26.7
24.7
22.5
19.8
18.2
16.2
13.3
36.0
34.2
32.6
30.0
27.7
25.7
23.6
21.4
18.8
17.2
15.2
12.2
36.0
35.1
33.2
31.5
28.9
26.7
24.7
22.6
20.4
17.8
16.1
14.2
11.2
36.0
34.1
32.1
30.5
27.9
25.7
23.6
21.6
19.3
16.7
15.1
13.1
10.2
36.0
33.1
31.1
29.5
26.8
24.6
22.6
20.5
18.3
15.7
14.0
12.1
9.1
35.0
32.0
30.1
28.4
25.8
23.6
21.5
19.5
17.3
14.6
13.0
11.0
8.1
33.9
31.0
29.0
27.4
24.7
22.5
20.5
18.4
16.2
13.6
12.0
10.0
7.0
32.9
29.9
28.0
26.3
23.7
21.5
19.4
17.4
15.2
12.6
10.9
8.9
6.0
31.8
28.9
26.9
25.3
22.7
20.4
18.4
16.3
14.1
11.5
9.9
7.9
5.0
30.8
27.8
25.9
24.2
21.6
19.4
17.4
15.3
13.1
10.5
8.8
6.9
3.9
29.8
26.8
24.8
23.2
20.6
18.4
16.3
14.3
12.1
9.4
7.8
5.8
2.9
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
34.3
32.7
30.1
27.8
25.8
23.7
21.5
18.9
17.3
15.3
12.3
36.0
33.3
31.6
29.0
26.8
24.8
22.7
20.5
17.9
16.2
14.3
11.3
36.0
34.2
32.2
30.6
28.0
25.8
23.7
21.7
19.4
16.8
15.2
13.2
10.3
36.0
33.2
31.2
29.6
26.9
24.7
22.7
20.6
18.4
15.8
14.1
12.2
9.2
35.1
32.1
30.2
28.5
25.9
23.7
21.6
19.6
17.4
14.7
13.1
11.1
8.2
34.0
31.1
29.1
27.5
24.8
22.6
20.6
18.5
16.3
13.7
12.1
10.1
7.1
33.0
30.0
28.1
26.4
23.8
21.6
19.5
17.5
15.3
12.7
11.0
9.0
6.1
31.9
29.0
27.0
25.4
22.8
20.5
18.5
16.4
14.2
11.6
10.0
8.0
5.1
30.9
27.9
26.0
24.3
21.7
19.5
17.5
15.4
13.2
10.6
8.9
7.0
4.0
29.9
26.9
24.9
23.3
20.7
18.5
16.4
14.4
12.2
9.5
7.9
5.9
3.0
28.8
25.9
23.9
22.3
19.6
17.4
15.4
13.3
11.1
8.5
6.8
4.9
1.9
27.8
24.8
22.9
21.2
18.6
16.4
14.3
12.3
10.1
7.4
5.8
3.8
0.9
26.7
23.8
21.8
20.2
17.6
15.3
13.3
11.2
9.0
6.4
4.8
2.8
Table A16
Normative data for the ROCF immediate recall stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.7
34.2
32.9
30.9
29.2
27.6
26.0
24.3
22.3
21.1
19.5
17.3
36.0
34.8
33.3
32.0
30.0
28.3
26.7
25.1
23.4
21.4
20.1
18.6
16.3
36.0
33.8
32.3
31.1
29.0
27.3
25.7
24.2
22.5
20.4
19.2
17.7
15.4
35.2
32.9
31.4
30.1
28.1
26.4
24.8
23.2
21.5
19.5
18.2
16.7
14.4
34.2
32.0
30.4
29.2
27.2
25.4
23.9
22.3
20.6
18.6
17.3
15.8
13.5
33.3
31.0
29.5
28.2
26.2
24.5
22.9
21.3
19.6
17.6
16.3
14.8
12.6
32.4
30.1
28.6
27.3
25.3
23.6
22.0
20.4
18.7
16.7
15.4
13.9
11.6
31.4
29.1
27.6
26.4
24.3
22.6
21.0
19.5
17.8
15.7
14.5
12.9
10.7
30.5
28.2
26.7
25.4
23.4
21.7
20.1
18.5
16.8
14.8
13.5
12.0
9.7
29.5
27.3
25.7
24.5
22.4
20.7
19.2
17.6
15.9
13.9
12.6
11.1
8.8
28.6
26.3
24.8
23.5
21.5
19.8
18.2
16.6
14.9
12.9
11.6
10.1
7.9
27.7
25.4
23.9
22.6
20.6
18.9
17.3
15.7
14.0
12.0
10.7
9.2
6.9
26.7
24.4
22.9
21.7
19.6
17.9
16.3
14.8
13.1
11.0
9.8
8.2
6.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
30.0
27.7
26.2
24.9
22.9
21.2
19.6
18.0
16.3
14.3
13.0
11.5
9.3
29.1
26.8
25.3
24.0
22.0
20.3
18.7
17.1
15.4
13.4
12.1
10.6
8.3
28.1
25.8
24.3
23.1
21.0
19.3
17.7
16.2
14.5
12.4
11.2
9.6
7.4
27.2
24.9
23.4
22.1
20.1
18.4
16.8
15.2
13.5
11.5
10.2
8.7
6.4
26.2
24.0
22.4
21.2
19.1
17.4
15.9
14.3
12.6
10.5
9.3
7.8
5.5
25.3
23.0
21.5
20.2
18.2
16.5
14.9
13.3
11.6
9.6
8.3
6.8
4.5
24.3
22.1
20.6
19.3
17.3
15.6
14.0
12.4
10.7
8.7
7.4
5.9
3.6
23.4
21.1
19.6
18.3
16.3
14.6
13.0
11.5
9.8
7.7
6.5
4.9
2.7
22.5
20.2
18.7
17.4
15.4
13.7
12.1
10.5
8.8
6.8
5.5
4.0
1.7
21.5
19.3
17.7
16.5
14.4
12.7
11.2
9.6
7.9
5.8
4.6
3.1
0.8
20.6
18.3
16.8
15.5
13.5
11.8
10.2
8.6
6.9
4.9
3.6
2.1
19.6
17.4
15.9
14.6
12.6
10.9
9.3
7.7
6.0
4.0
2.7
1.2
18.7
16.4
14.9
13.6
11.6
9.9
8.3
6.8
5.0
3.0
1.8
0.2
695

Table A17
Normative data for the ROCF immediate recall stratified by age and education levels for GUATEMALA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
34.8
32.5
30.9
29.6
27.5
25.7
24.1
22.4
20.7
18.6
17.3
15.7
13.3
34.0
31.7
30.1
28.8
26.7
24.9
23.3
21.7
19.9
17.8
16.5
14.9
12.6
33.3
30.9
29.3
28.0
25.9
24.2
22.5
20.9
19.1
17.0
15.7
14.2
11.8
32.5
30.1
28.6
27.3
25.2
23.4
21.8
20.1
18.4
16.3
14.9
13.4
11.0
31.7
29.4
27.8
26.5
24.4
22.6
21.0
19.3
17.6
15.5
14.2
12.6
10.2
30.9
28.6
27.0
25.7
23.6
21.8
20.2
18.6
16.8
14.7
13.4
11.8
9.5
30.2
27.8
26.2
24.9
22.8
21.1
19.4
17.8
16.0
13.9
12.6
11.0
8.7
29.4
27.0
25.5
24.2
22.1
20.3
18.7
17.0
15.2
13.2
11.8
10.3
7.9
28.6
26.3
24.7
23.4
21.3
19.5
17.9
16.2
14.5
12.4
11.1
9.5
7.1
27.8
25.5
23.9
22.6
20.5
18.7
17.1
15.5
13.7
11.6
10.3
8.7
6.4
27.1
24.7
23.1
21.8
19.7
18.0
16.3
14.7
12.9
10.8
9.5
7.9
5.6
26.3
23.9
22.4
21.1
19.0
17.2
15.6
13.9
12.1
10.1
8.7
7.2
4.8
25.5
23.2
21.6
20.3
18.2
16.4
14.8
13.1
11.4
9.3
8.0
6.4
4.0
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
31.1
28.8
27.2
25.9
23.8
22.0
20.4
18.8
17.0
14.9
13.6
12.0
9.7
30.4
28.0
26.4
25.1
23.0
21.3
19.6
18.0
16.2
14.1
12.8
11.2
8.9
29.6
27.2
25.7
24.3
22.2
20.5
18.8
17.2
15.4
13.3
12.0
10.5
8.1
28.8
26.4
24.9
23.6
21.5
19.7
18.1
16.4
14.7
12.6
11.3
9.7
7.3
28.0
25.7
24.1
22.8
20.7
18.9
17.3
15.7
13.9
11.8
10.5
8.9
6.6
27.3
24.9
23.3
22.0
19.9
18.2
16.5
14.9
13.1
11.0
9.7
8.1
5.8
26.5
24.1
22.6
21.2
19.1
17.4
15.7
14.1
12.3
10.2
8.9
7.4
5.0
25.7
23.3
21.8
20.5
18.4
16.6
15.0
13.3
11.6
9.5
8.2
6.6
4.2
24.9
22.6
21.0
19.7
17.6
15.8
14.2
12.6
10.8
8.7
7.4
5.8
3.5
24.2
21.8
20.2
18.9
16.8
15.1
13.4
11.8
10.0
7.9
6.6
5.0
2.7
23.4
21.0
19.4
18.1
16.0
14.3
12.6
11.0
9.2
7.1
5.8
4.3
1.9
22.6
20.2
18.7
17.4
15.3
13.5
11.9
10.2
8.5
6.4
5.1
3.5
1.1
21.8
19.5
17.9
16.6
14.5
12.7
11.1
9.5
7.7
5.6
4.3
2.7
0.4
Table A18
Normative data for the ROCF immediate recall stratified by age and education levels and gender for HONDURAS: MALES only
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.1
33.5
32.2
30.1
28.3
26.7
25.0
23.2
21.1
19.8
18.3
15.9
36.0
34.3
32.7
31.4
29.3
27.5
25.9
24.2
22.5
20.4
19.0
17.5
15.1
35.8
33.5
31.9
30.6
28.5
26.7
25.1
23.4
21.7
19.6
18.2
16.7
14.3
35.0
32.7
31.1
29.8
27.7
25.9
24.3
22.6
20.9
18.8
17.4
15.9
13.5
34.3
31.9
30.3
29.0
26.9
25.1
23.5
21.8
20.1
18.0
16.7
15.1
12.7
33.5
31.1
29.5
28.2
26.1
24.3
22.7
21.0
19.3
17.2
15.9
14.3
11.9
32.7
30.3
28.7
27.4
25.3
23.5
21.9
20.3
18.5
16.4
15.1
13.5
11.1
31.9
29.5
27.9
26.6
24.5
22.7
21.1
19.5
17.7
15.6
14.3
12.7
10.3
31.1
28.7
27.1
25.8
23.7
22.0
20.3
18.7
16.9
14.8
13.5
11.9
9.5
30.3
27.9
26.3
25.0
22.9
21.2
19.5
17.9
16.1
14.0
12.7
11.1
8.7
29.5
27.1
25.6
24.2
22.1
20.4
18.7
17.1
15.3
13.2
11.9
10.3
8.0
28.7
26.3
24.8
23.4
21.3
19.6
17.9
16.3
14.5
12.4
11.1
9.5
7.2
27.9
25.5
24.0
22.6
20.5
18.8
17.1
15.5
13.7
11.6
10.3
8.7
6.4
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
31.3
28.9
27.3
26.0
23.9
22.2
20.5
18.9
17.1
15.0
13.7
12.1
9.7
30.5
28.1
26.5
25.2
23.1
21.4
19.7
18.1
16.3
14.2
12.9
11.3
8.9
29.7
27.3
25.8
24.4
22.3
20.6
18.9
17.3
15.5
13.4
12.1
10.5
8.2
28.9
26.5
25.0
23.6
21.5
19.8
18.1
16.5
14.7
12.6
11.3
9.7
7.4
28.1
25.7
24.2
22.9
20.8
19.0
17.3
15.7
13.9
11.8
10.5
8.9
6.6
27.3
24.9
23.4
22.1
20.0
18.2
16.5
14.9
13.1
11.0
9.7
8.1
5.8
26.5
24.2
22.6
21.3
19.2
17.4
15.7
14.1
12.3
10.2
8.9
7.3
5.0
25.7
23.4
21.8
20.5
18.4
16.6
15.0
13.3
11.5
9.4
8.1
6.5
4.2
24.9
22.6
21.0
19.7
17.6
15.8
14.2
12.5
10.7
8.6
7.3
5.8
3.4
24.1
21.8
20.2
18.9
16.8
15.0
13.4
11.7
10.0
7.8
6.5
5.0
2.6
23.3
21.0
19.4
18.1
16.0
14.2
12.6
10.9
9.2
7.1
5.7
4.2
1.8
22.5
20.2
18.6
17.3
15.2
13.4
11.8
10.1
8.4
6.3
4.9
3.4
1.0
21.8
19.4
17.8
16.5
14.4
12.6
11.0
9.3
7.6
5.5
4.2
2.6
0.2
696

Table A19
Normative data for the ROCF immediate recall stratified by age education level, and gender for HONDURAS: FEMALES only
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
33.4
31.0
29.4
28.1
26.0
24.3
22.6
21.0
19.2
17.1
15.8
14.2
11.8
32.6
30.2
28.6
27.3
25.2
23.5
21.8
20.2
18.4
16.3
15.0
13.4
11.0
31.8
29.4
27.9
26.5
24.4
22.7
21.0
19.4
17.6
15.5
14.2
12.6
10.3
31.0
28.6
27.1
25.7
23.6
21.9
20.2
18.6
16.8
14.7
13.4
11.8
9.5
30.2
27.8
26.3
25.0
22.9
21.1
19.4
17.8
16.0
13.9
12.6
11.0
8.7
29.4
27.0
25.5
24.2
22.1
20.3
18.6
17.0
15.2
13.1
11.8
10.2
7.9
28.6
26.3
24.7
23.4
21.3
19.5
17.8
16.2
14.4
12.3
11.0
9.4
7.1
27.8
25.5
23.9
22.6
20.5
18.7
17.1
15.4
13.6
11.5
10.2
8.6
6.3
27.0
24.7
23.1
21.8
19.7
17.9
16.3
14.6
12.8
10.7
9.4
7.9
5.5
26.2
23.9
22.3
21.0
18.9
17.1
15.5
13.8
12.1
9.9
8.6
7.1
4.7
25.4
23.1
21.5
20.2
18.1
16.3
14.7
13.0
11.3
9.2
7.8
6.3
3.9
24.6
22.3
20.7
19.4
17.3
15.5
13.9
12.2
10.5
8.4
7.0
5.5
3.1
23.9
21.5
19.9
18.6
16.5
14.7
13.1
11.4
9.7
7.6
6.3
4.7
2.3
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
27.2
24.9
23.3
22.0
19.9
18.1
16.5
14.8
13.0
10.9
9.6
8.1
5.7
26.4
24.1
22.5
21.2
19.1
17.3
15.7
14.0
12.3
10.2
8.8
7.3
4.9
25.6
23.3
21.7
20.4
18.3
16.5
14.9
13.2
11.5
9.4
8.0
6.5
4.1
24.9
22.5
20.9
19.6
17.5
15.7
14.1
12.4
10.7
8.6
7.3
5.7
3.3
24.1
21.7
20.1
18.8
16.7
14.9
13.3
11.6
9.9
7.8
6.5
4.9
2.5
23.3
20.9
19.3
18.0
15.9
14.1
12.5
10.9
9.1
7.0
5.7
4.1
1.7
22.5
20.1
18.5
17.2
15.1
13.3
11.7
10.1
8.3
6.2
4.9
3.3
0.9
21.7
19.3
17.7
16.4
14.3
12.5
10.9
9.3
7.5
5.4
4.1
2.5
20.9
18.5
16.9
15.6
13.5
11.8
10.1
8.5
6.7
4.6
3.3
1.7
20.1
17.7
16.1
14.8
12.7
11.0
9.3
7.7
5.9
3.8
2.5
0.9
19.3
16.9
15.4
14.0
11.9
10.2
8.5
6.9
5.1
3.0
1.7
18.5
16.1
14.6
13.2
11.1
9.4
7.7
6.1
4.3
2.2
0.9
17.7
15.3
13.8
12.5
10.4
8.6
6.9
5.3
3.5
1.4
Table A20
Normative data for the ROCF immediate recall stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
33.8
32.2
30.8
28.7
26.8
25.1
23.5
21.6
19.5
18.1
16.5
14.1
36.0
33.0
31.4
30.0
27.9
26.1
24.4
22.7
20.9
18.7
17.3
15.7
13.3
34.7
32.2
30.6
29.3
27.1
25.3
23.6
21.9
20.1
17.9
16.6
14.9
12.5
33.9
31.4
29.8
28.5
26.3
24.5
22.8
21.1
19.3
17.1
15.8
14.2
11.7
33.1
30.7
29.0
27.7
25.5
23.7
22.0
20.3
18.5
16.4
15.0
13.4
11.0
32.3
29.9
28.3
26.9
24.8
22.9
21.2
19.6
17.7
15.6
14.2
12.6
10.2
31.5
29.1
27.5
26.1
24.0
22.2
20.5
18.8
17.0
14.8
13.4
11.8
9.4
30.8
28.3
26.7
25.4
23.2
21.4
19.7
18.0
16.2
14.0
12.7
11.0
8.6
30.0
27.5
25.9
24.6
22.4
20.6
18.9
17.2
15.4
13.2
11.9
10.3
7.8
29.2
26.8
25.1
23.8
21.6
19.8
18.1
16.4
14.6
12.5
11.1
9.5
7.1
28.4
26.0
24.4
23.0
20.9
19.0
17.3
15.7
13.8
11.7
10.3
8.7
6.3
27.6
25.2
23.6
22.2
20.1
18.3
16.6
14.9
13.1
10.9
9.6
7.9
5.5
26.9
24.4
22.8
21.5
19.3
17.5
15.8
14.1
12.3
10.1
8.8
7.2
4.7
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
33.1
30.7
29.0
27.7
25.5
23.7
22.0
20.3
18.5
16.4
15.0
13.4
11.0
32.3
29.9
28.3
26.9
24.8
22.9
21.2
19.6
17.7
15.6
14.2
12.6
10.2
31.5
29.1
27.5
26.1
24.0
22.2
20.5
18.8
17.0
14.8
13.4
11.8
9.4
30.8
28.3
26.7
25.4
23.2
21.4
19.7
18.0
16.2
14.0
12.7
11.0
8.6
30.0
27.5
25.9
24.6
22.4
20.6
18.9
17.2
15.4
13.2
11.9
10.3
7.8
29.2
26.8
25.2
23.8
21.6
19.8
18.1
16.4
14.6
12.5
11.1
9.5
7.1
28.4
26.0
24.4
23.0
20.9
19.0
17.4
15.7
13.8
11.7
10.3
8.7
6.3
27.6
25.2
23.6
22.2
20.1
18.3
16.6
14.9
13.1
10.9
9.6
7.9
5.5
26.9
24.4
22.8
21.5
19.3
17.5
15.8
14.1
12.3
10.1
8.8
7.2
4.7
26.1
23.7
22.0
20.7
18.5
16.7
15.0
13.3
11.5
9.3
8.0
6.4
3.9
25.3
22.9
21.3
19.9
17.7
15.9
14.2
12.5
10.7
8.6
7.2
5.6
3.2
24.5
22.1
20.5
19.1
17.0
15.1
13.5
11.8
9.9
7.8
6.4
4.8
2.4
23.7
21.3
19.7
18.3
16.2
14.4
12.7
11.0
9.2
7.0
5.7
4.0
1.6
697

Table A21
Normative data for the ROCF immediate recall stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
30.1
28.6
27.5
26.6
25.2
24.1
23.0
21.9
20.7
19.3
18.4
17.4
15.8
29.6
28.1
27.0
26.1
24.7
23.5
22.4
21.4
20.2
18.8
17.9
16.8
15.3
29.1
27.5
26.5
25.6
24.2
23.0
21.9
20.8
19.7
18.3
17.4
16.3
14.8
28.6
27.0
26.0
25.1
23.7
22.5
21.4
20.3
19.1
17.7
16.9
15.8
14.2
28.1
26.5
25.4
24.6
23.2
22.0
20.9
19.8
18.6
17.2
16.3
15.3
13.7
27.5
26.0
24.9
24.0
22.6
21.5
20.4
19.3
18.1
16.7
15.8
14.8
13.2
27.0
25.4
24.4
23.5
22.1
20.9
19.8
18.8
17.6
16.2
15.3
14.2
12.7
26.5
24.9
23.9
23.0
21.6
20.4
19.3
18.2
17.1
15.7
14.8
13.7
12.1
26.0
24.4
23.4
22.5
21.1
19.9
18.8
17.7
16.5
15.1
14.3
13.2
11.6
25.5
23.9
22.8
22.0
20.6
19.4
18.3
17.2
16.0
14.6
13.7
12.7
11.1
24.9
23.4
22.3
21.4
20.0
18.9
17.8
16.7
15.5
14.1
13.2
12.2
10.6
24.4
22.8
21.8
20.9
19.5
18.3
17.2
16.2
15.0
13.6
12.7
11.6
10.1
23.9
22.3
21.3
20.4
19.0
17.8
16.7
15.6
14.4
13.0
12.2
11.1
9.5
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
26.6
25.0
24.0
23.1
21.7
20.5
19.4
18.3
17.1
15.7
14.8
13.8
12.2
26.1
24.5
23.4
22.6
21.2
20.0
18.9
17.8
16.6
15.2
14.3
13.3
11.7
25.5
24.0
22.9
22.0
20.6
19.5
18.4
17.3
16.1
14.7
13.8
12.8
11.2
25.0
23.4
22.4
21.5
20.1
18.9
17.8
16.7
15.6
14.2
13.3
12.2
10.7
24.5
22.9
21.9
21.0
19.6
18.4
17.3
16.2
15.0
13.6
12.8
11.7
10.1
24.0
22.4
21.4
20.5
19.1
17.9
16.8
15.7
14.5
13.1
12.2
11.2
9.6
23.5
21.9
20.8
20.0
18.6
17.4
16.3
15.2
14.0
12.6
11.7
10.7
9.1
22.9
21.4
20.3
19.4
18.0
16.9
15.8
14.7
13.5
12.1
11.2
10.2
8.6
22.4
20.8
19.8
18.9
17.5
16.3
15.2
14.1
13.0
11.6
10.7
9.6
8.1
21.9
20.3
19.3
18.4
17.0
15.8
14.7
13.6
12.4
11.0
10.2
9.1
7.5
21.4
19.8
18.7
17.9
16.5
15.3
14.2
13.1
11.9
10.5
9.6
8.6
7.0
20.9
19.3
18.2
17.4
16.0
14.8
13.7
12.6
11.4
10.0
9.1
8.1
6.5
20.3
18.8
17.7
16.8
15.4
14.3
13.2
12.1
10.9
9.5
8.6
7.6
6.0
Table A22
Normative data for the ROCF immediate recall stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
33.8
32.3
31.1
29.1
27.4
25.9
24.4
22.7
20.7
19.5
18.0
15.8
35.0
32.8
31.3
30.1
28.1
26.4
24.9
23.4
21.7
19.7
18.5
17.0
14.8
34.0
31.8
30.3
29.1
27.1
25.5
23.9
22.4
20.7
18.8
17.5
16.1
13.9
33.0
30.8
29.4
28.1
26.2
24.5
23.0
21.4
19.8
17.8
16.6
15.1
12.9
32.1
29.9
28.4
27.1
25.2
23.5
22.0
20.4
18.8
16.8
15.6
14.1
11.9
31.1
28.9
27.4
26.2
24.2
22.5
21.0
19.5
17.8
15.8
14.6
13.1
10.9
30.1
27.9
26.4
25.2
23.2
21.6
20.0
18.5
16.8
14.9
13.6
12.2
9.9
29.1
26.9
25.4
24.2
22.2
20.6
19.1
17.5
15.9
13.9
12.7
11.2
9.0
28.2
25.9
24.5
23.2
21.3
19.6
18.1
16.5
14.9
12.9
11.7
10.2
8.0
27.2
25.0
23.5
22.3
20.3
18.6
17.1
15.6
13.9
11.9
10.7
9.2
7.0
26.2
24.0
22.5
21.3
19.3
17.7
16.1
14.6
12.9
11.0
9.7
8.3
6.0
25.2
23.0
21.5
20.3
18.3
16.7
15.1
13.6
11.9
10.0
8.8
7.3
5.1
24.3
22.0
20.6
19.3
17.4
15.7
14.2
12.6
11.0
9.0
7.8
6.3
4.1
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
32.6
30.4
28.9
27.6
25.7
24.0
22.5
20.9
19.3
17.3
16.1
14.6
12.4
31.6
29.4
27.9
26.7
24.7
23.0
21.5
20.0
18.3
16.3
15.1
13.6
11.4
30.6
28.4
26.9
25.7
23.7
22.1
20.5
19.0
17.3
15.4
14.1
12.7
10.4
29.6
27.4
25.9
24.7
22.8
21.1
19.6
18.0
16.4
14.4
13.2
11.7
9.5
28.7
26.4
25.0
23.7
21.8
20.1
18.6
17.0
15.4
13.4
12.2
10.7
8.5
27.7
25.5
24.0
22.8
20.8
19.1
17.6
16.1
14.4
12.4
11.2
9.7
7.5
26.7
24.5
23.0
21.8
19.8
18.2
16.6
15.1
13.4
11.5
10.2
8.8
6.5
25.7
23.5
22.0
20.8
18.8
17.2
15.6
14.1
12.5
10.5
9.3
7.8
5.6
24.8
22.5
21.1
19.8
17.9
16.2
14.7
13.1
11.5
9.5
8.3
6.8
4.6
23.8
21.6
20.1
18.9
16.9
15.2
13.7
12.2
10.5
8.5
7.3
5.8
3.6
22.8
20.6
19.1
17.9
15.9
14.3
12.7
11.2
9.5
7.6
6.3
4.8
2.6
21.8
19.6
18.1
16.9
14.9
13.3
11.7
10.2
8.5
6.6
5.3
3.9
1.7
20.8
18.6
17.2
15.9
14.0
12.3
10.8
9.2
7.6
5.6
4.4
2.9
0.7
698

Table A23
Normative data for the ROCF immediate recall stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
34.6
32.4
30.5
28.8
27.1
25.2
23.0
21.7
20.0
17.5
36.0
34.6
33.2
31.0
29.2
27.4
25.7
23.9
21.6
20.3
18.6
16.1
36.0
34.9
33.2
31.8
29.6
27.8
26.0
24.3
22.5
20.3
18.9
17.2
14.7
35.9
33.5
31.8
30.4
28.2
26.4
24.6
22.9
21.1
18.9
17.5
15.8
13.4
34.5
32.1
30.4
29.0
26.8
25.0
23.3
21.5
19.7
17.5
16.1
14.4
12.0
33.2
30.7
29.0
27.6
25.4
23.6
21.9
20.1
18.3
16.1
14.7
13.0
10.6
31.8
29.3
27.6
26.2
24.0
22.2
20.5
18.7
16.9
14.7
13.3
11.6
9.2
30.4
27.9
26.2
24.9
22.7
20.8
19.1
17.3
15.5
13.3
11.9
10.3
7.8
29.0
26.5
24.8
23.5
21.3
19.4
17.7
16.0
14.1
11.9
10.5
8.9
6.4
27.6
25.1
23.4
22.1
19.9
18.0
16.3
14.6
12.7
10.5
9.1
7.5
5.0
26.2
23.7
22.1
20.7
18.5
16.6
14.9
13.2
11.3
9.1
7.7
6.1
3.6
24.8
22.3
20.7
19.3
17.1
15.2
13.5
11.8
9.9
7.7
6.3
4.7
2.2
23.4
20.9
19.3
17.9
15.7
13.8
12.1
10.4
8.5
6.3
4.9
3.3
0.8
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
36.0
35.1
33.5
32.1
29.9
28.0
26.3
24.6
22.7
20.5
19.1
17.5
15.0
36.0
33.7
32.1
30.7
28.5
26.6
24.9
23.2
21.3
19.1
17.7
16.1
13.6
34.8
32.3
30.7
29.3
27.1
25.2
23.5
21.8
19.9
17.7
16.4
14.7
12.2
33.4
30.9
29.3
27.9
25.7
23.8
22.1
20.4
18.5
16.3
15.0
13.3
10.8
32.0
29.5
27.9
26.5
24.3
22.5
20.7
19.0
17.1
14.9
13.6
11.9
9.4
30.6
28.2
26.5
25.1
22.9
21.1
19.3
17.6
15.8
13.6
12.2
10.5
8.0
29.2
26.8
25.1
23.7
21.5
19.7
17.9
16.2
14.4
12.2
10.8
9.1
6.7
27.8
25.4
23.7
22.3
20.1
18.3
16.5
14.8
13.0
10.8
9.4
7.7
5.3
26.4
24.0
22.3
20.9
18.7
16.9
15.2
13.4
11.6
9.4
8.0
6.3
3.9
25.1
22.6
20.9
19.5
17.3
15.5
13.8
12.0
10.2
8.0
6.6
4.9
2.5
23.7
21.2
19.5
18.2
15.9
14.1
12.4
10.6
8.8
6.6
5.2
3.6
1.1
22.3
19.8
18.1
16.8
14.6
12.7
11.0
9.3
7.4
5.2
3.8
2.2
20.9
18.4
16.7
15.4
13.2
11.3
9.6
7.9
6.0
3.8
2.4
0.8
699

DOI:10.3233/NRE-151286
IOS Press
Hopkins Verbal Learning TestRevised:

J.C. Arango-Lasprillaa, , D. Riverab , M.T. Garzac , C.P. Sarachod , W. Rodrgueze , Y. Rodrguez-Agudelof ,
A. Aguayog , S. Schebelah , M. Lunai , M. Longonij , C. Martnezk , S. Doylel , N. Ocampo-Barbam ,
J. Galarza-del-Angeln , A. Aliagao , M. Bringasp , L. Esenarroq , P. Garca-Eganr and P.B. Perrinl
a IKERBASQUE,

c Facultad de Psicologa, Universidad Aut
e Ponce Health Sciences University, Ponce, Puerto Rico
f Instituto Nacional de Neurologa y Neurociruga MVS, Mexico City, Mexico
h Instituto de Prevenci
i Universidad Dr. Jos
j Clnica de rehabilitaci
k Departamento de Medicina de Rehabilitaci
l Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
m Fundaci
n Universidad Aut
o Servicio M
p International center for neurological Restoration CIREN, Havana, Cuba
q Instituto de Neuropsicologa y Demencias, Lima, Peru
r Departamento de Psicologa, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala
b Faculty
Abstract.
OBJECTIVE: To generate normative data on the Hopkins Verbal Learning TestRevised (HVLT-R) across 11 countries in Latin
America, with country-specific adjustments for gender, age, and education, where appropriate.
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and, Puerto Rico. Each subject was administered the HVLT-R as part of a larger
RESULTS: The final multiple linear regression models explained 1745% of the variance in HVLT-R scores. Although t-tests
showed significant differences between men and women in Guatemala on the HVLT-R, it was a small effect size. As a result,
gender-adjusted norms were not generated.
CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study will have a substantial impact on the practice of neuropsychology in Latin America,
as this is the first normative multicenter study to develop norms for the HVLT-R in this region.
Keywords: Normative data, Hopkins Verbal Learning TestRevised, Latin America, verbal learning and memory
Address


jcarango@deusto.es.
E-mail:
700
J.C. Arango-Lasprilla et al. / Hopkins Verbal Learning TestRevised
1. Introduction
The Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLTR) is a brief assessment of verbal learning and memory
that was developed by Brandt and Benedict (2001).
It was designed to be similar in methodology to the
Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R;
Benedict, 1997) and was modeled after other word-list
learning tasks (e.g., Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test,
California Verbal Learning Test). It is intended for use
with a wide range of individuals, including those who
are considered difficult to test and individuals who
have moderate to severe cognitive impairments. The
HLVT-R is identical to the original version of the measure (HVLT; Brandt, 1991) with two exceptions: the
HLVT-R includes the addition of a delayed recall trial
and as a result, the recognition trial no longer immediately follows the three learning trials.
There are six alternate forms of the HVLT-R. The
administration contains three free recall learning trials
consisting of 12 semantically categorized words, followed by a 20-minute delayed recall trial, concluding
with a yes/no recognition trial. The yes/no recognition
task has a total of 24 words, incorporating 12 words
from the recall list, 6 words that are semantically related
to the recall items but were not included in the initial
trials, and 6 unrelated words. The HVLT-R yields several scores including a total recall (raw score) delayed
recall (raw score), retention (%), a recognition discrimination index, as well as t scores for each of the above
mentioned (Brandt & Benedict, 2001). The HVLT-R
has been used in both populations with and without
neurological problems and has established construct,
concurrent and discriminant validity (e.g., Benedict,
Schretlen, Groninger, & Brandt, 1998; Brandt, 1991;
Rasmussan, Bylsma, & Brandt, 1995).
The HVLT-R was normed on healthy individuals
from 1692 years of age but has been deemed well
suited for use with individuals who might be difficult
to test or patients who have neurological impairments.
The HVLT-R has been utilized in both clinical and
research intervention studies. Results from the literature demonstrate support for use among people with
traumatic brain injury (e.g., ONeil-Pirozzi, Goldstein,
Strangman, & Glenn, 2012), dementia (e.g., Gaines,
Shapiro, Alt, & Benedict, 2006; McLaughlin, Chang,
& Malloy, 2012), Alzheimers (e.g., McLaughlin et al.,
2012), and Huntingtons disease (e.g., Solomon et al.,
2007).
Previous research exploring variables related to
neuropsychological test performance indicates that
demographic variables are significantly related to both

verbal and nonverbal cognitive test results (Pineda
Rosselli, Ardila, Mejia, Romero, & Perez, 2000). While
some mixed findings exist based on the demographic
characteristics of the sample, research studies have generally supported the influence of age, education, gender,
and ethnicity for the HVLT-R (e.g., Brandt & Benedict, 2001; Cherner et al., 2007; Friedman, Schinka,
Mortimer, & Graves, 2002; Hester, Kinsella, Ong,
& Turner, 2004; Vanderploeg, Schinka, Jones, Small,
Graves, & Mortimer, 2000). Friedman et al. (2002)
found that that age had a moderately large effect on
HVLT-R performance with younger African American
participants producing higher scores than older African
American participants. Friedman and colleagues also
found that education and gender were responsible for
a statistically significant proportion of the variance
in the performance of the HVLT-R, such that those
with more than 12 years education and those who
were female performed better across multiple HVLTR measures. Among a sample of older adults ranging
in age from 6085 from the United States, Vanderploeg
et al. (2000) found that age and gender impacted learning performance with younger participants and female
participants scoring higher on the HVLT-R. Cherner
et al. (2007) compared the published HLVT-R norms
to a sample of healthy Spanish speaking individuals
and found high rates of misclassification, particularly
among participants with lower levels of education, arguing inadequate representation of individuals with very
low education in the original normative sample.
The original HVLT-R normative sample was comprised of 1,179 individuals who did not have
neurological or psychiatric disorders. The sample was
almost 75% female participants (male n = 300) ranging
in age from 15 to 92 years (M = 59 years, SD = 18.6).
There was a vast range in education level, ranging from
2 to 20 years of education (M = 13.4, SD = 2.9). The
authors concluded that age had the largest effect on
scores (19% of the variance) but that level of education and gender did not significantly contribute to
performance (Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006). The
racial/ethnic breakdown of the standardization sample
was not reported.
Though limited in terms of cultural diversity, there
have been several studies that expanded upon the standardization sample. For example, Vanderploeg et al.
(2000) provided both age- and gender-adjusted normative data from a sample of older adults (ages 60
to 84). In addition, Hester et al. (2004) provided
age- and education-adjusted normative data for older
Australian adults (ages 60 to 89). Friedman et al. (2002)

contributed age-, gender-, and education-adjusted normative data from a sample of older African-American
participants. Finally, Cherner et al. (2007) applied published test norms for the HVLT-R to a sample of
neurotypical Spanish speakers from the U.S.-Mexico
border region. Results identified high rates of misclassification, proving the norms to be particularly inadequate
with individuals who had lower levels of education
(Cherner et al., 2007).
The HVLT-R is commonly used in neuropsychological evaluations to test verbal learning and memory, but
to date, normative data do not exist for individuals from
Latin America. There is a critical need for appropriately
validated instruments and norms in order to provide
the best quality of care, including diagnostic accuracy
(Cherner et al., 2007). The utilization of norms based
predominately on Caucasian samples puts individuals
from culturally diverse backgrounds at risk of being
misdiagnosed based on factors influenced by culture.
In addition, there is a critical need to norm neuropsychological measures to be culturally and linguistically
sensitive in order to provide high quality clinical services as well as relevant research among culturally
diverse populations.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
1965).
consent. Five participants were excluded from the
701

The list applied in the study was from HVLT-R form
5, which contains a list of 12 semantically related words
in three categories (professions, sports, and vegetables).
Three trials of successive learning are presented where
a list is read to the participant and the correct answers of
each learning trial performed are recorded. Total Recall
is the sum of words recalled correctly in the three trials.
After 2025 minutes, the Delayed Recall phase occurs
where the subject is asked to recall all the words from
the initial list that they can remember (Benedict et al.,
1998; Brandt, 1991).
A multivariable regression model was used to specify
the predictive model including gender (if effect size
was larger than 0.3), age as a continuous variable, and
education as a dummy coded variable with 1 if the
participant had >12 years of education and 0 if the
participants had 112 years of education. If gender,
age and/or education was not statistically significant in
this multivariate model with an alpha of 0.05, the nonsignificant variables were removed and the model was
re-run. Then a final regression model was conducted
that included age (if statistically significant in the multivariate model), dichotomized education (if statistically
significant in the multivariate model), and/or gender
(if effect size was greater than 0.3) [yi = 0 + (Age
Agei ) + (Educ Educi ) + (Gender Genderi )] ; c)
residual scores were calculated based on this final
model (ei = yi y i ); d) using the SDe (residual) value
provided by the regression model, residuals were
702

Table 1
Effect of gender in the HVLT-R total recall score
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentina
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
24.9 (4.5)
24.2 (5.0)
18.7 (5.8)
19.0 (4.7)
20.2 (5.7)
20.4 (6.1)
20.8 (4.7)
20.7 (5.3)
17.7 (6.0)
17.8 (5.5)
19.4 (5.2)
21.9 (5.2)
17.2 (5.5)
17.0 (4.7)
20.8 (5.3)
20.4 (5.1)
16.3 (5.6)
15.4 (4.8)
21.5 (5.1)
22.1 (4.9)
21.5 (5.0)
22.4 (5.1)
1.21
318
0.227
0.068
0.43
172.7
0.669
0.033
0.42
318
0.673
0.024
0.25
304
0.804
0.014
0.11
254
0.912
0.007
3.61
211
0.18
182
0.859
0.013
1.16
1,298
0.245
0.032
1.39
184.4
0.167
0.102
1.00
243
0.320
0.064
1.55
291
0.121
0.091
Boliviaa
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguaya
Peru
Puerto Rico
a Value
<0.001
0.241
p < 0.001.
standardized: z = ei /SDe , with SDe (residual) = the

standard deviation of the residuals in the normative
sample; and e) standardized residuals were converted
to percentile values (Strauss et al., 2006). Using each
countrys dataset, these steps were applied to HVLT-R
total recall and delayed recall scores.
3. Results
3.1. HVLT-R total recall
Regarding the effect of gender on HVLT-R total
recall scores, the t-tests showed significant differences
between men and women from Guatemala, however, its
effect size was less than 0.3. Table 1 shows the results of
the gender analyses by country on HVLT-R total recall
scores. As shown in Table 1, the effect sizes for all
not taken into account to generate HVLT-R total recall
The final eleven HVLT-R total recall multivariate linear regression models for each country are shown in
Table 2. In all countries, the HVLT-R total recall score
increased for those with more than 12 years of education (see Table 2) and decreased in a linear fashion as
a function of age. The amount of variance explained
in HVLT-R total recall scores ranged from 17% (in

Guatemala) to 40% (in Paraguay).
3.2. HVLT-R delayed recall
Regarding the effect of gender on HVLT-R delayed
recall scores, the t-tests showed significant differences
between men and women in Guatemala and Puerto
Rico. Table 3 shows the results of the gender analysis by country on HVLT-R delayed recall scores. As
account to generate HVLT-R delayed recall normative
data for any of the countries in the study.
The final eleven HVLT-R delayed recall multivariate
linear regression models for each country are shown
in Table 4. In all countries, the HVLT-R delayed recall
score increased for those with more than 12 years of
education in all countries except Bolivia (see Table 4),
and decreased in a linear fashion as a function of age.
The amount of variance explained in HVLT-R delayed
recall scores ranged from 13% (in Guatemala) to 45%
(in Paraguay).
Norms (e.g., a percentile score) for the HVLT-R total
and delayed recall score test were established using the
703

Table 2
Final multiple linear regression models for HVLT-R total recall score
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
26.116
0.070
2.764
24.553
0.112
3.264
26.596
0.132
4.140
26.197
0.115
2.830
22.939
0.112
5.287
24.516
0.092
3.028
21.076
0.100
3.762
25.924
0.112
2.157
20.624
0.112
5.685
24.749
0.095
1.999
29.183
0.152
1.261
0.710
0.013
0.494
0.728
0.012
0.679
0.883
0.014
0.644
0.725
0.012
0.578
0.871
0.014
0.719
1.119
0.019
0.690
0.928
0.017
0.743
0.358
0.006
0.297
1.062
0.018
0.705
0.827
0.014
0.599
0.804
0.013
0.494
36.762
5.514
5.590
33.723
9.527
4.811
30.136
9.337
6.427
36.149
9.251
4.894
26.344
7.877
7.358
21.913
4.738
4.386
22.712
5.954
5.065
72.508
18.489
7.267
19.419
6.087
8.062
29.934
6.830
3.337
36.298
11.405
2.553
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.011
0.183
4.356
0.323
4.213
0.360
4.737
0.277
4.267
0.331
4.660
0.168
4.867
0.299
4.180
0.258
4.419
0.396
3.985
0.221
4.389
0.358
4.060

given. Suppose you need to find the percentile score for
a Puerto Rican woman, who is 50 years old and has 8
years of education. She has a score of 15 on the HVLTR total recall test. The steps to obtain the percentile for
this score are: a) Check Table 1 to determine if the effect
size of gender in the country of interest (Puerto Rico) on
this test and time point (HVLT-R total recall) is greater
than 0.3 by country. The column labelled r in Table 1
indicates the effect size and the superscript notation b
next to the number indicates that the number is larger
than 0.3. In this example, the effect size is 0.091, which
is not greater than 0.3. For Puerto Ricans on this test,
gender does not influence scores to a sufficient degree
to take it into account gender when determining the percentile. b) Find Puerto Rico in Table 2, which provides
the final regression models by country for HVLT-R
total recall. Use the B weights to create an equation
that will allow you to obtain the predicted HVLT-R

total recall score. The corresponding B weights are
multiplied by the actual age and dichotomized education scores and added to a constant in order to
calculate the predicted value. In this case, the predicted HVLT-R total recall score would be calculated
(1.261 Dichotomized Educational Leveli )] (the values have been rounded for presentation in the formula).
The subscript notation i indicate the person of interest. The persons age is 50, but the education variable
split into either 1 to 12 years (and assigned a 0) or
more than 12 years (and assigned a 1) in the model.
Since our hypothetical person in the example has 8
years of education, her educational level value is 0. Thus
the predicted value is y i = 29.183 + (0.152 50) +
(1.261 0) = 29.183 + (7.6) + 0 = 21.57). c) In
order to calculate the residual value (indicated with an
e in the equation), we subtract the actual value from
704

Table 3
Effect of gender in the HVLT-R delayed recall
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentinaa
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
8.9 (2.1)
8.4 (2.4)
6.0 (2.9)
6.2 (2.8)
7.1 (2.7)
7.3 (2.9)
7.0 (2.4)
7.1 (2.5)
5.5 (2.8)
5.7 (2.6)
6.3 (2.7)
7.7 (2.9)
5.7 (2.9)
5.6 (2.6)
7.0 (2.7)
7.0 (2.5)
4.8 (2.6)
4.4 (2.2)
6.9 (2.2)
7.4 (2.4)
7.1 (2.9)
7.8 (2.6)
1.87
206.8
0.062
0.129
0.42
272
0.673
0.026
0.45
318
0.650
0.026
0.35
304
0.727
0.020
0.61
254
0.543
0.038
3.42
211
0.001
0.229
0.18
182
0.857
0.013
0.04
1,297
0.969
0.001
10.44
260
0.152
0.089
10.65
243
0.101
0.105
2.11
290
0.036
0.123
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
a Value
p < 0.05, p < 0.01.
the predicted value we just calculated (ei = yi y i ).

In this case, it would be ei = 15 21.57 = 6.57. d)
Next, consult the SDe column in Table 2 to obtain
the country-specific SDe (residual) value. For Puerto
Rico it is 4.060. Using this value, we can transform the
residual value to a standardized z score using the equation (ei /SDe ). In this case, we have (6.57)/4.060 =
1.618. This is the standardized z score for a Puerto
Rican woman aged 50 and 8 years of education and
a score of 15 on the HVLT-R total recall test. e) The
last step is to use look-up the tables in the statistical reference books (e.g. Strauss et al., 2006) or use
a trusted online calculator like the one available at
(total recall vs. delayed recall) when performing these
calculations. If the percentile for the HVLT-R delayed
recall score is desired, Tables 3 and 4 must be used.

Guàrdia-Olmos et al., 2015) and created tables that
(HVLT-R total recall vs. HVLT-R delayed recall) in the
Appendix. In order to obtain an approximate percentile
for the above example (converting a raw score of 15
for a Puerto Rican woman who is 50 years old and has
8 years of education) using the simplified normative
(1) First, identify the appropriate table ensuring the specific country and HVLT-R total recall scores. In this
case, the table for HVLT-R total recall scores for Puerto
Rico can be found in Table A11. (2) Note if the title of
the table indicates that it is only to be used for one
specific gender. In this case, gender is not specified in
the table. Thus Table A11 is used for both males and
females. (3) Next, the table is divided based on educational level (1 to 12 vs. more than 12 years of education).
Since this woman has 8 years of education, she falls into
the 1 to 12 years of education category. These data can
be found in the top section of the table. (4) Determine
the age range most appropriate for the individual. In
705

Table 4
Final multiple linear regression models for HVLT-R delayed recall
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
9.688
0.042
1.515
9.702
0.064
10.707
0.069
1.267
8.987
0.044
1.434
8.518
0.059
1.995
8.912
0.044
1.368
7.727
0.051
1.844
9.800
0.057
0.867
6.896
0.054
2.872
8.576
0.048
1.192
11.271
0.080
0.704
0.331
0.006
0.230
0.403
0.007
0.431
0.007
0.315
0.367
0.006
0.293
0.418
0.007
0.345
0.621
0.011
0.383
0.520
0.009
0.416
0.178
0.003
0.148
0.475
0.008
0.315
0.369
0.006
0.268
0.443
0.007
0.272
29.280
7.215
6.578
24.086
9.594
24.827
9.955
4.026
24.486
6.929
4.897
20.375
8.617
5.782
14.346
4.106
3.568
14.853
5.436
4.428
54.966
18.980
5.860
14.527
6.636
9.114
23.211
7.663
4.454
25.455
10.868
2.587
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.010
0.258
2.029
0.253
2.424
0.323
2.315
0.202
2.161
0.313
2.237
0.126
2.702
0.255
2.343
0.255
2.203
0.449
1.781
0.281
1.962
0.340
2.236
this case, 50 fall into the column 4852 years of age.

15 obtained by this Puerto Rican woman corresponds
to an approximate percentile of 5.
4. Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to generate normative data on the HVLT-R across 11 countries in Latin
1740% of the variance in total recall HVLT-R scores
and 1345% of the variance in delayed recall scores.
Although women had higher scores on the HVLT-R
total recall in Guatemala, there were no other significant
gender differences, and this one effect size in Guatemala
was small. Similarly, women had higher scores on the
HVLT-R delayed recall in Puerto Rico and Guatemala,
but again there were no other significant gender differences, and these two effect sizes were small. As
a result, gender-adjusted norms were not generated.
These findings fall fairly well in line with the previous
research which has found inconsistencies with some
studies showing that women slightly outperform men
on the HVLT-R (Friedman et al., 2002; Vanderploeg
et al., 2000), but other research showing no gender difference in HVLT-R performance (Strauss et al., 2006).
In light of the previous literature, the current results
suggest that gender should not be taken into account in
calculating participants percentiles for the HVLT-R in
Latin America when using the norms from the current
study.
HVLT-R total recall scores increased linearly as a
function of education in all countries, and delayed
recall scores increased as a function of education in
all countries except Bolivia. These findings are generally consistent with previous research which has
found that individuals with more than 12 years of
education perform better on the HVLT-R than those
706
with lower education (Friedman et al., 2002). Therefore, neuropsychologists in Latin America should use
education-adjusted norms generated for each country
(except with Bolivia on the delayed recall) when administering the HVLT-R in that country. This is particularly
important because research has found high rates of misclassification with the HVLT-R in a Spanish-speaking
sample, likely suggesting differential score patterns
in Spanish speakers with lower levels of education
(Cherner et al., 2007).
In this study, total recall and delayed recall HVLTR scores were inversely associated with age across all
countries; thus, age-adjusted norms were calculated by
country. These findings are in line with fairly robust
previous research showing lower scores in participants
with advancing age (Friedman et al., 2002; Strauss,
Sherman, & Spreen, 2006; Vanderploeg et al., 2000).
As with education, it is very important that neuropsychologists in Latin America use the age-adjusted norms
by country generated in this study.
This study has several limitations and directions for
future research. First, clinicians should be careful in
attempting to use the HVLT-R norms from this study
for individuals in countries other than those from which
data were collected. Future studies need to establish
HVLT-R norms in other Latin American countries such
as Ecuador, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Panama. Despite
the severe limitations of using the current norms in
other Spanish-speaking countries, the current norms
may nonetheless be some of the most accurate to date
for other regions in Latin America, as previous Spanish
norms from the U.S.-Mexico border region have been
shown to result in high rates of misclassification,
especially in individuals with lower levels of education
(Cherner et al., 2007). As a result, the current HVLT-R
norms may be more accurate than others currently
in use in routine neuropsychological assessment,
but this generalizability is a critical area for future
research.
Second, several sampling limitations should be
noted. The HVLT-R is a common neuropsychological
measure in Latin America, but many other common
assessments are left to be normed in the same manner,
a ripe area for future research. Research should also
investigate the ecological validity of various neuropsychological assessments in Latin America. If low, there
would be a strong need to create instruments in those
cultures with stronger ecological validity. Indeed, the
HVLT-R has established construct, concurrent, and discriminant validity (Benedict et al., 1998; Brandt, 1991;
Rasmussan et al., 1995), but this has not been established in Latin America. Future research needs to create
assessments within local cultures which would add to
their cultural sensitivity, not simply translate and norm
tests from other cultures.
Third, because participants spoke Spanish as their
primary language, HVLT-R performance could differ
for individuals who are bilingual and speak English
or other local dialects. As a result, an area for future
research would be the influence of bilingualism on
HVLT-R performance, which was beyond the scope of
this study. Also, the data collection in this study was
specific to several regions within the various countries,
and the norms and their national representativeness
is unknown. Future studies should collect data form
more nationalized samples. But nonetheless, the current study is the largest neuropsychological normative
study for the HVLT-R in any global region conducted
to date, and it is a critical first step toward larger
studies with nationally representative samples. In the
current sample, a sizeable group had fewer than 12 years
of education, but illiterate individuals were excluded.
Therefore the current norms may not generalize well
to illiterate adults, and future research should be conducted with illiterate samples, those with neurological
conditions, as well as children, all groups that were not
included.
Although these limitations are present, only one
other study to date has produced HVLT-R norms for
Spanish-speaking individuals, which was conducted in
the U.S.-Mexico border region (Cherner et al., 2007).
As a result, this study was the first to create HVLTR norms across 11 countries in Latin America with
nearly 4,000 participants. It was therefore the largest
and most comprehensive HVLT-R normative study conducted in any global region, and its norms have the
strong potential to affect the standard of neuropsychological assessment with the HVLT-R in Latin America
unlike any study before it.
References
Benedict, R. H. B. (1997). Brief Visuospatial Memory TestRevised
professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Benedict, R. H. B., Schretlen, D., Groninger, L., & Brandt J. (1998).
The Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised: Normative data and
analysis of inter-form and test-retest reliability. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12(1), 43-55.

Brandt, J. (1991). The Hopkins Verbal Learning Test: Development
of a new memory test with six equivalent forms. The Clinical
Brandt, J., & Benedict, R. H. B. (2001). Hopkins Verbal Learning
TestRevised. Odessa, Fla.: PAR.
Cherner, M. M., Suarez, P. P., Lazzaretto, D. D., Fortuny, L., Mindt,
M., Dawes, S. S., Marcotte, T., Grant, I., & Heaton, R. R. (2007).
Demographically corrected norms for the Brief Visuospatial
Memory Test-revised and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-revised
in monolingual Spanish speakers from the U.S.Mexico border
region. Archives Of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22(3), 343-353.
189-198.
Friedman, M. A., Schinka, J. A., Mortimer, J. A., & Graves,
A. B. (2002). Hopkins Verbal Learning TestRevised: Norms
for elderly African Americans. The Clinical Neuropsychologist,
16(3), 356-373.
Gaines, J. J., Shapiro, A., Alt, M., & Benedict, R. B. (2006).
Semantic Clustering Indexes for the Hopkins Verbal Learning
Test-Revised: Initial Exploration in Elder Control and Dementia
Groups. Applied Neuropsychology, 13(4), 213-222.
493-499.
Hester, R. L., Kinsella, G. J., Ong, B., & Turner, M. (2004). Hopkins
Verbal Learning Test: Normative data for older Australian adults.
Australian Psychologist, 39(3), 251-255.
707
McLaughlin, N. R., Chang, A. C., & Malloy, P. (2012). Verbal and

Nonverbal Learning and Recall in Dementia with Lewy Bodies and Alzheimers Disease. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult,
19(2), 86-89.
ONeil-Pirozzi, T. M., Goldstein, R., Strangman, G. E., & Glenn, M.
B. (2012). Test-re-test reliability of the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised in individuals with traumatic brain injury. Brain
Injury, 26(12), 1425-1430.
Pineda, D. A., Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Mejia, S. E., Romero,
M. G., & Perez, C. (2000). The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia
ExaminationSpanish version: The influence of demographic
variables. Journal of International Neuropsychological Society,
6(7), 802-814.
Rasmussan, D. X., Bylsma, F. W., & Brandt J. (1995) Stability of
performance on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test. Archives of
Solomon, A. C., Stout, J. C., Johnson, S. A., Langbehn, D. R., Aylward, E. H., Brandt, J., Ross, C.A., Beglinger, L., Hayden, M.R.,
Kieburtz, K., Kayson, E., Julian-Baros, E., Duff, K., Guttman,
M., Nance, M., Oakes, D., Shoulson, I., Penziner, E., & Paulsen,
J. S. (2007). Verbal episodic memory declines prior to diagnosis
in Huntingtons disease. Neuropsychologia, 45(8), 1767-1776.
neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary. Oxford University Press, USA.
Vanderploeg, R. D., Schinka, J. A., Jones, T., Small, B. J., Graves,
A. B., & Mortimer, J. A. (2000). Elderly norms for the Hopkins
Verbal Learning Test-Revised. The Clinical Neuropsychologist,
14(3), 318-334.
708
Appendix
Table A1
Normative data for the HVLT-R total recall stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
34.6
33.1
32.0
31.1
29.8
28.6
27.5
26.4
25.2
23.8
23.0
21.9
20.3
34.3
32.7
31.7
30.8
29.4
28.2
27.1
26.0
24.9
23.5
22.6
21.6
20.0
33.9
32.4
31.3
30.4
29.1
27.9
26.8
25.7
24.5
23.1
22.3
21.2
19.6
33.6
32.0
31.0
30.1
28.7
27.5
26.4
25.4
24.2
22.8
21.9
20.9
19.3
33.2
31.7
30.6
29.7
28.4
27.2
26.1
25.0
23.8
22.4
21.6
20.5
18.9
32.9
31.3
30.3
29.4
28.0
26.8
25.7
24.7
23.5
22.1
21.2
20.2
18.6
32.5
31.0
29.9
29.1
27.7
26.5
25.4
24.3
23.1
21.7
20.9
19.8
18.3
32.2
30.6
29.6
28.7
27.3
26.1
25.0
24.0
22.8
21.4
20.5
19.5
17.9
31.8
30.3
29.2
28.4
27.0
25.8
24.7
23.6
22.4
21.0
20.2
19.1
17.6
31.5
29.9
28.9
28.0
26.6
25.4
24.3
23.3
22.1
20.7
19.8
18.8
17.2
31.1
29.6
28.5
27.7
26.3
25.1
24.0
22.9
21.7
20.3
19.5
18.4
16.9
30.8
29.2
28.2
27.3
25.9
24.7
23.7
22.6
21.4
20.0
19.1
18.1
16.5
30.4
28.9
27.8
27.0
25.6
24.4
23.3
22.2
21.0
19.6
18.8
17.7
16.2
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
31.9
30.3
29.3
28.4
27.0
25.8
24.7
23.6
22.5
21.1
20.2
19.1
17.6
31.5
29.9
28.9
28.0
26.6
25.5
24.4
23.3
22.1
20.7
19.8
18.8
17.2
31.2
29.6
28.6
27.7
26.3
25.1
24.0
22.9
21.8
20.4
19.5
18.4
16.9
30.8
29.3
28.2
27.3
25.9
24.8
23.7
22.6
21.4
20.0
19.1
18.1
16.5
30.5
28.9
27.9
27.0
25.6
24.4
23.3
22.2
21.1
19.7
18.8
17.8
16.2
30.1
28.6
27.5
26.6
25.2
24.1
23.0
21.9
20.7
19.3
18.4
17.4
15.8
29.8
28.2
27.2
26.3
24.9
23.7
22.6
21.5
20.4
19.0
18.1
17.1
15.5
29.4
27.9
26.8
25.9
24.5
23.4
22.3
21.2
20.0
18.6
17.8
16.7
15.1
29.1
27.5
26.5
25.6
24.2
23.0
21.9
20.8
19.7
18.3
17.4
16.4
14.8
28.7
27.2
26.1
25.2
23.8
22.7
21.6
20.5
19.3
17.9
17.1
16.0
14.4
28.4
26.8
25.8
24.9
23.5
22.3
21.2
20.1
19.0
17.6
16.7
15.7
14.1
28.0
26.5
25.4
24.5
23.2
22.0
20.9
19.8
18.6
17.2
16.4
15.3
13.7
27.7
26.1
25.1
24.2
22.8
21.6
20.5
19.4
18.3
16.9
16.0
15.0
13.4
Table A2
Normative data for the HVLT-R total recall stratified by age and education levels for BOLIVIA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
32.5
31.0
30.0
29.1
27.8
26.6
25.6
24.5
23.4
22.0
21.2
20.2
18.7
31.9
30.4
29.4
28.6
27.2
26.1
25.0
24.0
22.8
21.5
20.6
19.6
18.1
31.4
29.9
28.8
28.0
26.7
25.5
24.5
23.4
22.3
20.9
20.1
19.1
17.6
30.8
29.3
28.3
27.4
26.1
25.0
23.9
22.8
21.7
20.4
19.5
18.5
17.0
30.3
28.7
27.7
26.9
25.5
24.4
23.3
22.3
21.2
19.8
19.0
18.0
16.4
29.7
28.2
27.2
26.3
25.0
23.8
22.8
21.7
20.6
19.2
18.4
17.4
15.9
29.1
27.6
26.6
25.8
24.4
23.3
22.2
21.2
20.0
18.7
17.8
16.8
15.3
28.6
27.1
26.0
25.2
23.9
22.7
21.7
20.6
19.5
18.1
17.3
16.3
14.8
28.0
26.5
25.5
24.6
23.3
22.2
21.1
20.1
18.9
17.6
16.7
15.7
14.2
27.5
25.9
24.9
24.1
22.7
21.6
20.5
19.5
18.4
17.0
16.2
15.2
13.6
26.9
25.4
24.4
23.5
22.2
21.0
20.0
18.9
17.8
16.4
15.6
14.6
13.1
26.3
24.8
23.8
23.0
21.6
20.5
19.4
18.4
17.2
15.9
15.0
14.0
12.5
25.8
24.3
23.2
22.4
21.1
19.9
18.9
17.8
16.7
15.3
14.5
13.5
12.0
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
29.2
27.7
26.7
25.9
24.5
23.4
22.3
21.3
20.1
18.8
17.9
16.9
15.4
28.7
27.1
26.1
25.3
23.9
22.8
21.8
20.7
19.6
18.2
17.4
16.4
14.8
28.1
26.6
25.6
24.7
23.4
22.3
21.2
20.1
19.0
17.7
16.8
15.8
14.3
27.5
26.0
25.0
24.2
22.8
21.7
20.6
19.6
18.4
17.1
16.3
15.2
13.7
27.0
25.5
24.5
23.6
22.3
21.1
20.1
19.0
17.9
16.5
15.7
14.7
13.2
26.4
24.9
23.9
23.1
21.7
20.6
19.5
18.5
17.3
16.0
15.1
14.1
12.6
25.9
24.4
23.3
22.5
21.2
20.0
19.0
17.9
16.8
15.4
14.6
13.6
12.1
25.3
23.8
22.8
21.9
20.6
19.5
18.4
17.3
16.2
14.9
14.0
13.0
11.5
24.8
23.2
22.2
21.4
20.0
18.9
17.8
16.8
15.7
14.3
13.5
12.4
10.9
24.2
22.7
21.7
20.8
19.5
18.3
17.3
16.2
15.1
13.7
12.9
11.9
10.4
23.6
22.1
21.1
20.3
18.9
17.8
16.7
15.7
14.5
13.2
12.3
11.3
9.8
23.1
21.6
20.5
19.7
18.4
17.2
16.2
15.1
14.0
12.6
11.8
10.8
9.3
22.5
21.0
20.0
19.1
17.8
16.7
15.6
14.6
13.4
12.1
11.2
10.2
8.7
709

Table A3
Normative data for the HVLT-R total recall stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
35.9
34.2
33.0
32.1
30.6
29.3
28.1
26.9
25.6
24.1
23.2
22.0
20.3
35.2
33.5
32.4
31.4
29.9
28.6
27.4
26.2
25.0
23.4
22.5
21.4
19.7
34.5
32.8
31.7
30.7
29.2
27.9
26.8
25.6
24.3
22.8
21.8
20.7
19.0
33.9
32.2
31.0
30.1
28.6
27.3
26.1
24.9
23.6
22.1
21.2
20.0
18.3
33.2
31.5
30.4
29.4
27.9
26.6
25.4
24.3
23.0
21.5
20.5
19.4
17.7
32.5
30.8
29.7
28.8
27.2
26.0
24.8
23.6
22.3
20.8
19.9
18.7
17.0
31.9
30.2
29.0
28.1
26.6
25.3
24.1
22.9
21.7
20.1
19.2
18.1
16.3
31.2
29.5
28.4
27.4
25.9
24.6
23.5
22.3
21.0
19.5
18.5
17.4
15.7
30.6
28.9
27.7
26.8
25.3
24.0
22.8
21.6
20.3
18.8
17.9
16.7
15.0
29.9
28.2
27.1
26.1
24.6
23.3
22.1
20.9
19.7
18.2
17.2
16.1
14.4
29.2
27.5
26.4
25.5
23.9
22.7
21.5
20.3
19.0
17.5
16.5
15.4
13.7
28.6
26.9
25.7
24.8
23.3
22.0
20.8
19.6
18.3
16.8
15.9
14.7
13.0
27.9
26.2
25.1
24.1
22.6
21.3
20.1
19.0
17.7
16.2
15.2
14.1
12.4
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
31.7
30.0
28.9
27.9
26.4
25.1
23.9
22.8
21.5
20.0
19.0
17.9
16.2
31.1
29.4
28.2
27.3
25.8
24.5
23.3
22.1
20.8
19.3
18.4
17.2
15.5
30.4
28.7
27.6
26.6
25.1
23.8
22.6
21.4
20.2
18.6
17.7
16.6
14.9
29.7
28.0
26.9
25.9
24.4
23.1
22.0
20.8
19.5
18.0
17.0
15.9
14.2
29.1
27.4
26.2
25.3
23.8
22.5
21.3
20.1
18.8
17.3
16.4
15.2
13.5
28.4
26.7
25.6
24.6
23.1
21.8
20.6
19.5
18.2
16.7
15.7
14.6
12.9
27.7
26.0
24.9
24.0
22.4
21.2
20.0
18.8
17.5
16.0
15.1
13.9
12.2
27.1
25.4
24.2
23.3
21.8
20.5
19.3
18.1
16.9
15.3
14.4
13.3
11.5
26.4
24.7
23.6
22.6
21.1
19.8
18.7
17.5
16.2
14.7
13.7
12.6
10.9
25.8
24.1
22.9
22.0
20.5
19.2
18.0
16.8
15.5
14.0
13.1
11.9
10.2
25.1
23.4
22.3
21.3
19.8
18.5
17.3
16.1
14.9
13.4
12.4
11.3
9.6
24.4
22.7
21.6
20.6
19.1
17.9
16.7
15.5
14.2
12.7
11.7
10.6
8.9
23.8
22.1
20.9
20.0
18.5
17.2
16.0
14.8
13.5
12.0
11.1
9.9
8.2
Table A4
Normative data for the HVLT-R total recall stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
33.7
32.2
31.2
30.3
28.9
27.8
26.7
25.7
24.5
23.1
22.3
21.3
19.7
33.1
31.6
30.6
29.7
28.4
27.2
26.1
25.1
23.9
22.6
21.7
20.7
19.2
32.6
31.0
30.0
29.2
27.8
26.6
25.6
24.5
23.4
22.0
21.1
20.1
18.6
32.0
30.5
29.4
28.6
27.2
26.1
25.0
23.9
22.8
21.4
20.6
19.5
18.0
31.4
29.9
28.9
28.0
26.6
25.5
24.4
23.4
22.2
20.8
20.0
19.0
17.4
30.8
29.3
28.3
27.4
26.1
24.9
23.8
22.8
21.6
20.3
19.4
18.4
16.8
30.3
28.7
27.7
26.9
25.5
24.3
23.3
22.2
21.1
19.7
18.8
17.8
16.3
29.7
28.2
27.1
26.3
24.9
23.8
22.7
21.6
20.5
19.1
18.3
17.2
15.7
29.1
27.6
26.6
25.7
24.3
23.2
22.1
21.1
19.9
18.5
17.7
16.7
15.1
28.5
27.0
26.0
25.1
23.8
22.6
21.5
20.5
19.3
18.0
17.1
16.1
14.5
28.0
26.4
25.4
24.6
23.2
22.0
21.0
19.9
18.7
17.4
16.5
15.5
14.0
27.4
25.9
24.8
24.0
22.6
21.5
20.4
19.3
18.2
16.8
16.0
14.9
13.4
26.8
25.3
24.3
23.4
22.0
20.9
19.8
18.7
17.6
16.2
15.4
14.4
12.8
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
30.9
29.4
28.3
27.5
26.1
25.0
23.9
22.8
21.7
20.3
19.5
18.4
16.9
30.3
28.8
27.8
26.9
25.5
24.4
23.3
22.3
21.1
19.7
18.9
17.9
16.3
29.7
28.2
27.2
26.3
25.0
23.8
22.7
21.7
20.5
19.2
18.3
17.3
15.7
29.2
27.6
26.6
25.8
24.4
23.2
22.2
21.1
19.9
18.6
17.7
16.7
15.2
28.6
27.1
26.0
25.2
23.8
22.7
21.6
20.5
19.4
18.0
17.2
16.1
14.6
28.0
26.5
25.5
24.6
23.2
22.1
21.0
19.9
18.8
17.4
16.6
15.6
14.0
27.4
25.9
24.9
24.0
22.7
21.5
20.4
19.4
18.2
16.9
16.0
15.0
13.4
26.9
25.3
24.3
23.4
22.1
20.9
19.9
18.8
17.6
16.3
15.4
14.4
12.9
26.3
24.7
23.7
22.9
21.5
20.4
19.3
18.2
17.1
15.7
14.9
13.8
12.3
25.7
24.2
23.2
22.3
20.9
19.8
18.7
17.6
16.5
15.1
14.3
13.3
11.7
25.1
23.6
22.6
21.7
20.4
19.2
18.1
17.1
15.9
14.6
13.7
12.7
11.1
24.6
23.0
22.0
21.1
19.8
18.6
17.6
16.5
15.3
14.0
13.1
12.1
10.6
24.0
22.4
21.4
20.6
19.2
18.1
17.0
15.9
14.8
13.4
12.5
11.5
10.0
710

Table A5
Normative data for the HVLT-R total recall stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
33.6
32.0
30.8
29.9
28.4
27.2
26.0
24.8
23.6
22.1
21.1
20.0
18.4
33.1
31.4
30.3
29.3
27.9
26.6
25.4
24.3
23.0
21.5
20.6
19.5
17.8
32.5
30.8
29.7
28.8
27.3
26.0
24.9
23.7
22.5
21.0
20.0
18.9
17.2
32.0
30.3
29.2
28.2
26.7
25.5
24.3
23.2
21.9
20.4
19.5
18.4
16.7
31.4
29.7
28.6
27.7
26.2
24.9
23.8
22.6
21.3
19.8
18.9
17.8
16.1
30.8
29.2
28.0
27.1
25.6
24.4
23.2
22.0
20.8
19.3
18.4
17.2
15.6
30.3
28.6
27.5
26.6
25.1
23.8
22.6
21.5
20.2
18.7
17.8
16.7
15.0
29.7
28.0
26.9
26.0
24.5
23.2
22.1
20.9
19.7
18.2
17.2
16.1
14.4
29.2
27.5
26.4
25.4
23.9
22.7
21.5
20.4
19.1
17.6
16.7
15.6
13.9
28.6
26.9
25.8
24.9
23.4
22.1
21.0
19.8
18.5
17.1
16.1
15.0
13.3
28.1
26.4
25.3
24.3
22.8
21.6
20.4
19.2
18.0
16.5
15.6
14.4
12.8
27.5
25.8
24.7
23.8
22.3
21.0
19.8
18.7
17.4
15.9
15.0
13.9
12.2
26.9
25.3
24.1
23.2
21.7
20.5
19.3
18.1
16.9
15.4
14.4
13.3
11.6
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
28.3
26.7
25.6
24.6
23.1
21.9
20.7
19.5
18.3
16.8
15.9
14.7
13.1
27.8
26.1
25.0
24.1
22.6
21.3
20.1
19.0
17.7
16.2
15.3
14.2
12.5
27.2
25.6
24.4
23.5
22.0
20.8
19.6
18.4
17.2
15.7
14.7
13.6
11.9
26.7
25.0
23.9
22.9
21.5
20.2
19.0
17.9
16.6
15.1
14.2
13.1
11.4
26.1
24.4
23.3
22.4
20.9
19.6
18.5
17.3
16.0
14.6
13.6
12.5
10.8
25.6
23.9
22.8
21.8
20.3
19.1
17.9
16.7
15.5
14.0
13.1
11.9
10.3
25.0
23.3
22.2
21.3
19.8
18.5
17.4
16.2
14.9
13.4
12.5
11.4
9.7
24.4
22.8
21.6
20.7
19.2
18.0
16.8
15.6
14.4
12.9
11.9
10.8
9.2
23.9
22.2
21.1
20.2
18.7
17.4
16.2
15.1
13.8
12.3
11.4
10.3
8.6
23.3
21.6
20.5
19.6
18.1
16.8
15.7
14.5
13.3
11.8
10.8
9.7
8.0
22.8
21.1
20.0
19.0
17.5
16.3
15.1
14.0
12.7
11.2
10.3
9.2
7.5
22.2
20.5
19.4
18.5
17.0
15.7
14.6
13.4
12.1
10.6
9.7
8.6
6.9
21.6
20.0
18.9
17.9
16.4
15.2
14.0
12.8
11.6
10.1
9.2
8.0
6.4
Table A6
Normative data for the HVLT-R total recall stratified by age and education levels for GUATEMALA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
33.7
31.9
30.8
29.8
28.2
26.9
25.7
24.5
23.2
21.6
20.6
19.5
17.7
33.2
31.5
30.3
29.3
27.8
26.5
25.2
24.0
22.7
21.2
20.2
19.0
17.3
32.8
31.0
29.8
28.9
27.3
26.0
24.8
23.6
22.3
20.7
19.7
18.6
16.8
32.3
30.6
29.4
28.4
26.9
25.5
24.3
23.1
21.8
20.2
19.3
18.1
16.3
31.8
30.1
28.9
27.9
26.4
25.1
23.9
22.6
21.3
19.8
18.8
17.6
15.9
31.4
29.6
28.5
27.5
25.9
24.6
23.4
22.2
20.9
19.3
18.3
17.2
15.4
30.9
29.2
28.0
27.0
25.5
24.2
22.9
21.7
20.4
18.9
17.9
16.7
15.0
30.5
28.7
27.5
26.6
25.0
23.7
22.5
21.3
19.9
18.4
17.4
16.3
14.5
30.0
28.2
27.1
26.1
24.6
23.2
22.0
20.8
19.5
17.9
17.0
15.8
14.0
29.5
27.8
26.6
25.6
24.1
22.8
21.6
20.3
19.0
17.5
16.5
15.3
13.6
29.1
27.3
26.2
25.2
23.6
22.3
21.1
19.9
18.6
17.0
16.0
14.9
13.1
28.6
26.9
25.7
24.7
23.2
21.9
20.6
19.4
18.1
16.6
15.6
14.4
12.7
28.2
26.4
25.2
24.3
22.7
21.4
20.2
19.0
17.6
16.1
15.1
13.9
12.2
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
30.7
28.9
27.7
26.8
25.2
23.9
22.7
21.5
20.1
18.6
17.6
16.4
14.7
30.2
28.4
27.3
26.3
24.7
23.4
22.2
21.0
19.7
18.1
17.2
16.0
14.2
29.7
28.0
26.8
25.8
24.3
23.0
21.8
20.5
19.2
17.7
16.7
15.5
13.8
29.3
27.5
26.4
25.4
23.8
22.5
21.3
20.1
18.8
17.2
16.2
15.1
13.3
28.8
27.1
25.9
24.9
23.4
22.0
20.8
19.6
18.3
16.7
15.8
14.6
12.9
28.4
26.6
25.4
24.5
22.9
21.6
20.4
19.2
17.8
16.3
15.3
14.1
12.4
27.9
26.1
25.0
24.0
22.4
21.1
19.9
18.7
17.4
15.8
14.9
13.7
11.9
27.4
25.7
24.5
23.5
22.0
20.7
19.5
18.2
16.9
15.4
14.4
13.2
11.5
27.0
25.2
24.1
23.1
21.5
20.2
19.0
17.8
16.5
14.9
13.9
12.8
11.0
26.5
24.8
23.6
22.6
21.1
19.7
18.5
17.3
16.0
14.4
13.5
12.3
10.5
26.1
24.3
23.1
22.2
20.6
19.3
18.1
16.9
15.5
14.0
13.0
11.8
10.1
25.6
23.8
22.7
21.7
20.1
18.8
17.6
16.4
15.1
13.5
12.5
11.4
9.6
25.1
23.4
22.2
21.2
19.7
18.4
17.2
15.9
14.6
13.1
12.1
10.9
9.2
711

Table A7
Normative data for the HVLT-R total recall stratified by age and education levels for HONDURAS
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
29.7
28.2
27.2
26.3
25.0
23.9
22.8
21.8
20.7
19.3
18.5
17.5
16.0
29.2
27.7
26.7
25.8
24.5
23.4
22.3
21.3
20.2
18.8
18.0
17.0
15.5
28.7
27.2
26.2
25.3
24.0
22.9
21.8
20.8
19.7
18.3
17.5
16.5
15.0
28.2
26.7
25.7
24.8
23.5
22.4
21.3
20.3
19.1
17.8
17.0
16.0
14.5
27.7
26.2
25.2
24.3
23.0
21.9
20.8
19.8
18.6
17.3
16.5
15.5
14.0
27.2
25.7
24.7
23.8
22.5
21.4
20.3
19.3
18.1
16.8
16.0
15.0
13.5
26.7
25.2
24.2
23.3
22.0
20.9
19.8
18.8
17.6
16.3
15.5
14.5
13.0
26.2
24.7
23.7
22.8
21.5
20.4
19.3
18.3
17.1
15.8
15.0
14.0
12.5
25.7
24.2
23.2
22.3
21.0
19.9
18.8
17.8
16.6
15.3
14.5
13.5
12.0
25.2
23.7
22.7
21.8
20.5
19.4
18.3
17.3
16.1
14.8
14.0
13.0
11.5
24.7
23.2
22.2
21.3
20.0
18.8
17.8
16.8
15.6
14.3
13.5
12.5
10.9
24.2
22.7
21.6
20.8
19.5
18.3
17.3
16.3
15.1
13.8
13.0
12.0
10.4
23.7
22.1
21.1
20.3
19.0
17.8
16.8
15.8
14.6
13.3
12.5
11.4
9.9
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
25.9
24.4
23.4
22.6
21.2
20.1
19.1
18.0
16.9
15.6
14.7
13.7
12.2
25.4
23.9
22.9
22.1
20.7
19.6
18.6
17.5
16.4
15.1
14.2
13.2
11.7
24.9
23.4
22.4
21.6
20.2
19.1
18.1
17.0
15.9
14.6
13.7
12.7
11.2
24.4
22.9
21.9
21.1
19.7
18.6
17.6
16.5
15.4
14.0
13.2
12.2
10.7
23.9
22.4
21.4
20.6
19.2
18.1
17.1
16.0
14.9
13.5
12.7
11.7
10.2
23.4
21.9
20.9
20.1
18.7
17.6
16.6
15.5
14.4
13.0
12.2
11.2
9.7
22.9
21.4
20.4
19.6
18.2
17.1
16.1
15.0
13.9
12.5
11.7
10.7
9.2
22.4
20.9
19.9
19.1
17.7
16.6
15.5
14.5
13.4
12.0
11.2
10.2
8.7
21.9
20.4
19.4
18.6
17.2
16.1
15.0
14.0
12.9
11.5
10.7
9.7
8.2
21.4
19.9
18.9
18.1
16.7
15.6
14.5
13.5
12.4
11.0
10.2
9.2
7.7
20.9
19.4
18.4
17.6
16.2
15.1
14.0
13.0
11.9
10.5
9.7
8.7
7.2
20.4
18.9
17.9
17.1
15.7
14.6
13.5
12.5
11.4
10.0
9.2
8.2
6.7
19.9
18.4
17.4
16.5
15.2
14.1
13.0
12.0
10.9
9.5
8.7
7.7
6.2
Table A8
Normative data for the HVLT-R total recall stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
33.1
31.5
30.4
29.6
28.1
26.9
25.8
24.7
23.5
22.1
21.2
20.2
18.6
32.5
30.9
29.9
29.0
27.6
26.4
25.3
24.2
23.0
21.6
20.7
19.6
18.0
32.0
30.4
29.3
28.4
27.0
25.8
24.7
23.6
22.4
21.0
20.1
19.1
17.5
31.4
29.8
28.8
27.9
26.5
25.3
24.2
23.1
21.9
20.5
19.6
18.5
16.9
30.8
29.3
28.2
27.3
25.9
24.7
23.6
22.5
21.3
19.9
19.0
17.9
16.4
30.3
28.7
27.6
26.8
25.3
24.1
23.0
21.9
20.7
19.3
18.4
17.4
15.8
29.7
28.1
27.1
26.2
24.8
23.6
22.5
21.4
20.2
18.8
17.9
16.8
15.2
29.2
27.6
26.5
25.6
24.2
23.0
21.9
20.8
19.6
18.2
17.3
16.3
14.7
28.6
27.0
26.0
25.1
23.7
22.5
21.4
20.3
19.1
17.7
16.8
15.7
14.1
28.0
26.5
25.4
24.5
23.1
21.9
20.8
19.7
18.5
17.1
16.2
15.1
13.6
27.5
25.9
24.8
24.0
22.5
21.3
20.2
19.1
17.9
16.5
15.6
14.6
13.0
26.9
25.3
24.3
23.4
22.0
20.8
19.7
18.6
17.4
16.0
15.1
14.0
12.4
26.4
24.8
23.7
22.8
21.4
20.2
19.1
18.0
16.8
15.4
14.5
13.5
11.9
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
30.9
29.3
28.3
27.4
26.0
24.8
23.7
22.6
21.4
20.0
19.1
18.0
16.4
30.4
28.8
27.7
26.8
25.4
24.2
23.1
22.0
20.8
19.4
18.5
17.5
15.9
29.8
28.2
27.2
26.3
24.9
23.7
22.6
21.5
20.3
18.9
18.0
16.9
15.3
29.3
27.7
26.6
25.7
24.3
23.1
22.0
20.9
19.7
18.3
17.4
16.3
14.8
28.7
27.1
26.0
25.2
23.7
22.5
21.4
20.3
19.1
17.7
16.8
15.8
14.2
28.1
26.5
25.5
24.6
23.2
22.0
20.9
19.8
18.6
17.2
16.3
15.2
13.6
27.6
26.0
24.9
24.0
22.6
21.4
20.3
19.2
18.0
16.6
15.7
14.7
13.1
27.0
25.4
24.4
23.5
22.1
20.9
19.8
18.7
17.5
16.1
15.2
14.1
12.5
26.5
24.9
23.8
22.9
21.5
20.3
19.2
18.1
16.9
15.5
14.6
13.5
12.0
25.9
24.3
23.2
22.4
20.9
19.8
18.6
17.5
16.3
14.9
14.0
13.0
11.4
25.3
23.7
22.7
21.8
20.4
19.2
18.1
17.0
15.8
14.4
13.5
12.4
10.8
24.8
23.2
22.1
21.2
19.8
18.6
17.5
16.4
15.2
13.8
12.9
11.9
10.3
24.2
22.6
21.6
20.7
19.3
18.1
17.0
15.9
14.7
13.3
12.4
11.3
9.7
712

Table A9
Normative data for the HVLT-R total recall stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
30.6
29.2
28.2
27.4
26.1
25.1
24.1
23.1
22.0
20.7
19.9
19.0
17.5
30.0
28.6
27.7
26.9
25.6
24.5
23.5
22.5
21.4
20.2
19.4
18.4
17.0
29.5
28.1
27.1
26.3
25.0
24.0
23.0
22.0
20.9
19.6
18.8
17.9
16.4
28.9
27.5
26.5
25.7
24.5
23.4
22.4
21.4
20.3
19.0
18.3
17.3
15.9
28.4
26.9
26.0
25.2
23.9
22.8
21.8
20.8
19.8
18.5
17.7
16.7
15.3
27.8
26.4
25.4
24.6
23.4
22.3
21.3
20.3
19.2
17.9
17.1
16.2
14.7
27.3
25.8
24.9
24.1
22.8
21.7
20.7
19.7
18.6
17.4
16.6
15.6
14.2
26.7
25.3
24.3
23.5
22.2
21.2
20.2
19.2
18.1
16.8
16.0
15.1
13.6
26.1
24.7
23.7
22.9
21.7
20.6
19.6
18.6
17.5
16.3
15.5
14.5
13.1
25.6
24.1
23.2
22.4
21.1
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
15.7
14.9
13.9
12.5
25.0
23.6
22.6
21.8
20.6
19.5
18.5
17.5
16.4
15.1
14.3
13.4
11.9
24.5
23.0
22.1
21.3
20.0
18.9
17.9
16.9
15.9
14.6
13.8
12.8
11.4
23.9
22.5
21.5
20.7
19.4
18.4
17.4
16.4
15.3
14.0
13.2
12.3
10.8
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
24.9
23.5
22.5
21.7
20.5
19.4
18.4
17.4
16.3
15.0
14.2
13.3
11.9
24.4
22.9
22.0
21.2
19.9
18.8
17.8
16.8
15.8
14.5
13.7
12.7
11.3
23.8
22.4
21.4
20.6
19.3
18.3
17.3
16.3
15.2
13.9
13.1
12.2
10.7
23.2
21.8
20.9
20.1
18.8
17.7
16.7
15.7
14.6
13.4
12.6
11.6
10.2
22.7
21.3
20.3
19.5
18.2
17.1
16.2
15.2
14.1
12.8
12.0
11.1
9.6
22.1
20.7
19.7
18.9
17.7
16.6
15.6
14.6
13.5
12.2
11.4
10.5
9.1
21.6
20.1
19.2
18.4
17.1
16.0
15.0
14.0
13.0
11.7
10.9
9.9
8.5
21.0
19.6
18.6
17.8
16.5
15.5
14.5
13.5
12.4
11.1
10.3
9.4
7.9
20.5
19.0
18.1
17.3
16.0
14.9
13.9
12.9
11.8
10.6
9.8
8.8
7.4
19.9
18.5
17.5
16.7
15.4
14.4
13.4
12.4
11.3
10.0
9.2
8.3
6.8
19.3
17.9
16.9
16.1
14.9
13.8
12.8
11.8
10.7
9.4
8.7
7.7
6.3
18.8
17.3
16.4
15.6
14.3
13.2
12.2
11.2
10.2
8.9
8.1
7.1
5.7
18.2
16.8
15.8
15.0
13.8
12.7
11.7
10.7
9.6
8.3
7.5
6.6
5.1
Table A10
Normative data for the HVLT-R total recall stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
32.0
30.5
29.4
28.5
27.1
25.9
24.8
23.7
22.6
21.2
20.3
19.2
17.6
31.6
30.0
28.9
28.1
26.6
25.5
24.4
23.3
22.1
20.7
19.8
18.7
17.2
31.1
29.5
28.5
27.6
26.2
25.0
23.9
22.8
21.6
20.2
19.3
18.3
16.7
30.6
29.0
28.0
27.1
25.7
24.5
23.4
22.3
21.1
19.7
18.8
17.8
16.2
30.1
28.6
27.5
26.6
25.2
24.0
22.9
21.8
20.7
19.2
18.4
17.3
15.7
29.7
28.1
27.0
26.1
24.7
23.6
22.5
21.4
20.2
18.8
17.9
16.8
15.3
29.2
27.6
26.5
25.7
24.3
23.1
22.0
20.9
19.7
18.3
17.4
16.4
14.8
28.7
27.1
26.1
25.2
23.8
22.6
21.5
20.4
19.2
17.8
16.9
15.9
14.3
28.2
26.6
25.6
24.7
23.3
22.1
21.0
19.9
18.7
17.3
16.5
15.4
13.8
27.8
26.2
25.1
24.2
22.8
21.6
20.6
19.5
18.3
16.9
16.0
14.9
13.4
27.3
25.7
24.6
23.8
22.4
21.2
20.1
19.0
17.8
16.4
15.5
14.5
12.9
26.8
25.2
24.2
23.3
21.9
20.7
19.6
18.5
17.3
15.9
15.0
14.0
12.4
26.3
24.7
23.7
22.8
21.4
20.2
19.1
18.0
16.8
15.4
14.6
13.5
11.9
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
30.0
28.5
27.4
26.5
25.1
23.9
22.8
21.7
20.6
19.2
18.3
17.2
15.6
29.6
28.0
26.9
26.1
24.6
23.5
22.4
21.3
20.1
18.7
17.8
16.7
15.2
29.1
27.5
26.5
25.6
24.2
23.0
21.9
20.8
19.6
18.2
17.3
16.3
14.7
28.6
27.0
26.0
25.1
23.7
22.5
21.4
20.3
19.1
17.7
16.8
15.8
14.2
28.1
26.6
25.5
24.6
23.2
22.0
20.9
19.8
18.7
17.2
16.4
15.3
13.7
27.7
26.1
25.0
24.1
22.7
21.6
20.5
19.4
18.2
16.8
15.9
14.8
13.3
27.2
25.6
24.5
23.7
22.3
21.1
20.0
18.9
17.7
16.3
15.4
14.4
12.8
26.7
25.1
24.1
23.2
21.8
20.6
19.5
18.4
17.2
15.8
14.9
13.9
12.3
26.2
24.6
23.6
22.7
21.3
20.1
19.0
17.9
16.7
15.3
14.5
13.4
11.8
25.8
24.2
23.1
22.2
20.8
19.6
18.6
17.5
16.3
14.9
14.0
12.9
11.4
25.3
23.7
22.6
21.8
20.4
19.2
18.1
17.0
15.8
14.4
13.5
12.5
10.9
24.8
23.2
22.2
21.3
19.9
18.7
17.6
16.5
15.3
13.9
13.0
12.0
10.4
24.3
22.7
21.7
20.8
19.4
18.2
17.1
16.0
14.8
13.4
12.6
11.5
9.9
713

Table A11
Normative data for the HVLT-R total recall stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
34.1
32.6
31.6
30.8
29.5
28.4
27.4
26.4
25.3
24.0
23.2
22.2
20.7
33.3
31.8
30.9
30.0
28.7
27.7
26.6
25.6
24.5
23.2
22.4
21.4
20.0
32.5
31.1
30.1
29.3
28.0
26.9
25.9
24.9
23.8
22.5
21.7
20.7
19.2
31.8
30.3
29.3
28.5
27.2
26.1
25.1
24.1
23.0
21.7
20.9
19.9
18.5
31.0
29.5
28.6
27.8
26.5
25.4
24.4
23.3
22.2
20.9
20.1
19.2
17.7
30.2
28.8
27.8
27.0
25.7
24.6
23.6
22.6
21.5
20.2
19.4
18.4
16.9
29.5
28.0
27.1
26.2
24.9
23.8
22.8
21.8
20.7
19.4
18.6
17.6
16.2
28.7
27.3
26.3
25.5
24.2
23.1
22.1
21.1
20.0
18.7
17.8
16.9
15.4
28.0
26.5
25.5
24.7
23.4
22.3
21.3
20.3
19.2
17.9
17.1
16.1
14.6
27.2
25.7
24.8
24.0
22.7
21.6
20.5
19.5
18.4
17.1
16.3
15.3
13.9
26.4
25.0
24.0
23.2
21.9
20.8
19.8
18.8
17.7
16.4
15.6
14.6
13.1
25.7
24.2
23.2
22.4
21.1
20.0
19.0
18.0
16.9
15.6
14.8
13.8
12.4
24.9
23.5
22.5
21.7
20.4
19.3
18.3
17.2
16.1
14.8
14.0
13.1
11.6
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
32.8
31.3
30.4
29.5
28.2
27.2
26.1
25.1
24.0
22.7
21.9
20.9
19.5
32.0
30.6
29.6
28.8
27.5
26.4
25.4
24.4
23.3
22.0
21.2
20.2
18.7
31.3
29.8
28.8
28.0
26.7
25.6
24.6
23.6
22.5
21.2
20.4
19.4
18.0
30.5
29.0
28.1
27.3
26.0
24.9
23.9
22.8
21.7
20.4
19.6
18.7
17.2
29.7
28.3
27.3
26.5
25.2
24.1
23.1
22.1
21.0
19.7
18.9
17.9
16.4
29.0
27.5
26.6
25.7
24.4
23.3
22.3
21.3
20.2
18.9
18.1
17.1
15.7
28.2
26.8
25.8
25.0
23.7
22.6
21.6
20.6
19.5
18.2
17.3
16.4
14.9
27.5
26.0
25.0
24.2
22.9
21.8
20.8
19.8
18.7
17.4
16.6
15.6
14.1
26.7
25.2
24.3
23.5
22.2
21.1
20.0
19.0
17.9
16.6
15.8
14.8
13.4
25.9
24.5
23.5
22.7
21.4
20.3
19.3
18.3
17.2
15.9
15.1
14.1
12.6
25.2
23.7
22.7
21.9
20.6
19.5
18.5
17.5
16.4
15.1
14.3
13.3
11.9
24.4
23.0
22.0
21.2
19.9
18.8
17.8
16.7
15.6
14.3
13.5
12.6
11.1
23.7
22.2
21.2
20.4
19.1
18.0
17.0
16.0
14.9
13.6
12.8
11.8
10.3
Table A12
Normative data for the HVLT-R delayed recall stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.0
11.4
10.9
10.4
9.8
9.3
8.6
8.2
7.8
7.0
12.0
11.8
11.2
10.6
10.1
9.6
9.1
8.4
8.0
7.5
6.8
12.0
11.6
11.0
10.4
9.9
9.4
8.9
8.2
7.8
7.3
6.6
12.0
11.8
11.4
10.8
10.2
9.7
9.2
8.7
8.0
7.6
7.1
6.4
12.0
11.6
11.2
10.6
10.0
9.5
9.0
8.4
7.8
7.4
6.9
6.2
12.0
11.9
11.4
11.0
10.3
9.8
9.3
8.8
8.2
7.6
7.2
6.7
6.0
12.0
11.7
11.2
10.8
10.1
9.6
9.1
8.6
8.0
7.4
7.0
6.5
5.8
12.0
11.5
11.0
10.6
9.9
9.4
8.9
8.4
7.8
7.2
6.8
6.3
5.5
12.0
11.3
10.8
10.4
9.7
9.2
8.7
8.1
7.6
6.9
6.5
6.1
5.3
11.8
11.0
10.6
10.1
9.5
8.9
8.4
7.9
7.4
6.7
6.3
5.8
5.1
11.6
10.8
10.3
9.9
9.3
8.7
8.2
7.7
7.2
6.5
6.1
5.6
4.9
11.3
10.6
10.1
9.7
9.1
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.3
5.9
5.4
4.7
11.1
10.4
9.9
9.5
8.9
8.3
7.8
7.3
6.7
6.1
5.7
5.2
4.5
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.0
11.4
10.9
10.5
9.9
9.3
8.8
8.3
7.8
7.1
6.7
6.2
5.5
12.0
11.2
10.7
10.3
9.7
9.1
8.6
8.1
7.6
6.9
6.5
6.0
5.3
11.7
11.0
10.5
10.1
9.5
8.9
8.4
7.9
7.4
6.7
6.3
5.8
5.1
11.5
10.8
10.3
9.9
9.3
8.7
8.2
7.7
7.1
6.5
6.1
5.6
4.9
11.3
10.6
10.1
9.7
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
6.9
6.3
5.9
5.4
4.7
11.1
10.4
9.9
9.5
8.8
8.3
7.8
7.3
6.7
6.1
5.7
5.2
4.4
10.9
10.2
9.7
9.3
8.6
8.1
7.6
7.1
6.5
5.9
5.5
5.0
4.2
10.7
9.9
9.5
9.1
8.4
7.9
7.4
6.8
6.3
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.0
10.5
9.7
9.2
8.8
8.2
7.6
7.1
6.6
6.1
5.4
5.0
4.5
3.8
10.3
9.5
9.0
8.6
8.0
7.4
6.9
6.4
5.9
5.2
4.8
4.3
3.6
10.0
9.3
8.8
8.4
7.8
7.2
6.7
6.2
5.7
5.0
4.6
4.1
3.4
9.8
9.1
8.6
8.2
7.6
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.4
4.8
4.4
3.9
3.2
9.6
8.9
8.4
8.0
7.3
6.8
6.3
5.8
5.2
4.6
4.2
3.7
3.0
714

Table A13
Normative data for the HVLT-R delayed recall stratified by age for BOLIVIA
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
12.0
11.5
10.9
10.5
9.7
9.0
8.4
7.8
7.1
6.4
5.9
5.3
4.4
12.0
11.2
10.6
10.1
9.4
8.7
8.1
7.5
6.8
6.0
5.6
5.0
4.1
11.8
10.9
10.3
9.8
9.0
8.4
7.8
7.2
6.5
5.7
5.2
4.6
3.8
11.4
10.6
10.0
9.5
8.7
8.1
7.4
6.8
6.2
5.4
4.9
4.3
3.4
11.1
10.2
9.7
9.2
8.4
7.7
7.1
6.5
5.9
5.1
4.6
4.0
3.1
10.8
9.9
9.3
8.8
8.1
7.4
6.8
6.2
5.5
4.8
4.3
3.7
2.8
10.5
9.6
9.0
8.5
7.7
7.1
6.5
5.9
5.2
4.4
3.9
3.4
2.5
10.2
9.3
8.7
8.2
7.4
6.8
6.2
5.5
4.9
4.1
3.6
3.0
2.2
9.8
9.0
8.4
7.9
7.1
6.4
5.8
5.2
4.6
3.8
3.3
2.7
1.8
9.5
8.6
8.0
7.6
6.8
6.1
5.5
4.9
4.2
3.5
3.0
2.4
1.5
9.2
8.3
7.7
7.2
6.5
5.8
5.2
4.6
3.9
3.1
2.7
2.1
1.2
8.9
8.0
7.4
6.9
6.1
5.5
4.9
4.3
3.6
2.8
2.3
1.7
0.9
8.5
7.7
7.1
6.6
5.8
5.2
4.5
3.9
3.3
2.5
2.0
1.4
0.5
Table A14
Normative data for the HVLT-R delayed recall stratified by age and education levels for CHILE
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.0
11.8
11.2
10.6
10.0
9.4
8.7
8.2
7.6
6.8
12.0
11.5
10.8
10.3
9.7
9.0
8.3
7.8
7.3
6.5
12.0
11.9
11.1
10.5
9.9
9.3
8.7
8.0
7.5
6.9
6.1
12.0
11.5
10.8
10.1
9.6
9.0
8.4
7.6
7.2
6.6
5.8
12.0
11.6
11.2
10.4
9.8
9.2
8.6
8.0
7.3
6.8
6.3
5.4
12.0
11.8
11.3
10.8
10.1
9.4
8.9
8.3
7.7
6.9
6.5
5.9
5.1
12.0
11.5
10.9
10.5
9.7
9.1
8.5
7.9
7.3
6.6
6.1
5.6
4.7
12.0
11.1
10.6
10.1
9.4
8.8
8.2
7.6
7.0
6.2
5.8
5.2
4.4
11.6
10.8
10.2
9.8
9.0
8.4
7.8
7.3
6.6
5.9
5.4
4.9
4.0
11.3
10.5
9.9
9.4
8.7
8.1
7.5
6.9
6.3
5.5
5.1
4.5
3.7
10.9
10.1
9.6
9.1
8.4
7.7
7.1
6.6
5.9
5.2
4.7
4.2
3.4
10.6
9.8
9.2
8.7
8.0
7.4
6.8
6.2
5.6
4.9
4.4
3.8
3.0
10.3
9.4
8.9
8.4
7.7
7.0
6.5
5.9
5.3
4.5
4.1
3.5
2.7
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.0
11.7
11.3
10.5
9.9
9.3
8.7
8.1
7.4
6.9
6.4
5.5
12.0
11.9
11.4
10.9
10.2
9.6
9.0
8.4
7.8
7.0
6.6
6.0
5.2
12.0
11.6
11.0
10.6
9.8
9.2
8.6
8.1
7.4
6.7
6.2
5.7
4.8
12.0
11.3
10.7
10.2
9.5
8.9
8.3
7.7
7.1
6.3
5.9
5.3
4.5
11.7
10.9
10.4
9.9
9.2
8.5
7.9
7.4
6.7
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.2
11.4
10.6
10.0
9.5
8.8
8.2
7.6
7.0
6.4
5.7
5.2
4.6
3.8
11.1
10.2
9.7
9.2
8.5
7.8
7.3
6.7
6.1
5.3
4.9
4.3
3.5
10.7
9.9
9.3
8.9
8.1
7.5
6.9
6.3
5.7
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.1
10.4
9.5
9.0
8.5
7.8
7.1
6.6
6.0
5.4
4.6
4.2
3.6
2.8
10.0
9.2
8.6
8.2
7.4
6.8
6.2
5.6
5.0
4.3
3.8
3.3
2.4
9.7
8.8
8.3
7.8
7.1
6.5
5.9
5.3
4.7
3.9
3.5
2.9
2.1
9.3
8.5
7.9
7.5
6.7
6.1
5.5
5.0
4.3
3.6
3.1
2.6
1.7
9.0
8.2
7.6
7.1
6.4
5.8
5.2
4.6
4.0
3.2
2.8
2.2
1.4
715

Table A15
Normative data for the HVLT-R delayed recall stratified by age and education levels for CUBA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.0
11.8
11.4
10.7
10.1
9.5
9.0
8.4
7.7
7.3
6.8
6.0
12.0
11.6
11.1
10.5
9.9
9.3
8.8
8.2
7.5
7.1
6.6
5.8
12.0
11.9
11.4
10.9
10.2
9.7
9.1
8.6
8.0
7.3
6.9
6.3
5.6
12.0
11.7
11.1
10.7
10.0
9.4
8.9
8.4
7.8
7.1
6.6
6.1
5.3
12.0
11.4
10.9
10.5
9.8
9.2
8.7
8.1
7.5
6.9
6.4
5.9
5.1
12.0
11.2
10.7
10.3
9.6
9.0
8.5
7.9
7.3
6.6
6.2
5.7
4.9
11.8
11.0
10.5
10.1
9.4
8.8
8.2
7.7
7.1
6.4
6.0
5.5
4.7
11.6
10.8
10.3
9.8
9.1
8.6
8.0
7.5
6.9
6.2
5.8
5.3
4.5
11.3
10.6
10.0
9.6
8.9
8.3
7.8
7.3
6.7
6.0
5.6
5.0
4.3
11.1
10.3
9.8
9.4
8.7
8.1
7.6
7.0
6.5
5.8
5.3
4.8
4.0
10.9
10.1
9.6
9.2
8.5
7.9
7.4
6.8
6.2
5.5
5.1
4.6
3.8
10.7
9.9
9.4
9.0
8.3
7.7
7.1
6.6
6.0
5.3
4.9
4.4
3.6
10.5
9.7
9.2
8.7
8.1
7.5
6.9
6.4
5.8
5.1
4.7
4.2
3.4
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
11.7
10.9
10.4
9.9
9.2
8.7
8.1
7.6
7.0
6.3
5.9
5.3
4.6
11.4
10.7
10.1
9.7
9.0
8.4
7.9
7.4
6.8
6.1
5.6
5.1
4.4
11.2
10.4
9.9
9.5
8.8
8.2
7.7
7.1
6.6
5.9
5.4
4.9
4.1
11.0
10.2
9.7
9.3
8.6
8.0
7.5
6.9
6.3
5.6
5.2
4.7
3.9
10.8
10.0
9.5
9.1
8.4
7.8
7.2
6.7
6.1
5.4
5.0
4.5
3.7
10.6
9.8
9.3
8.8
8.1
7.6
7.0
6.5
5.9
5.2
4.8
4.3
3.5
10.3
9.6
9.1
8.6
7.9
7.3
6.8
6.3
5.7
5.0
4.6
4.0
3.3
10.1
9.4
8.8
8.4
7.7
7.1
6.6
6.0
5.5
4.8
4.3
3.8
3.0
9.9
9.1
8.6
8.2
7.5
6.9
6.4
5.8
5.2
4.6
4.1
3.6
2.8
9.7
8.9
8.4
8.0
7.3
6.7
6.1
5.6
5.0
4.3
3.9
3.4
2.6
9.5
8.7
8.2
7.7
7.1
6.5
5.9
5.4
4.8
4.1
3.7
3.2
2.4
9.3
8.5
8.0
7.5
6.8
6.3
5.7
5.2
4.6
3.9
3.5
2.9
2.2
9.0
8.3
7.7
7.3
6.6
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.4
3.7
3.2
2.7
1.9
Table A16
Normative data for the HVLT-R delayed recall stratified by age and education levels for EL SALVADOR
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.0
11.7
11.2
10.5
9.9
9.3
8.8
8.2
7.5
7.0
6.5
5.7
12.0
11.9
11.4
10.9
10.2
9.6
9.0
8.5
7.9
7.2
6.7
6.2
5.4
12.0
11.6
11.1
10.6
9.9
9.3
8.8
8.2
7.6
6.9
6.4
5.9
5.1
12.0
11.3
10.8
10.3
9.6
9.0
8.5
7.9
7.3
6.6
6.1
5.6
4.8
11.8
11.0
10.5
10.0
9.3
8.7
8.2
7.6
7.0
6.3
5.8
5.3
4.5
11.5
10.7
10.2
9.8
9.0
8.4
7.9
7.3
6.7
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.2
11.2
10.4
9.9
9.5
8.7
8.1
7.6
7.0
6.4
5.7
5.3
4.7
3.9
11.0
10.2
9.6
9.2
8.5
7.8
7.3
6.7
6.1
5.4
5.0
4.4
3.6
10.7
9.9
9.3
8.9
8.2
7.6
7.0
6.4
5.8
5.1
4.7
4.1
3.3
10.4
9.6
9.0
8.6
7.9
7.3
6.7
6.1
5.5
4.8
4.4
3.8
3.0
10.1
9.3
8.7
8.3
7.6
7.0
6.4
5.8
5.2
4.5
4.1
3.5
2.7
9.8
9.0
8.4
8.0
7.3
6.7
6.1
5.6
5.0
4.2
3.8
3.2
2.4
9.5
8.7
8.1
7.7
7.0
6.4
5.8
5.3
4.7
3.9
3.5
3.0
2.2
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
11.0
10.2
9.7
9.2
8.5
7.9
7.3
6.8
6.2
5.5
5.0
4.5
3.7
10.7
9.9
9.4
8.9
8.2
7.6
7.1
6.5
5.9
5.2
4.7
4.2
3.4
10.4
9.6
9.1
8.6
7.9
7.3
6.8
6.2
5.6
4.9
4.4
3.9
3.1
10.1
9.3
8.8
8.3
7.6
7.0
6.5
5.9
5.3
4.6
4.1
3.6
2.8
9.8
9.0
8.5
8.1
7.3
6.7
6.2
5.6
5.0
4.3
3.8
3.3
2.5
9.5
8.7
8.2
7.8
7.0
6.4
5.9
5.3
4.7
4.0
3.6
3.0
2.2
9.3
8.4
7.9
7.5
6.7
6.1
5.6
5.0
4.4
3.7
3.3
2.7
1.9
9.0
8.2
7.6
7.2
6.5
5.9
5.3
4.7
4.1
3.4
3.0
2.4
1.6
8.7
7.9
7.3
6.9
6.2
5.6
5.0
4.4
3.8
3.1
2.7
2.1
1.3
8.4
7.6
7.0
6.6
5.9
5.3
4.7
4.1
3.5
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.0
8.1
7.3
6.7
6.3
5.6
5.0
4.4
3.9
3.2
2.5
2.1
1.5
0.7
7.8
7.0
6.4
6.0
5.3
4.7
4.1
3.6
3.0
2.2
1.8
1.3
0.4
7.5
6.7
6.2
5.7
5.0
4.4
3.8
3.3
2.7
1.9
1.5
1.0
0.2
716

Table A17
Normative data for the HVLT-R delayed recall stratified by age and education levels for GUATEMALA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.0
11.7
10.8
10.1
9.4
8.7
8.0
7.1
6.6
5.9
5.0
12.0
11.4
10.6
9.8
9.2
8.5
7.8
6.9
6.4
5.7
4.7
12.0
11.8
11.2
10.4
9.6
9.0
8.3
7.5
6.7
6.1
5.5
4.5
12.0
11.5
11.0
10.1
9.4
8.7
8.1
7.3
6.5
5.9
5.3
4.3
12.0
11.3
10.8
9.9
9.2
8.5
7.8
7.1
6.2
5.7
5.0
4.1
12.0
11.7
11.1
10.6
9.7
9.0
8.3
7.6
6.9
6.0
5.5
4.8
3.9
12.0
11.5
10.9
10.3
9.5
8.7
8.1
7.4
6.7
5.8
5.3
4.6
3.6
12.0
11.3
10.7
10.1
9.2
8.5
7.8
7.2
6.4
5.6
5.0
4.4
3.4
12.0
11.1
10.4
9.9
9.0
8.3
7.6
6.9
6.2
5.4
4.8
4.2
3.2
11.8
10.9
10.2
9.7
8.8
8.1
7.4
6.7
6.0
5.1
4.6
3.9
3.0
11.6
10.6
10.0
9.4
8.6
7.9
7.2
6.5
5.8
4.9
4.4
3.7
2.7
11.4
10.4
9.8
9.2
8.4
7.6
7.0
6.3
5.6
4.7
4.1
3.5
2.5
11.2
10.2
9.5
9.0
8.1
7.4
6.7
6.1
5.3
4.5
3.9
3.3
2.3
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.0
11.5
10.8
10.3
9.4
8.7
8.0
7.4
6.6
5.8
5.2
4.6
3.6
12.0
11.3
10.6
10.1
9.2
8.5
7.8
7.1
6.4
5.5
5.0
4.3
3.4
12.0
11.0
10.4
9.9
9.0
8.3
7.6
6.9
6.2
5.3
4.8
4.1
3.2
11.8
10.8
10.2
9.6
8.8
8.0
7.4
6.7
6.0
5.1
4.6
3.9
2.9
11.6
10.6
10.0
9.4
8.5
7.8
7.1
6.5
5.7
4.9
4.3
3.7
2.7
11.4
10.4
9.7
9.2
8.3
7.6
6.9
6.2
5.5
4.6
4.1
3.5
2.5
11.1
10.2
9.5
9.0
8.1
7.4
6.7
6.0
5.3
4.4
3.9
3.2
2.3
10.9
9.9
9.3
8.7
7.9
7.2
6.5
5.8
5.1
4.2
3.7
3.0
2.0
10.7
9.7
9.1
8.5
7.7
6.9
6.3
5.6
4.8
4.0
3.4
2.8
1.8
10.5
9.5
8.8
8.3
7.4
6.7
6.0
5.4
4.6
3.8
3.2
2.6
1.6
10.2
9.3
8.6
8.1
7.2
6.5
5.8
5.1
4.4
3.5
3.0
2.4
1.4
10.0
9.0
8.4
7.9
7.0
6.3
5.6
4.9
4.2
3.3
2.8
2.1
1.2
9.8
8.8
8.2
7.6
6.8
6.0
5.4
4.7
4.0
3.1
2.6
1.9
0.9
Table A18
Normative data for the HVLT-R delayed recall stratified by age and education levels for HONDURAS
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.0
11.5
11.0
10.5
9.8
9.1
8.5
8.0
7.3
6.6
6.1
5.5
4.7
12.0
11.3
10.7
10.3
9.5
8.9
8.3
7.7
7.1
6.3
5.8
5.3
4.4
11.9
11.0
10.5
10.0
9.2
8.6
8.0
7.4
6.8
6.1
5.6
5.0
4.2
11.6
10.8
10.2
9.7
9.0
8.4
7.8
7.2
6.6
5.8
5.3
4.8
3.9
11.4
10.5
10.0
9.5
8.7
8.1
7.5
6.9
6.3
5.5
5.1
4.5
3.7
11.1
10.3
9.7
9.2
8.5
7.8
7.3
6.7
6.0
5.3
4.8
4.3
3.4
10.8
10.0
9.4
9.0
8.2
7.6
7.0
6.4
5.8
5.0
4.6
4.0
3.2
10.6
9.7
9.2
8.7
8.0
7.3
6.7
6.2
5.5
4.8
4.3
3.7
2.9
10.3
9.5
8.9
8.5
7.7
7.1
6.5
5.9
5.3
4.5
4.0
3.5
2.6
10.1
9.2
8.7
8.2
7.4
6.8
6.2
5.6
5.0
4.3
3.8
3.2
2.4
9.8
9.0
8.4
7.9
7.2
6.6
6.0
5.4
4.8
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.1
9.6
8.7
8.2
7.7
6.9
6.3
5.7
5.1
4.5
3.7
3.3
2.7
1.9
9.3
8.5
7.9
7.4
6.7
6.0
5.5
4.9
4.2
3.5
3.0
2.5
1.6
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
10.5
9.7
9.1
8.7
7.9
7.3
6.7
6.1
5.5
4.7
4.3
3.7
2.9
10.3
9.4
8.9
8.4
7.7
7.0
6.4
5.9
5.2
4.5
4.0
3.4
2.6
10.0
9.2
8.6
8.2
7.4
6.8
6.2
5.6
5.0
4.2
3.7
3.2
2.3
9.8
8.9
8.4
7.9
7.1
6.5
5.9
5.3
4.7
4.0
3.5
2.9
2.1
9.5
8.7
8.1
7.6
6.9
6.3
5.7
5.1
4.5
3.7
3.2
2.7
1.8
9.3
8.4
7.8
7.4
6.6
6.0
5.4
4.8
4.2
3.4
3.0
2.4
1.6
9.0
8.2
7.6
7.1
6.4
5.7
5.2
4.6
3.9
3.2
2.7
2.2
1.3
8.7
7.9
7.3
6.9
6.1
5.5
4.9
4.3
3.7
2.9
2.5
1.9
1.1
8.5
7.6
7.1
6.6
5.9
5.2
4.6
4.1
3.4
2.7
2.2
1.6
0.8
8.2
7.4
6.8
6.4
5.6
5.0
4.4
3.8
3.2
2.4
1.9
1.4
0.5
8.0
7.1
6.6
6.1
5.3
4.7
4.1
3.5
2.9
2.2
1.7
1.1
0.3
7.7
6.9
6.3
5.8
5.1
4.5
3.9
3.3
2.7
1.9
1.4
0.9
7.5
6.6
6.0
5.6
4.8
4.2
3.6
3.0
2.4
1.6
1.2
0.6
717

Table A19
Normative data for the HVLT-R delayed recall stratified by age and education levels for MEXICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.0
11.8
11.4
10.7
10.1
9.5
9.0
8.4
7.7
7.2
6.7
5.9
12.0
11.5
11.1
10.4
9.8
9.2
8.7
8.1
7.4
6.9
6.4
5.6
12.0
11.8
11.2
10.8
10.1
9.5
8.9
8.4
7.8
7.1
6.7
6.1
5.3
12.0
11.5
11.0
10.5
9.8
9.2
8.7
8.1
7.5
6.8
6.4
5.8
5.0
12.0
11.2
10.7
10.2
9.5
8.9
8.4
7.8
7.2
6.5
6.1
5.6
4.8
11.7
10.9
10.4
9.9
9.2
8.6
8.1
7.5
6.9
6.2
5.8
5.3
4.5
11.4
10.6
10.1
9.7
8.9
8.4
7.8
7.2
6.7
5.9
5.5
5.0
4.2
11.1
10.3
9.8
9.4
8.7
8.1
7.5
7.0
6.4
5.7
5.2
4.7
3.9
10.8
10.0
9.5
9.1
8.4
7.8
7.2
6.7
6.1
5.4
4.9
4.4
3.6
10.6
9.8
9.2
8.8
8.1
7.5
6.9
6.4
5.8
5.1
4.6
4.1
3.3
10.3
9.5
8.9
8.5
7.8
7.2
6.7
6.1
5.5
4.8
4.4
3.8
3.0
10.0
9.2
8.7
8.2
7.5
6.9
6.4
5.8
5.2
4.5
4.1
3.5
2.8
9.7
8.9
8.4
7.9
7.2
6.6
6.1
5.5
4.9
4.2
3.8
3.3
2.5
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.0
11.5
10.9
10.5
9.8
9.2
8.7
8.1
7.5
6.8
6.4
5.8
5.0
12.0
11.2
10.7
10.2
9.5
8.9
8.4
7.8
7.2
6.5
6.1
5.5
4.8
11.7
10.9
10.4
9.9
9.2
8.6
8.1
7.5
6.9
6.2
5.8
5.3
4.5
11.4
10.6
10.1
9.6
8.9
8.3
7.8
7.2
6.6
5.9
5.5
5.0
4.2
11.1
10.3
9.8
9.4
8.7
8.1
7.5
7.0
6.4
5.7
5.2
4.7
3.9
10.8
10.0
9.5
9.1
8.4
7.8
7.2
6.7
6.1
5.4
4.9
4.4
3.6
10.5
9.8
9.2
8.8
8.1
7.5
6.9
6.4
5.8
5.1
4.6
4.1
3.3
10.3
9.5
8.9
8.5
7.8
7.2
6.6
6.1
5.5
4.8
4.4
3.8
3.0
10.0
9.2
8.7
8.2
7.5
6.9
6.4
5.8
5.2
4.5
4.1
3.5
2.7
9.7
8.9
8.4
7.9
7.2
6.6
6.1
5.5
4.9
4.2
3.8
3.3
2.5
9.4
8.6
8.1
7.6
6.9
6.3
5.8
5.2
4.6
3.9
3.5
3.0
2.2
9.1
8.3
7.8
7.4
6.6
6.1
5.5
4.9
4.4
3.6
3.2
2.7
1.9
8.8
8.0
7.5
7.1
6.4
5.8
5.2
4.7
4.1
3.4
2.9
2.4
1.6
Table A20
Normative data for the HVLT-R delayed recall stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
11.6
11.0
10.5
10.2
9.6
9.1
8.7
8.2
7.8
7.2
6.8
6.4
5.8
11.3
10.7
10.3
9.9
9.3
8.9
8.4
8.0
7.5
6.9
6.6
6.1
5.5
11.1
10.4
10.0
9.6
9.1
8.6
8.1
7.7
7.2
6.6
6.3
5.9
5.2
10.8
10.1
9.7
9.4
8.8
8.3
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
6.0
5.6
4.9
10.5
9.9
9.4
9.1
8.5
8.0
7.6
7.1
6.7
6.1
5.7
5.3
4.7
10.2
9.6
9.2
8.8
8.2
7.8
7.3
6.9
6.4
5.8
5.5
5.0
4.4
10.0
9.3
8.9
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.6
6.1
5.5
5.2
4.8
4.1
9.7
9.1
8.6
8.3
7.7
7.2
6.8
6.3
5.8
5.3
4.9
4.5
3.9
9.4
8.8
8.4
8.0
7.4
6.9
6.5
6.1
5.6
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.6
9.1
8.5
8.1
7.7
7.2
6.7
6.2
5.8
5.3
4.7
4.4
3.9
3.3
8.9
8.2
7.8
7.4
6.9
6.4
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.1
3.7
3.0
8.6
8.0
7.5
7.2
6.6
6.1
5.7
5.2
4.8
4.2
3.8
3.4
2.8
8.3
7.7
7.3
6.9
6.3
5.9
5.4
5.0
4.5
3.9
3.6
3.1
2.5
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
8.7
8.1
7.7
7.3
6.7
6.3
5.8
5.4
4.9
4.3
4.0
3.5
2.9
8.5
7.8
7.4
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.1
4.6
4.0
3.7
3.3
2.6
8.2
7.5
7.1
6.8
6.2
5.7
5.3
4.8
4.3
3.8
3.4
3.0
2.3
7.9
7.3
6.8
6.5
5.9
5.4
5.0
4.5
4.1
3.5
3.1
2.7
2.1
7.6
7.0
6.6
6.2
5.6
5.2
4.7
4.3
3.8
3.2
2.9
2.4
1.8
7.4
6.7
6.3
5.9
5.4
4.9
4.4
4.0
3.5
2.9
2.6
2.2
1.5
7.1
6.5
6.0
5.7
5.1
4.6
4.2
3.7
3.2
2.7
2.3
1.9
1.3
6.8
6.2
5.8
5.4
4.8
4.3
3.9
3.5
3.0
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.0
6.5
5.9
5.5
5.1
4.6
4.1
3.6
3.2
2.7
2.1
1.8
1.3
0.7
6.3
5.6
5.2
4.9
4.3
3.8
3.4
2.9
2.4
1.9
1.5
1.1
0.4
6.0
5.4
4.9
4.6
4.0
3.5
3.1
2.6
2.2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.2
5.7
5.1
4.7
4.3
3.7
3.3
2.8
2.4
1.9
1.3
1.0
0.5
5.5
4.8
4.4
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.1
1.6
1.0
0.7
0.3
718

Table A21
Normative data for the HVLT-R delayed recall stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.0
11.3
10.9
10.5
9.8
9.3
8.8
8.3
7.8
7.2
6.8
6.3
5.6
11.8
11.1
10.6
10.2
9.6
9.1
8.6
8.1
7.6
6.9
6.5
6.1
5.4
11.6
10.8
10.4
10.0
9.4
8.8
8.3
7.8
7.3
6.7
6.3
5.8
5.1
11.3
10.6
10.1
9.7
9.1
8.6
8.1
7.6
7.1
6.4
6.1
5.6
4.9
11.1
10.4
9.9
9.5
8.9
8.3
7.9
7.4
6.8
6.2
5.8
5.3
4.6
10.8
10.1
9.7
9.3
8.6
8.1
7.6
7.1
6.6
6.0
5.6
5.1
4.4
10.6
9.9
9.4
9.0
8.4
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.2
10.4
9.7
9.2
8.8
8.2
7.6
7.1
6.6
6.1
5.5
5.1
4.6
3.9
10.1
9.4
8.9
8.5
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
5.9
5.3
4.9
4.4
3.7
9.9
9.2
8.7
8.3
7.7
7.2
6.7
6.2
5.6
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.4
9.6
8.9
8.5
8.1
7.4
6.9
6.4
5.9
5.4
4.8
4.4
3.9
3.2
9.4
8.7
8.2
7.8
7.2
6.7
6.2
5.7
5.2
4.5
4.1
3.7
3.0
9.2
8.5
8.0
7.6
7.0
6.4
5.9
5.5
4.9
4.3
3.9
3.4
2.7
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
10.8
10.1
9.7
9.3
8.6
8.1
7.6
7.1
6.6
6.0
5.6
5.1
4.4
10.6
9.9
9.4
9.0
8.4
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
5.7
5.3
4.9
4.2
10.4
9.7
9.2
8.8
8.2
7.6
7.1
6.7
6.1
5.5
5.1
4.6
3.9
10.1
9.4
8.9
8.6
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
5.9
5.3
4.9
4.4
3.7
9.9
9.2
8.7
8.3
7.7
7.2
6.7
6.2
5.6
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.4
9.6
8.9
8.5
8.1
7.4
6.9
6.4
5.9
5.4
4.8
4.4
3.9
3.2
9.4
8.7
8.2
7.8
7.2
6.7
6.2
5.7
5.2
4.5
4.1
3.7
3.0
9.2
8.5
8.0
7.6
7.0
6.4
5.9
5.5
4.9
4.3
3.9
3.4
2.7
8.9
8.2
7.7
7.4
6.7
6.2
5.7
5.2
4.7
4.1
3.7
3.2
2.5
8.7
8.0
7.5
7.1
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.4
3.8
3.4
3.0
2.3
8.4
7.7
7.3
6.9
6.3
5.7
5.2
4.7
4.2
3.6
3.2
2.7
2.0
8.2
7.5
7.0
6.6
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.3
3.0
2.5
1.8
8.0
7.3
6.8
6.4
5.8
5.2
4.8
4.3
3.7
3.1
2.7
2.2
1.5
Table A22
Normative data for the HVLT-R delayed recall stratified by age and education levels for PUERTO RICO
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.0
11.5
10.9
10.4
9.8
9.2
8.5
8.1
7.5
6.7
12.0
11.9
11.1
10.5
10.0
9.4
8.8
8.1
7.7
7.1
6.3
12.0
11.9
11.5
10.7
10.1
9.6
9.0
8.4
7.7
7.3
6.7
5.9
12.0
11.5
11.1
10.3
9.7
9.2
8.6
8.0
7.3
6.9
6.3
5.5
12.0
11.6
11.1
10.7
9.9
9.3
8.8
8.2
7.6
6.9
6.5
5.9
5.1
12.0
11.2
10.7
10.3
9.5
8.9
8.4
7.8
7.2
6.5
6.1
5.5
4.7
11.6
10.8
10.3
9.9
9.1
8.5
8.0
7.4
6.8
6.1
5.7
5.1
4.3
11.2
10.4
9.9
9.5
8.7
8.1
7.6
7.0
6.4
5.7
5.3
4.7
3.9
10.8
10.0
9.5
9.1
8.3
7.7
7.2
6.6
6.0
5.3
4.9
4.3
3.5
10.4
9.6
9.1
8.7
7.9
7.3
6.8
6.2
5.6
4.9
4.5
3.9
3.1
10.0
9.2
8.7
8.3
7.5
6.9
6.4
5.8
5.2
4.5
4.1
3.5
2.7
9.6
8.8
8.3
7.9
7.1
6.5
6.0
5.4
4.8
4.1
3.7
3.1
2.3
9.2
8.4
7.9
7.5
6.7
6.1
5.6
5.0
4.4
3.7
3.3
2.7
1.9
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
12.0
11.5
10.8
10.2
9.7
9.1
8.5
7.8
7.3
6.8
6.0
12.0
11.6
11.1
10.4
9.8
9.3
8.7
8.1
7.4
6.9
6.4
5.6
12.0
11.7
11.2
10.7
10.0
9.4
8.9
8.3
7.7
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.2
12.0
11.3
10.8
10.3
9.6
9.0
8.5
7.9
7.3
6.6
6.1
5.6
4.8
11.7
10.9
10.4
9.9
9.2
8.6
8.1
7.5
6.9
6.2
5.7
5.2
4.4
11.3
10.5
10.0
9.6
8.8
8.2
7.7
7.1
6.5
5.8
5.3
4.8
4.0
10.9
10.1
9.6
9.2
8.4
7.8
7.3
6.7
6.1
5.4
4.9
4.4
3.6
10.5
9.7
9.2
8.8
8.0
7.4
6.9
6.3
5.7
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.2
10.1
9.3
8.8
8.4
7.6
7.0
6.5
5.9
5.3
4.6
4.1
3.6
2.8
9.7
8.9
8.4
8.0
7.2
6.6
6.1
5.5
4.9
4.2
3.7
3.2
2.4
9.3
8.5
8.0
7.6
6.8
6.2
5.7
5.1
4.5
3.8
3.3
2.8
2.0
8.9
8.1
7.6
7.2
6.4
5.8
5.3
4.7
4.1
3.4
2.9
2.4
1.6
8.5
7.7
7.2
6.8
6.0
5.4
4.9
4.3
3.7
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.2
719

DOI:10.3233/NRE-151287
IOS Press
Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM):

D. Riveraa , P.B. Perrinb , G. Weilerc , N. Ocampo-Barbad , A. Aliagae , W. Rodrguezf , Y. RodrguezAgudelog , A. Aguayoh , M. Longonii , S. Trappb , L. Esenarroj and J.C. Arango-Lasprillak,a,
a Faculty

c Instituto de Prevenci
d Fundaci
e Servicio M
i Clnica de rehabilitaci
j Instituto de Neuropsicologa y Demencias, Lima, Peru
k IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain
b Department
Abstract.
Background: The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) is an instrument used to assess purposeful embellishment or fabrication
of memory difficulties for personal gain. Although the TOMM can be use in non-English speaking cultures, it has not been
validated in Spanish-speaking Central and South American contexts.
Objective: To generate normative data on TOMM across 7 countries in Latin America, with country-specific adjustments for
gender, age, and education, where appropriate.
Method: The sample consisted of 2,266 healthy adults who were recruited from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay,
Peru, and Puerto Rico. Each subject was administered the TOMM as part of a larger neuropsychological battery. A standardized
five-step statistical procedure was used to generate the norms.
Results: t-tests did not show significant differences in TOMM performance between men and women in any countries of the
TOMM Trial 1 or 2. As a result, gender-adjusted norms were not generated.
Conclusions: The results from this study will have a large impact on the practice of neuropsychology in Latin America, as this
is the first normative multicenter study to create norms for the TOMM in this global region.
Keywords: Normative data, Memory Malingering, Latin America, Memory
Address


jcarango@deusto.es.
E-mail:
720
D. Rivera et al. / Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM): Normative data
1. Introduction
Purposeful underperformance and exaggeration of
symptoms are concerns when administering neuropsychological testing (Heilbronner, Sweet, Morgan,
Larrabee, Millis, & Conference Participants, 2009;
Iverson, 2006). In order to identify patterns in performance that indicate malingering, a number of
instruments and testing procedures have been constructed. The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM;
Tombaugh & Tombaugh, 1996) is a symptom validity instrument used to assess purposeful embellishment
or fabrication of memory difficulties for personal gain
(Tombaugh & Tombaugh, 1996). The TOMM uses a
forced choice recognition method originally developed
for sensory impairment (Brady & Lind, 1961; Grosz &
Zimmerman, 1965), but later was adapted to assess for
malingering (Pankratz, 1983). This test is considered
the most widely used and researched test of malingering
(Jelicic, Ceunen, Peters, & Merckelbach, 2011).
Tests of effort and malingering often use memory
tasks and include a number of approaches to present
the stimuli. Verbal tests can be administered, such as
the Word Memory Test (Green, 2003), in which recall
and recognition trials are administered based on oral
stimuli. Numerical tests, such as the Victoria Revision (Slick, Hopp, Strauss, Hunter, & Pinch, 1994) of
the Hiscock Digit-Memory Test (Hiscock & Hiscock,
1989), examine an individuals effort on recalling numbers. Visual tests, such as the TOMM (Tombaugh &
Tombaugh, 1996), administer visual stimuli for later
recognition. Other commonly used tests of malingering and effort include the Recognition Memory Test
(Warrington, 1984), the 48-Picture Test (Chouinard &
Rouleau, 1997), and the Rey (15-item) Memory Test
(Rey, 1958). However, the TOMM is used widely for
its efficient clinical utility and strong evidence base
(Lezak, 2004; OBryant, Engel, Kleiner, Vasterling, &
Black, 2007).
The TOMM requires the test taker to recognize visual
stimuli, a testing modality that has been demonstrated to
be efficacious with cognitively intact individuals, cognitively impaired individuals, and ages ranging from
pediatric samples to older adults; however it is not
appropriate for individuals with moderate to severe
dementia (Donders, 2005; Koutstaal & Schacter, 1997;
Light, 1991; Teichner & Wagner, 2004). The TOMM
(Tombaugh & Tombaugh, 1996) is comprised of two
learning and recognition trials and an optional retention
trial that takes approximately 15 minutes to complete.
Each of the learning and recognition trials includes the
same 50 visual items in variant orders. The visual stimuli are displayed to the test taker for three seconds in
one-second intervals. After displaying the visual stimuli, the test taker is provided a forced choice recognition
task in which the test taker must choose the correct
visual stimuli from two options. Although the retention
trial, a delayed, non-forced choice memory task, has
been reported to be optional (Tombaugh & Tombaugh,
1996), research has indicated that, unless a comparable
symptom validity test is also administered in the battery, the retention trial must be administered for greater
accuracy (Greve & Bianchini, 2006). Examination of
the instrument has demonstrated that a criterion cutoff score of 45 on Trial 2 provided 95% accuracy of
identifying non-malingering patients without dementia, and specificity of 91% with all patients (Rees,
Tombaugh, Gansler, & Moczynski, 1998; Tombaugh,
1997; Tombaugh & Tombaugh, 1996).
The TOMM is a symptom validity test used to assess
for possible malingering in neuropsychological testing
(Tombaugh & Tombaugh, 1996). This test is widely
used in neuropsychological evaluations in which the
veracity of the test takers performance may be in question. The TOMM is also often administered in forensic
testing (Gierok, Dickson, & Cole, 2005; Tombaugh,
2003; Weinborn, Orr, Woods, Conover, & Feix, 2003).
The instrument is not only well regarded in clinical domains, but is also considered to have sufficient
specificity and positive predictive value to be used as
scientific evidence in United States court cases (Vallabhajosula & Van Gorp, 2001).
Although the TOMM has demonstrated notable utility in neuropsychological and forensic testing, the test
also has a number of disadvantages. Literature indicates
that test takers might malinger on tests they believe
to be relevant to their perceived neurological condition, thus making the TOMM susceptible to test taker
error (Arnold & Boone, 2007; Greiffenstein, 2007). In
addition, the nature of the nonverbal administration of
the TOMM reduces its utility with individuals that suffer from perceptual difficulties (Hegedish, & Hoofien,
2015). In this instance, a verbally administered test is
of greater value.
A variety of symptom validity tests have been
related to scores on the TOMM. For example, the
Forced Choice trial in the California Verbal Learning Test II (CVLT-II; Delis & Kramer, 2000) and
the Rey-15 (Rey, 1964) have been found to have similar precision and strong agreement with the TOMM
(McCaffrey, OBryant, Ashendorf, & Fisher, 2003;
Moore & Donders, 2004). In a study examining the
relationships between malingering tests on the TOMM,

the Rey-15, and the validity tests on the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory Second Edition
(MMPI-2; Hathaway & McKinley, 1989) it was found
that the TOMM and the Rey-15 held a positive significant relationship, while the validity tests on the MMPI-2
did not positively correlate with the TOMM or Rey-15,
indicating that the MMPI may be measuring a different
construct (McCaffrey et al., 2003).
Research examining the psychometric properties
of the TOMM in relation to cognitively intact and
cognitively impaired individuals has demonstrated no
differences, while both groups were differentiated from
individuals with dementia (Teichner & Wagner, 2004).
Further, group differences for FSIQ, PIQ, and mental
status were demonstrated in which the cognitively intact
individuals performed better than cognitively impaired
individuals, and the cognitively impaired individuals performed better that individuals with dementia.
Performance on the instrument is considered not to
be impeded by age, gender, education level, depression, anxiety, and pain (Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen,
2006). However, clinicians are cautioned when administering the TOMM to individuals with premorbid
psychiatric history, moderate to severe dementia, and
financial incentives to malinger (Moore & Donders,
2004). In regard to elderly samples (e.g., cognitively
intact, cognitive impairment without dementia, and
with dementia), the TOMM has been found to be successful in identifying malingering when dementia has
been ruled out (Teichner & Wagner, 2004). Further,
performance in pediatric samples did not vary due to
gender, ethnicity, parental occupation, and memory test
scores (Donders, 2005).
The original standardization norms were conducted
on three samples of individuals: 475 community participants, 70 community participants, and 135 inpatient
and outpatients referred for neuropsychological evaluation (Tombaugh, 1997). The first two samples were
drawn from Ottawa, and the third sample was comprised
of individuals from Ottawa and Boston. No normative data examining race/ethnicity were reported in the
standardization sample. Across the three samples, ages
ranged from 1690 years (Tombaugh, 1997) and in a
separate standardization study ages ranging from 512
years were deemed appropriate for use of the TOMM
(Constantinou & McCaffrey, 2003).
Evidence for the validity of the TOMM has been
shown in a number of clinical samples featuring neurological conditions or psychiatric conditions. In general,
the neurocognitive literature explains that the features
721
of the TOMM are insensitive to the effects of neurocognitive impairment (Tombaugh, 1997). There is
also evidence for the specificity of the TOMM for individuals who have sustained traumatic brain injuries, in
which the effects of the injury did not increase false positive results (Rees et al., 1998). Despite the TOMMs
insensitivity to the effects of neurocognitive impairment, there is evidence to caution clinicians to rule out
dementia diagnoses in order to prevent misclassification
of malingering (Teichner & Wagner, 2004).
In addition to identifying malingering in cases examining neurocognitive changes, the TOMM has also been
found to have utility when testing memory impairment
in individuals with psychiatric conditions. There is evidence of the TOMM being insensitive to the effects of
anxiety, depression, and active psychosis (Ashendorf,
Constantinou, & McCaffrey, 2004; Duncan, 2005; Rees,
Tombaugh, & Boulay, 2001; Weinborn et al., 2003).
Together the literature indicates the appropriateness of
the TOMM for testing malingering of memory impairment in a range of mental health conditions.
Although much of the evidence for validity is based
on English-speaking samples, a limited base of literature on Spanish speakers has begun to develop.
These studies primarily examine the TOMM with TBI
samples from Spain and the United States (Ramrez,
Chirivella-Garrido, Caballero, Ferri-Campos, & NoeSebastian, 2004; Strutt, Scott, Lozano, Tieu, & Peery,
2012; Vilar-Lopez, Gomez-Rio, Caracuel-Romero,
Llamas-Elvira, & Perez-Garcia, 2008; Vilar-Lopez
et al., 2008). These studies provided preliminary evidence indicating the appropriateness for use of the
TOMM with Spanish speakers, but each reported some
level of caution. Specifically, each study was hampered by small samples and urged for larger studies
with more advanced designs to be conducted. Further
demographic characteristics, such as education level
and location of the Spanish speakers were noted as contextual elements that may impact the results of the test.
Due to its value of identifying malingering in neuropsychological testing, further work validating the TOMM
in Spanish-speaking cultures was recommended.
The TOMM is the most widely used and researched
tests of malingering (Jelicic, Ceunen, Peters, & Merckelbach, 2011). This instrument is considered a valuable
tool in neuropsychological and forensic testing scenarios (Gierok, Dickson, & Cole, 2005; Tombaugh &
Tombaugh, 1996; Tombaugh, 2003; Weinborn, Orr,
Woods, Conover, & Feix, 2003). The TOMM has
been reported to be a valuable test for individuals in
English-speaking and many from non-English speaking
722
cultures (Strauss et al., 2006). However, it is to the

authors knowledge that it has only been validated for
use with Spanish speakers in Spain (Ramrez et al.,
2004; Vilar-Lopez et al., 2008), and not validated in
Spanish-speaking Central and South American contexts. Bush and colleagues (2005) have recommended
greater examination of symptom validity tests, such as
the TOMM, and suggest careful utilization of these
instruments when applying them in diverse cultural
contexts. The availability of the TOMM for testing in
Central and South America will offer greater quality
neuropsychological testing for underserved groups that
will benefit from its use. Evidence for purposeful underperformance and exaggeration of symptoms is valuable
for better patient care, such as generating accurate diagnoses and offering the most appropriate treatment. The
aims of the present study are to adapt and validate the
TOMM for use in a variety of Central and South American locations. It is to the authors knowledge that this is
the first effort of this magnitude to validate this measure
within these cultures.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Puerto Rico. The participants were selected according to the following
criteria: a) were between 18 to 95 years of age,
b) were born and currently lived in the country
where the protocol was conducted, c) spoke Spanish
as their native language, d) had completed at least
one year of formal education, e) were able to read
and write at the time of evaluation, f) scored23
on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE, Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975; Ostrosky-Sols,
Lopez-Arango, & Ardila, 2000; Villasenor-Cabrera,
Guàrdia-Olmos, Jimenez-Maldonado, Rizo-Curiel, &

Pero-Cebollero, 2010), g) scored4 on the Patient
Williams, 2001), and h) scored90 on the Barthel Index
(Mahoney & Barthel, 1965).
Participants with self-reported neurologic or psychiatric disorders were excluded due to a potential effect
on cognitive performance. Participants were volunteers
from the community and signed an informed consent.
Table 1 presents socio-demographic and participant
characteristics for each country. The multi-center study
was approved by the Ethics Committee of the coordinating site, the University of Deusto, Spain.
The TOMM begins with the presentation of stimuli
notebook 1 (learning test), which contains 50 drawings.
Following presentation of the stimuli, the participant is
shown 50 pairs of pictures where one of the drawings
appears for each panel previously presented and a new
drawing. The task is to indicate what the picture was
presented in the learning phase. Then, the participant
is presented with notebook stimulus 2 (learning test 2),
which also contains 50 drawings. The task and the process for learning in this second test is the same as in the
previous (Tombaugh, Vilar-Lopez, Garca, & Puente,
2011).
The detailed statistical analyses used to generate the normative data for this test are described in
Guàrdia-Olmos, et al., (2015). In summary, the data
involved five steps: a) t tests for independent samples
and effect sizes (r) were conducted to determine gender
effects. If the effect size was larger than 0.3, gender was
included in the model with gender dummy coded and
Table 1
Sample distribution by age, education and gender
n Total
Age
Mean (SD)
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
320
274
320
555
263
244
290
45.7 (19.5)
55.8 (22.0)
55.1 (19.6)
56.3 (19.2)
53.0 (14.8)
43.5 (20.6)
50.8 (18.5)
Education
Gender
1 to 12
>12
Male
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
Female
n (%)
148 (46.3%)
226 (82.5%)
241 (75.3%)
456 (82.2%)
216 (82.1%)
87 (35.7%)
158 (54.5%)
172 (53.8%)
48 (17.5%)
79 (24.7%)
99 (17.8%)
47 (17.9%)
157 (64.3%)
132 (45.5%)
96 (30.0%)
99 (36.1%)
134 (41.9%)
173 (31.2%)
101 (38.4%)
87 (35.7%)
123 (42.4%)
224 (70.0%)
175 (63.9%)
186 (58.1%)
382 (68.8%)
162 (61.6%)
157 (64.3%)
167 (57.6%)
723
female as the reference group (male = 1 and female = 0).

b) A multivariate regression model was used to specify
the predictive model including gender (if effect size was
larger than 0.3), age as a continuous variable, and education as a dummy coded variable with 1 if the participant
had >12 years of education and 0 if the participant had
112 years of education. If gender, age and/or education was not statistically significant in this multivariate
model with an alpha of 0.05, the non-significant variables were removed, and the model was re-run. Then a
final regression model was conducted that included age
(if statistically significant in the multivariate model),
dichotomized education (if statistically significant in
the multivariate model), and/or gender (if effect size
was greater than 0.3) [yi = 0 + (Age Agei ) +
(Educ Educi ) + (Gender Genderi )]; c) residual
scores were calculated based on this final model (ei =
yi y i ); d) using the SD (residual) value provided by
the regression model, residuals were standardized: z =
ei /SDe , with SDe (residual) = the standard deviation
of the residuals in the normative sample; and e) standardized residuals were converted to percentile values
(Strauss et al., 2006). Using each countrys dataset,
these steps were applied to TOMM Trial 1 scores and
TOMM Trial 2 scores. In certain countries, there was no
effect of gender, nor age, nor education on the scores. In
these cases, the normative data were generated directly
using the raw scores.
the results of the gender analyses by country on TOMM

Trial 1 scores. As shown in Table 2, the effect sizes for
was not taken into account to generate TOMM Trial
The final seven TOMM Trial 1 multivariate linear regression models for each country are shown in
Table 3. In all countries except Bolivia and Chile, the
TOMM Trial 1 score increased for those with more than
12 years of education (see Table 3) and, in all countries
except Puerto Rico, TOMM Trial 1 scores decreased
in a linear fashion as a function of age. The amount
of variance explained in TOMM Trial 1 scores ranged
from 4% (in Argentina) to 29% (in Paraguay).
3.2. TOMM Trial 2

Regarding the effect of gender on TOMM Trial 2
scores, the t-tests did not show significant differences
between men and women in all countries. Table 4 shows
the results of the gender analyses by country on TOMM
Trial 2 scores. As shown in Table 4, the effect sizes for
was not taken into account to generate TOMM Trial
The final seven TOMM Trial 2 multivariate linear regression models for each country are shown in
Table 5. In all countries except Bolivia, Chile, and Mexico the TOMM Trial 2 score increased for those with
more than 12 years of education (see Table 5) and, in
all countries except Puerto Rico, TOMM Trial 2 scores
amount of variance explained in TOMM Trial 2 scores
ranged from 2% (in Mexico) to 33% (in Paraguay).
3. Results
3.1. TOMM Trial 1
Regarding the effect of gender on TOMM Trial 1
scores, the t-tests did not show significant differences
between men and women in all countries. Table 2 shows
Table 2
Effect of gender in the TOMM learning trial 1
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentina
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
47.9 (2.4)
47.8 (2.6)
45.2 (5.9)
45.7 (4.5)
46.7 (3.6)
46.5 (3.7)
47.1 (3.3)
46.8 (4.8)
45.3 (3.6)
44.9 (2.9)
47.6 (2.4)
47.2 (3.3)
47.0 (3.9)
47.6 (3.1)
0.48
318
0.632
0.027
0.73
162.6
0.468
0.057
0.45
318
0.651
0.025
0.87
465.9
0.385
0.040
0.86
261
0.391
0.053
1.00
223.29
0.321
0.066
1.57
288
0.118
0.092
Boliviaa
Chile
Mexicoa
Paraguay
Perua
Puerto Rico
a Value
724

Table 3
Final multiple linear regression models for TOMM learning trial 1
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
48.164
0.016
0.763
48.947
0.061
50.350
0.069
48.214
0.069
2.694
48.099
0.041
1.574
46.620
1.630
0.401
0.007
0.279
0.808
0.013
0.572
0.010
0.703
0.012
0.470
0.524
0.009
0.379
0.268
0.397
120.009
2.269
2.733
60.584
4.556
88.086
7.061
68.551
5.624
5.729
91.864
4.617
4.148
173.858
4.100
<0.001
0.024
0.007
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.044
2.461
0.071
4.890
0.136
3.418
0.293
2.665
0.164
2.778
0.055
3.364
Table 4
Effect of gender in the TOMM learning trial 2
Country
Gender
Mean (SD)
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Argentina
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
49.8 (0.8)
49.8 (0.6)
47.6 (4.7)
48.5 (2.7)
48.9 (2.1)
48.7 (2.1)
48.9 (2.8)
49.0 (3.2)
46.5 (3.3)
45.9 (3.1)
49.4 (1.4)
49.1 (1.9)
49.5 (1.6)
49.5 (1.3)
0.24
318
0.808
0.014
1.82
136.1
0.071
0.154
0.89
318
0.374
0.050
0.24
553
0.809
0.010
1.55
261
0.121
0.096
1.33
222.4
0.184
0.089
0.39
288
0.693
0.023
Boliviaa
Chile
Mexico
Paraguay
Perua
Puerto Rico
a Value
Table 5
Final multiple linear regression models for TOMM learning trial 2
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Age
Education
(Constant)
Education
Std. Error
Sig.
R2
SDe (residual)
50.088
0.008
0.174
51.003
0.051
51,293
0.045
50.275
0.024
49.737
0.078
2.663
49.483
0.023
1.166
49.304
0.454
0.111
0.002
0.077
0.558
0.009
0,321
0,005
0.403
0.007
0.682
0.012
0.456
0.285
0.005
0.206
0.113
0.167
452.119
3.815
2.251
91.477
5.500
159,649
8,254
124.811
3.523
72.936
6.567
5.841
173.807
4.724
5.655
436.836
2.712
<0.001
<0.001
0.025
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.007
0.066
0.679
0.100
3.374
0.176
1.921
0.022
3.052
0.331
2.584
0.216
1.510
0.025
1.416

Norms (e.g., a percentile score) for the TOMM
Trial 1 and Trial 2 scores were established using the
given. Suppose you need to find the percentile score
for an Argentine man, who is 50 years old and has 13
years of education. He has a score of 47 on the TOMM
Trial 1. The steps to obtain the percentile for this score
are: a) Check Table 2 to determine if the effect size of
gender in the country of interest (Argentina) on this test
and task (TOMM Trial 1) is greater than 0.3 by country.
The column labelled r in Table 2 indicates the effect
size. In this example, the effect size is 0.027, which is
not greater than 0.3. For Argentines on this test, gender
does not influence scores to a sufficient degree to take
it into account gender when determining the percentile.
b) Find Argentina in Table 3, which provides the final
regression models by country for TOMM Trial 1. Use
the B weights to create an equation that will allow
you to obtain the predicted TOMM Trial 1 score. The
case, the predicted TOMM Trial 1 score would be calculated using the equation [yi = 48.164 + (0.016
Agei ) + (0.763 Dichotomized Educational Level i )]
(the values have been rounded for presentation in
the formula). The subscript notation i indicates the
person of interest. The persons age is 50, but the
education variable is not continuous in the model.
Years of education is split into either 1 to 12 years
(and assigned a 0) or more than 12 years (and
assigned a 1) in the model. Since our hypothetical
person in the example has 13 years of education, his
educational level value is 1. Thus the predicted value
is y i = 48.164 + (0.016 50) + (0.763 1) =
48.164 0.810 + 0.763 = 48.117. c) In order to
predicted value we just calculated (ei = yi y ). In
this case, it would be ei = 47 48.117 = 1.117.
d) Next, consult the SDe column in Table 3 to
obtain the country-specific SDe (residual) value.
For Argentina, it is 2.461. Using this value, we can
transform the residual value to a standardized z score
using the equation (ei /SDe . In this case, we have
(1.117) /2.461 = 0.454. This is the standardized
z score for an Argentine man aged 50 with 13 years
725
of education and a score of 47 on the TOMM Trial

1. e) The last step is to look up the tables in the
(Trial 1vs. Trial 2) when performing these calculations.
If the percentile for the TOMM Trial 2 score is desired,
Tables 4 and 5 must be used.
Guàrdia-Olmos, et al., 2015) and created tables that
(TOMM Trial 1vs. TOMM Trial 2) in the Appendix. In
order to obtain an approximate percentile for the above
example (converting a raw score of 47 for an Argentine
man who is 50 years old and has 13 years of education)
using the simplified normative tables provided, the
following steps are recommended. (1) First, identify
the appropriate table ensuring the specific country and
test. In this case, the table for TOMM Trial 1 scores for
Argentina can be found in Table A1. (2) Note if the title
of the table indicates that it is only to be used for one
specific gender. In this case, gender is not specified.
man has 13 years of education, he falls into the >12
the raw score the person obtained on the test. Reading
down the 4852 column, the score of 47 obtained by
this Argentine man corresponds to an approximate
percentile of 30.
726

4. Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to generate normative data on the TOMM across seven countries in
Latin America, with country-specific adjustments for
gender, age, and education, where appropriate. The final
429% of the variance in TOMM Trial 1 scores and
233% of the variance in TOMM Trial 2 scores. On
both TOMM trials, no gender differences emerged
in any country. This finding supports previous work
suggesting that TOMM performance is not affected
by gender (Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006). As a
result, gender-adjusted norms were not generated for
the TOMM, and neuropsychologists administering the
TOMM in Latin America should not make genderadjustments in calculating percentiles.
TOMM Trial 1 and 2 scores decreased linearly as a
function of education in almost all countries, except
neither score set was associated with education in
Chile, Bolivia, or Mexico. To the authors knowledge,
these general effects of education have not previously
emerged in the literature, and as a result, this may
be a unique contribution of the current study. Therefore, neuropsychologists in Latin America should use
the education-adjusted norms generated in this study
for each country on the TOMM, except in Chile,
Bolivia, and Mexico. This differential pattern of effects
across various countries in Latin America may have
to do with the likely substantial differences in the
quality of education across different countries in the
region.
TOMM scores increased with advancing age in most
countries in this study, except Puerto Rico and Mexico
on Trial 1 and Puerto Rico on Trial 2. Again, to the
authors knowledge, these effects of age have not previously been reported and may be unique to this study.
As a result, the current findings suggest that TOMM
corrections for age should be made in most countries
tested in this study, but not Puerto Rico and Mexico for
Trial 1 or Puerto Rico for Trial 2.

The current study has several limitations and directions for future research. First, the TOMM is a fairly
common measure of memory malingering in Latin
America, but several other common measures should
be normed using the same procedures to improve their
accuracy in Latin America. Also, future studies should
examine the ecological validity and psychometric properties of the TOMM and other malingering instruments
in Latin America. Researchers need to create malingering instruments within Latin American cultures with
high ecological validity, as the TOMM was developed
and validated initially in a Western culture which may
differ in important ways from those cultures in Latin
America. Developing malingering assessments in the
context of local cultures, instead of simply translating and norming them from other cultures and global
regions, would be an important advance in the assessment of malingering throughout the region.
Second, neuropsychologists need to exercise caution when using the TOMM norms from the current
study in assessing malingering with the TOMM in
countries other than those in this study. Future studies should develop TOMM norms in Latin American
countries not included in this study, such as Ecuador,
Uruguay, Venezuela, and Panama. Despite this, the
TOMM norms from the current study may represent a
more accurate assessment of malingering in other Latin
American countries than some of the norms currently
in use, but this generalizability is a key area for future
research.
Third, participants in this study spoke Spanish as
their primary language, but they may have spoken
secondary languages also. TOMM scores may differ
according to bilingualism, which was not assessed in
the current study. Future research in Latin America
should include this as a potential research question.
Participants were recruited from specific regions and
cities in each country, not nationally within the countries. Although the current study was the largest TOMM
normative project yet conducted in Latin America, or
in any global region, it should be seen as a first step
toward larger, nationally representative studies. The
current sample was also limited in that although many
participants had fewer than 12 years of education, participants who were illiterate were excluded. Therefore,
the current TOMM norms may not apply well to adults
unable to read, so future studies should collect data on
illiterate individuals, as well as those with neurological
conditions and among children.
Despite these limitations, only small-scale and limited studies have produced TOMM norms in Spanishspeaking populations such as Spanish-speakers from
Spain or the U.S. (Ramrez et al., 2004; Strutt et al.,
2012; Vilar-Lopez et al., 2008). Therefore, the current
study was the first systematic and large-scale study to
create TOMM norms across seven countries in Latin
America, with over 2,000 participants. It was one of
the most comprehensive TOMM normative studies to
date in any global region, and its norms have the potential to improve the assessment of malingering with the
TOMM in Latin America unlike any study before it.
References
Ashendorf, L., Constantinou, M., & McCaffrey, R. J. (2004). The
effect of depression and anxiety on the TOMM in communitydwelling older adults. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
19(1), 125-130.
Brady, J. P., & Lind, D. L. (1961). Experimental analysis of hysterical
blindness: Operant conditioning techniques. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 4(4), 331.
Bush, S. S., Ruff, R. M., Trster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S.
P., Pliskin, N. H.,... Silver, C. H. (2005). Symptom validity
assessment: Practice issues and medical necessity: NAN Policy
& Planning Committee. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
20(4), 419-426.
Chouinard, M.-J., & Rouleau, I. (1997). The 48-Pictures Test: A
two-alternative forced-choice recognition test for the detection
of malingering. Journal of the International Neuropsychological
Society, 3(06), 545-552.
Constantinou, M., & McCaffrey, R. J. (2003). Using the TOMM for
evaluating childrens effort to perform optimally on neuropsychological measures. Child Neuropsychology, 9(2), 81-90.
Delis, D. C., & Kramer, J. H. (2000). California Verbal Learning
Test: CvLT-II; Adult Version; Manual.
Donders, J. (2005). Performance on the Test of Memory Malingering
in a mixed pediatric sample. Child Neuropsychology, 11(2), 221227.
Duncan, A. (2005). The impact of cognitive and psychiatric impairment of psychotic disorders on the Test of Memory Malingering
(TOMM). Assessment, 12(2), 123-129.
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Minimental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state
of patients for the clinician. Journal of psychiatric research, 12(3),
189-198.
Gierok, S. D., Dickson, A. L., & Cole, J. A. (2005). Performance of
forensic and non-forensic adult psychiatric inpatients on the Test
of Memory Malingering. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
20(6), 755-760.
Green, P. (2003). Greens word memory test: Greens Pub.
Greve, K. W., & Bianchini, K. J. (2006). Should the Retention trial of
the Test of Memory Malingering be optional? Archives of Clinical
Grosz, H. J., & Zimmerman, J. (1965). Experimental analysis of hysterical blindness: A follow-up report and new experimental data.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 13(3), 255.
727
493-499.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1989). MMPI-2: Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration
and scoring: University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis, MN.
Hiscock, M., & Hiscock, C. K. (1989). Refining the forced-choice
method for the detection of malingering. Journal of Clinical and
Koutstaal, W., & Schacter, D. L. (1997). Gist-based false recognition
of pictures in older and younger adults. Journal of Memory and
Language, 37(4), 555-583.
Lezak, M. D. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment: Oxford university press.
Light, L. L. (1991). Memory and aging: Four hypotheses in search of
data. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 333-376.
Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal, 14. 56-61.
McCaffrey, R. J., OBryant, S. E., Ashendorf, L., & Fisher, J. M.
(2003). Correlations among the TOMM, Rey-15, and MMPI-2
validity scales in a sample of TBI litigants. Journal of Forensic
Moore, B. A., & Donders, J. (2004). Predictors of invalid neuropsychological test performance after traumatic brain injury. Brain
Injury, 18(10), 975-984.
OBryant, S. E., Engel, L. R., Kleiner, J. S., Vasterling, J. J., & Black,
F. W. (2007). Test of memory malingering (TOMM) trial 1 as a
screening measure for insufficient effort. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21(3), 511-521.
Ostrosky-Sols, F., Lopez-Arango, G., & Ardila, A. (2000). Sensitivity and specificity of the Mini-Mental State Examination in
a Spanish-speaking population. Applied Neuropsychology, 7(1),
25-31.
Pankratz, L. (1983). A new technique for the assessment and modification of feigned memory deficit. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
57(2), 367-372.
Ramrez, R., Chirivella-Garrido, J., Caballero, M., Ferri-Campos,
J., & Noe-Sebastian, E. (2004). Inteligencia, memoria y simulacion: Correlaciones entre instrumentos de medida. Revista de
neurologa, 38(1), 28-33.
Rees, L. M., Tombaugh, T. N., & Boulay, L. (2001). Depression and
the test of memory malingering. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 16(5), 501-506.
Rees, L. M., Tombaugh, T. N., Gansler, D. A., & Moczynski, N.
P. (1998). Five validation experiments of the Test of Memory
Malingering (TOMM). Psychological assessment, 10(1), 10.
Rey, A. (1958). Lexamen clinique en psychologie. Oxford, England:
Presses Universitaries De France.
Rey, A. (1964). Lexamen clinique en psychologie [The clinical psychological examination]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Slick, D., Hopp, G., Strauss, E., Hunter, M., & Pinch, D. (1994).
Detecting dissimulation: Profiles of simulated malingerers, traumatic brain-injury patients, and normal controls on a revised
version of Hiscock and Hiscocks forced-choice memory test.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 16(3),
472-481.
728

neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary: Oxford University Press.
Strutt, A. M., Scott, B. M., Lozano, V. J., Tieu, P. G., & Peery,
S. (2012). Assessing sub-optimal performance with the Test of
Memory Malingering in Spanish speaking patients with TBI.
Brain Injury, 26(6), 853-863.
Teichner, G., & Wagner, M. T. (2004). The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM): Normative data from cognitively intact, cognitively
impaired, and elderly patients with dementia. Archives of Clinical
Tombaugh, T. N. (1997). The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM):
Normative data from cognitively intact and cognitively impaired
individuals. Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 260.
Tombaugh, T. N. (2003). The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM)
in forensic psychology. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology,
2(3-4), 69-96.
Tombaugh, T. N., & Tombaugh, P. W. (1996). Test of memory malingering: TOMM: Multi-Health Systems North Tonawanda, NY.
Tombaugh, T. N., Vilar-Lopez, R., Garca, M. P., & Puente, A. E.
(2011). Tomm: Test de simulacion de problemas de memoria. Tea.
Vallabhajosula, B., & Van Gorp, W. (2001). Post-Daubert admissibility of scientific evidence on malingering of cognitive deficits.
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Online, 29(2), 207-215.
Vilar-Lopez, R., Gomez-Rio, M., Caracuel-Romero, A., LlamasElvira, J., & Perez-Garcia, M. (2008). Use of specific malingering
measures in a Spanish sample. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 30(6), 710-722.
Vilar-Lopez, R., Gomez-Ro, M., Santiago-Ramajo, S., RodrguezFernandez, A., Puente, A. E., & Perez-Garca, M. (2008).
Malingering detection in a Spanish population with a knowngroups design. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23(4),
365-377.
Villasenor-Cabrera, T., Guàrdia-Olmos, J., Jimenez-Maldonado, M.,
Rizo-Curiel, G., & Pero-Cebollero, M. (2010). Sensitivity and
specificity of the Mini-Mental State Examination in the Mexican
population. Quality & Quantity, 44(6), 1105-1112.
Warrington, E. K. (1984). Recognition Memory Test: Rmt. (Words):
NFER-Nelson Publishing Company.
Weinborn, M., Orr, T., Woods, S. P., Conover, E., & Feix, J. (2003).
A validation of the Test of Memory Malingering in a forensic
psychiatric setting. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25(7), 979-990.
729
Appendix
Table A1
Normative data for the TOMM trial 1 stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
>12 years education
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
50.0
49.9
49.2
48.6
48.0
47.3
46.5
46.0
45.5
44.6
50.0
49.8
49.1
48.5
47.9
47.2
46.5
46.0
45.4
44.5
50.0
49.7
49.1
48.4
47.8
47.2
46.4
45.9
45.3
44.4
50.0
49.6
49.0
48.4
47.7
47.1
46.3
45.8
45.2
44.3
50.0
49.6
48.9
48.3
47.7
47.0
46.2
45.7
45.1
44.2
50.0
49.5
48.8
48.2
47.6
46.9
46.1
45.6
45.0
44.2
50.0
49.4
48.7
48.1
47.5
46.8
46.0
45.6
45.0
44.1
50.0
49.3
48.7
48.0
47.4
46.8
46.0
45.5
44.9
44.0
50.0
49.2
48.6
48.0
47.3
46.7
45.9
45.4
44.8
43.9
50.0
49.9
49.2
48.5
47.9
47.3
46.6
45.8
45.3
44.7
43.8
50.0
49.9
49.1
48.4
47.8
47.2
46.5
45.7
45.2
44.6
43.8
50.0
49.8
49.0
48.3
47.7
47.1
46.4
45.6
45.2
44.6
43.7
50.0
49.7
48.9
48.2
47.6
47.0
46.4
45.6
45.1
44.5
43.6
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
50.0
49.9
49.1
48.5
47.8
47.2
46.6
45.8
45.3
44.7
43.8
50.0
49.8
49.0
48.4
47.8
47.1
46.5
45.7
45.2
44.6
43.7
50.0
49.7
49.0
48.3
47.7
47.1
46.4
45.6
45.1
44.5
43.6
50.0
49.7
48.9
48.2
47.6
47.0
46.3
45.5
45.0
44.4
43.6
50.0
49.6
48.8
48.1
47.5
46.9
46.2
45.4
45.0
44.4
43.5
50.0
49.5
48.7
48.0
47.4
46.8
46.2
45.4
44.9
44.3
43.4
50.0
49.9
49.4
48.6
48.0
47.4
46.7
46.1
45.3
44.8
44.2
43.3
50.0
49.8
49.3
48.6
47.9
47.3
46.7
46.0
45.2
44.7
44.1
43.2
50.0
49.8
49.3
48.5
47.8
47.2
46.6
45.9
45.1
44.6
44.0
43.2
50.0
49.7
49.2
48.4
47.7
47.1
46.5
45.8
45.0
44.6
44.0
43.1
50.0
49.6
49.1
48.3
47.6
47.0
46.4
45.7
45.0
44.5
43.9
43.0
50.0
49.5
49.0
48.2
47.6
46.9
46.3
45.7
44.9
44.4
43.8
42.9
50.0
49.4
48.9
48.1
47.5
46.9
46.3
45.6
44.8
44.3
43.7
42.8
Table A2
Normative data for the TOMM trial 1 stratified by age for BOLIVIA
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
50.0
48.9
47.7
46.5
45.2
43.6
42.6
41.5
39.7
50.0
48.6
47.4
46.2
44.9
43.3
42.3
41.2
39.4
50.0
49.6
48.3
47.1
45.9
44.6
43.0
42.0
40.8
39.1
50.0
49.3
48.0
46.8
45.6
44.3
42.7
41.7
40.5
38.8
50.0
49.0
47.7
46.5
45.3
43.9
42.4
41.4
40.2
38.5
50.0
48.7
47.4
46.2
45.0
43.6
42.1
41.1
39.9
38.2
50.0
48.4
47.1
45.9
44.7
43.3
41.8
40.8
39.6
37.9
50.0
49.7
48.1
46.8
45.6
44.3
43.0
41.5
40.5
39.3
37.6
50.0
49.4
47.8
46.5
45.3
44.0
42.7
41.2
40.2
39.0
37.2
50.0
49.1
47.5
46.2
45.0
43.7
42.4
40.8
39.9
38.7
36.9
50.0
49.7
48.8
47.2
45.9
44.6
43.4
42.1
40.5
39.6
38.4
36.6
50.0
49.4
48.5
46.9
45.6
44.3
43.1
41.8
40.2
39.3
38.1
36.3
50.0
49.1
48.1
46.6
45.3
44.0
42.8
41.5
39.9
39.0
37.8
36.0
730
Table A3
Normative data for the TOMM trial 1 stratified by age for CHILE
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
50.0
49.8
49.0
48.1
47.2
46.1
45.4
44.6
43.4
50.0
49.5
48.6
47.8
46.8
45.8
45.1
44.2
43.0
50.0
49.1
48.3
47.4
46.5
45.4
44.7
43.9
42.7
50.0
49.7
48.8
47.9
47.1
46.2
45.1
44.4
43.6
42.3
50.0
49.4
48.4
47.6
46.7
45.8
44.7
44.0
43.2
42.0
50.0
49.0
48.1
47.2
46.4
45.5
44.4
43.7
42.9
41.6
50.0
49.8
48.7
47.8
46.9
46.0
45.1
44.0
43.3
42.5
41.3
50.0
49.4
48.3
47.4
46.6
45.7
44.8
43.7
43.0
42.2
40.9
50.0
49.8
49.1
48.0
47.1
46.2
45.4
44.4
43.3
42.7
41.8
40.6
50.0
49.4
48.7
47.6
46.7
45.9
45.0
44.1
43.0
42.3
41.5
40.3
50.0
49.9
49.1
48.4
47.3
46.4
45.5
44.7
43.7
42.6
42.0
41.1
39.9
50.0
49.6
48.7
48.0
47.0
46.0
45.2
44.3
43.4
42.3
41.6
40.8
39.6
50.0
49.2
48.4
47.7
46.6
45.7
44.8
44.0
43.1
42.0
41.3
40.5
39.2
Table A4
Normative data for the TOMM trial 1 for MEXICO
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
Raw Score
50.0
49.0
48.0
47.0
46.0
44.4
43.0
40.0
731

Table A5
Normative data for the TOMM trial 1 stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
50.0
49.5
48.9
48.2
47.3
46.8
46.1
45.2
50.0
49.9
49.2
48.5
47.8
47.0
46.4
45.8
44.8
50.0
49.5
48.9
48.2
47.5
46.6
46.1
45.4
44.5
50.0
49.9
49.2
48.5
47.8
47.1
46.3
45.7
45.1
44.1
50.0
49.6
48.8
48.2
47.5
46.8
45.9
45.4
44.8
43.8
50.0
49.2
48.5
47.8
47.2
46.4
45.6
45.1
44.4
43.5
50.0
49.7
48.9
48.1
47.5
46.8
46.1
45.2
44.7
44.1
43.1
50.0
49.9
49.4
48.5
47.8
47.1
46.5
45.8
44.9
44.4
43.7
42.8
50.0
49.6
49.0
48.2
47.5
46.8
46.1
45.4
44.6
44.0
43.4
42.4
50.0
49.9
49.2
48.7
47.8
47.1
46.5
45.8
45.1
44.2
43.7
43.0
42.1
50.0
49.5
48.9
48.3
47.5
46.8
46.1
45.4
44.7
43.9
43.3
42.7
41.7
50.0
49.2
48.5
48.0
47.2
46.4
45.8
45.1
44.4
43.5
43.0
42.4
41.4
49.8
48.8
48.2
47.7
46.8
46.1
45.4
44.8
44.0
43.2
42.7
42.0
41.1
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
50.0
49.6
49.1
48.2
47.5
46.8
46.2
45.5
44.6
44.1
43.4
42.5
50.0
49.9
49.3
48.7
47.9
47.2
46.5
45.8
45.1
44.3
43.7
43.1
42.1
50.0
49.6
48.9
48.4
47.5
46.8
46.2
45.5
44.8
43.9
43.4
42.7
41.8
50.0
49.2
48.6
48.1
47.2
46.5
45.8
45.1
44.4
43.6
43.0
42.4
41.4
49.8
48.9
48.2
47.7
46.9
46.1
45.5
44.8
44.1
43.2
42.7
42.1
41.1
49.5
48.5
47.9
47.4
46.5
45.8
45.1
44.5
43.7
42.9
42.4
41.7
40.8
49.2
48.2
47.6
47.0
46.2
45.5
44.8
44.1
43.4
42.5
42.0
41.4
40.4
48.8
47.9
47.2
46.7
45.8
45.1
44.4
43.8
43.1
42.2
41.7
41.0
40.1
48.5
47.5
46.9
46.3
45.5
44.8
44.1
43.4
42.7
41.9
41.3
40.7
39.7
48.1
47.2
46.5
46.0
45.1
44.4
43.8
43.1
42.4
41.5
41.0
40.3
39.4
47.8
46.8
46.2
45.7
44.8
44.1
43.4
42.8
42.0
41.2
40.6
40.0
39.0
47.4
46.5
45.8
45.3
44.5
43.7
43.1
42.4
41.7
40.8
40.3
39.7
38.7
47.1
46.1
45.5
45.0
44.1
43.4
42.7
42.1
41.3
40.5
40.0
39.3
38.4
Table A6
Normative data for the TOMM trial 1 stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
>12 years education
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
50.0
50.0
49.6
48.9
48.2
47.4
46.5
46.0
45.3
44.3
50.0
50.0
49.3
48.7
48.0
47.2
46.3
45.8
45.1
44.1
50.0
49.9
49.1
48.4
47.8
47.0
46.1
45.6
44.9
43.9
50.0
49.7
48.9
48.2
47.5
46.8
45.9
45.4
44.7
43.7
50.0
49.5
48.7
48.0
47.3
46.6
45.7
45.2
44.5
43.5
50.0
49.3
48.5
47.8
47.1
46.4
45.5
44.9
44.3
43.3
50.0
49.1
48.3
47.6
46.9
46.2
45.3
44.7
44.1
43.1
50.0
49.8
48.9
48.1
47.4
46.7
46.0
45.1
44.5
43.9
42.9
50.0
49.6
48.7
47.9
47.2
46.5
45.8
44.9
44.3
43.7
42.7
50.0
49.9
49.4
48.5
47.7
47.0
46.3
45.6
44.7
44.1
43.5
42.5
50.0
49.7
49.1
48.3
47.5
46.8
46.1
45.4
44.5
43.9
43.3
42.3
50.0
49.5
48.9
48.1
47.3
46.6
45.9
45.2
44.3
43.7
43.1
42.1
50.0
49.3
48.7
47.9
47.1
46.4
45.7
45.0
44.1
43.5
42.9
41.9
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
50.0
49.6
48.7
48.0
47.3
46.6
45.8
44.9
44.4
43.7
42.7
50.0
49.4
48.5
47.8
47.1
46.4
45.6
44.7
44.2
43.5
42.5
50.0
49.8
49.2
48.3
47.6
46.9
46.2
45.4
44.5
44.0
43.3
42.3
50.0
49.6
49.0
48.1
47.4
46.7
46.0
45.2
44.3
43.8
43.1
42.1
50.0
49.4
48.8
47.9
47.2
46.5
45.8
45.0
44.1
43.6
42.9
41.9
50.0
49.8
49.2
48.6
47.7
47.0
46.3
45.6
44.8
43.9
43.4
42.7
41.7
50.0
49.6
48.9
48.4
47.5
46.8
46.1
45.4
44.6
43.7
43.2
42.5
41.5
50.0
49.4
48.7
48.2
47.3
46.5
45.9
45.2
44.4
43.5
43.0
42.3
41.3
50.0
49.2
48.5
48.0
47.1
46.3
45.6
45.0
44.2
43.3
42.8
42.1
41.1
50.0
49.0
48.3
47.8
46.9
46.1
45.4
44.8
44.0
43.1
42.6
41.9
40.9
49.8
48.8
48.1
47.6
46.7
45.9
45.2
44.5
43.8
42.9
42.4
41.7
40.7
49.6
48.6
47.9
47.4
46.5
45.7
45.0
44.3
43.6
42.7
42.1
41.5
40.5
49.4
48.4
47.7
47.2
46.3
45.5
44.8
44.1
43.4
42.5
41.9
41.3
40.3
732

Table A7
Normative data for the TOMM trial 1 stratified by education levels for PUERTO RICO
Percentile
50.0
49.4
48.4
47.5
46.6
45.8
44.9
43.8
43.1
42.3
41.1
50.0
49.1
48.3
47.4
46.5
45.4
44.8
43.9
42.7
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
Table A8
Normative data for the TOMM trial 2 stratified by age and education levels for ARGENTINA
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
50.0
49.9
49.8
49.5
49.4
49.2
49.0
50.0
49.9
49.7
49.5
49.4
49.2
49.0
50.0
49.9
49.7
49.5
49.3
49.2
48.9
50.0
49.8
49.6
49.4
49.3
49.1
48.9
50.0
49.8
49.6
49.4
49.3
49.1
48.8
50.0
49.9
49.8
49.6
49.4
49.2
49.1
48.8
50.0
49.9
49.7
49.5
49.3
49.2
49.0
48.8
50.0
49.8
49.7
49.5
49.3
49.1
49.0
48.7
50.0
49.8
49.6
49.5
49.2
49.1
48.9
48.7
50.0
49.9
49.8
49.6
49.4
49.2
49.1
48.9
48.7
50.0
49.9
49.7
49.6
49.4
49.2
49.0
48.9
48.6
50.0
49.9
49.7
49.5
49.3
49.1
49.0
48.8
48.6
50.0
49.8
49.7
49.5
49.3
49.1
49.0
48.8
48.5
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
50.0
49.9
49.8
49.6
49.4
49.2
49.1
48.8
50.0
49.9
49.7
49.5
49.3
49.2
49.0
48.8
50.0
49.9
49.7
49.5
49.3
49.2
49.0
48.7
50.0
49.8
49.7
49.5
49.3
49.1
49.0
48.7
50.0
49.8
49.6
49.4
49.2
49.1
48.9
48.7
50.0
49.9
49.7
49.6
49.4
49.2
49.0
48.9
48.6
50.0
49.9
49.7
49.5
49.4
49.1
49.0
48.8
48.6
50.0
49.8
49.7
49.5
49.3
49.1
49.0
48.8
48.6
50.0
49.8
49.6
49.5
49.3
49.1
48.9
48.8
48.5
50.0
49.8
49.6
49.4
49.2
49.0
48.9
48.7
48.5
50.0
49.9
49.7
49.6
49.4
49.2
49.0
48.9
48.7
48.4
50.0
49.9
49.7
49.5
49.4
49.2
49.0
48.8
48.7
48.4
50.0
49.8
49.7
49.5
49.3
49.1
48.9
48.8
48.6
48.4
733

Table A9
Normative data for the TOMM trial 2 stratified by age for BOLIVIA
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
50.0
49.1
48.2
47.1
46.5
45.7
44.4
50.0
49.7
48.9
48.0
46.9
46.2
45.4
44.2
50.0
49.5
48.6
47.7
46.6
46.0
45.1
43.9
50.0
49.2
48.4
47.5
46.4
45.7
44.9
43.7
50.0
49.8
49.0
48.1
47.2
46.1
45.4
44.6
43.4
50.0
49.5
48.7
47.9
46.9
45.9
45.2
44.4
43.2
50.0
49.3
48.4
47.6
46.7
45.6
44.9
44.1
42.9
50.0
49.9
49.0
48.2
47.3
46.4
45.4
44.7
43.9
42.7
50.0
49.7
48.8
47.9
47.1
46.2
45.1
44.4
43.6
42.4
50.0
49.4
48.5
47.7
46.8
45.9
44.8
44.2
43.4
42.1
50.0
49.2
48.3
47.4
46.6
45.7
44.6
43.9
43.1
41.9
50.0
48.9
48.0
47.2
46.3
45.4
44.3
43.7
42.8
41.6
50.0
49.7
48.7
47.8
46.9
46.1
45.2
44.1
43.4
42.6
41.4
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
50.0
49.6
49.1
48.6
48.1
47.6
47.0
46.6
46.1
45.4
50.0
49.3
48.8
48.3
47.9
47.3
46.7
46.3
45.9
45.2
50.0
49.7
49.1
48.6
48.1
47.6
47.1
46.5
46.1
45.7
45.0
50.0
49.9
49.5
48.9
48.4
47.9
47.4
46.9
46.3
45.9
45.4
44.7
50.0
49.7
49.3
48.7
48.1
47.7
47.2
46.7
46.1
45.7
45.2
44.5
Table A10
Normative data for the TOMM trial 2 stratified by age for CHILE
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
50.0
49.9
49.4
48.8
48.4
47.9
47.2
50.0
49.7
49.2
48.5
48.2
47.7
47.0
50.0
49.9
49.5
48.9
48.3
47.9
47.5
46.8
50.0
49.7
49.2
48.7
48.1
47.7
47.2
46.6
50.0
49.5
49.0
48.5
47.9
47.5
47.0
46.3
50.0
49.7
49.3
48.8
48.3
47.6
47.3
46.8
46.1
Age (Years)
4852
5357
50.0
49.5
49.0
48.5
48.0
47.4
47.0
46.6
45.9
50.0
49.8
49.3
48.8
48.3
47.8
47.2
46.8
46.3
45.6
Table A11
Normative data for the TOMM trial 2 stratified by age for MEXICO
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
50.0
49.8
49.0
48.2
47.2
46.6
45.9
44.8
50.0
49.7
48.9
48.1
47.1
46.5
45.8
44.7
50.0
49.6
48.8
48.0
47.0
46.4
45.7
44.6
50.0
49.4
48.7
47.9
46.9
46.3
45.5
44.4
50.0
49.3
48.6
47.7
46.8
46.1
45.4
44.3
50.0
49.2
48.4
47.6
46.6
46.0
45.3
44.2
50.0
49.8
49.1
48.3
47.5
46.5
45.9
45.2
44.1
50.0
49.7
49.0
48.2
47.4
46.4
45.8
45.1
44.0
50.0
49.6
48.8
48.1
47.3
46.3
45.7
44.9
43.8
50.0
49.5
48.7
48.0
47.1
46.2
45.5
44.8
43.7
50.0
49.4
48.6
47.8
47.0
46.0
45.4
44.7
43.6
50.0
49.2
48.5
47.7
46.9
45.9
45.3
44.6
43.5
50.0
49.1
48.4
47.6
46.8
45.8
45.2
44.5
43.4
734

Table A12
Normative data for the TOMM trial 2 stratified by age and education levels for PARAGUAY
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
50.0
49.5
48.7
48.2
47.5
46.6
50.0
49.8
49.1
48.3
47.8
47.2
46.2
50.0
49.4
48.7
47.9
47.4
46.8
45.8
50.0
49.7
49.0
48.3
47.5
47.0
46.4
45.4
50.0
49.9
49.3
48.7
48.0
47.1
46.6
46.0
45.1
50.0
49.6
48.9
48.3
47.6
46.7
46.2
45.6
44.7
50.0
49.9
49.2
48.5
47.9
47.2
46.3
45.8
45.2
44.3
50.0
49.5
48.8
48.1
47.5
46.8
46.0
45.4
44.8
43.9
50.0
49.9
49.1
48.4
47.7
47.1
46.4
45.6
45.1
44.4
43.5
50.0
49.5
48.7
48.0
47.4
46.7
46.0
45.2
44.7
44.0
43.1
50.0
49.7
49.1
48.3
47.6
47.0
46.3
45.6
44.8
44.3
43.7
42.7
50.0
49.9
49.3
48.8
47.9
47.2
46.6
45.9
45.2
44.4
43.9
43.3
42.3
50.0
49.5
48.9
48.4
47.5
46.8
46.2
45.5
44.8
44.0
43.5
42.9
42.0
Age (Years)
4347 4852 5357
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
50.0
49.5
48.8
48.2
47.5
46.8
46.0
45.5
44.9
43.9
50.0
49.1
48.4
47.8
47.2
46.5
45.6
45.1
44.5
43.6
50.0
49.6
48.8
48.1
47.4
46.8
46.1
45.2
44.7
44.1
43.2
50.0
49.7
49.2
48.4
47.7
47.0
46.4
45.7
44.9
44.3
43.7
42.8
50.0
49.9
49.3
48.8
48.0
47.3
46.6
46.0
45.3
44.5
43.9
43.3
42.4
50.0
49.6
48.9
48.4
47.6
46.9
46.2
45.6
44.9
44.1
43.6
42.9
42.0
50.0
49.2
48.5
48.0
47.2
46.5
45.9
45.2
44.5
43.7
43.2
42.6
41.6
49.7
48.8
48.2
47.6
46.8
46.1
45.5
44.8
44.1
43.3
42.8
42.2
41.2
49.3
48.4
47.8
47.3
46.4
45.7
45.1
44.4
43.7
42.9
42.4
41.8
40.8
48.9
48.0
47.4
46.9
46.0
45.3
44.7
44.0
43.4
42.5
42.0
41.4
40.5
48.5
47.6
47.0
46.5
45.6
45.0
44.3
43.7
43.0
42.1
41.6
41.0
40.1
48.2
47.2
46.6
46.1
45.3
44.6
43.9
43.3
42.6
41.7
41.2
40.6
39.7
47.8
46.8
46.2
45.7
44.9
44.2
43.5
42.9
42.2
41.4
40.8
40.2
39.3
Table A13
Normative data for the TOMM trial 2 stratified by age and education levels for PERU
1822
2327
2832
3337
3842
4347
4852
5357
5862
6367
6872
7377
>77
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
50.0
49.8
49.4
48.9
48.6
48.3
47.7
50.0
49.7
49.3
48.8
48.5
48.1
47.6
50.0
49.6
49.2
48.7
48.4
48.0
47.5
50.0
49.9
49.5
49.1
48.6
48.3
47.9
47.4
50.0
49.7
49.4
49.0
48.5
48.2
47.8
47.3
50.0
49.6
49.3
48.8
48.4
48.1
47.7
47.2
50.0
49.9
49.5
49.1
48.7
48.2
47.9
47.6
47.0
50.0
49.8
49.4
49.0
48.6
48.1
47.8
47.5
46.9
50.0
49.7
49.3
48.9
48.5
48.0
47.7
47.4
46.8
50.0
49.6
49.2
48.8
48.4
47.9
47.6
47.2
46.7
50.0
49.8
49.4
49.1
48.7
48.3
47.8
47.5
47.1
46.6
50.0
49.7
49.3
48.9
48.6
48.2
47.7
47.4
47.0
46.5
50.0
49.6
49.2
48.8
48.5
48.0
47.6
47.3
46.9
46.4
Age (Years)
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
50.0
49.8
49.4
49.0
48.7
48.2
47.8
47.5
47.1
46.6
50.0
49.7
49.3
48.9
48.5
48.1
47.6
47.3
47.0
46.4
50.0
49.6
49.2
48.8
48.4
48.0
47.5
47.2
46.9
46.3
50.0
49.5
49.1
48.7
48.3
47.9
47.4
47.1
46.8
46.2
50.0
49.8
49.4
49.0
48.6
48.2
47.8
47.3
47.0
46.6
46.1
50.0
49.7
49.2
48.8
48.5
48.1
47.7
47.2
46.9
46.5
46.0
50.0
49.9
49.6
49.1
48.7
48.3
48.0
47.6
47.1
46.8
46.4
45.9
50.0
49.8
49.5
49.0
48.6
48.2
47.9
47.4
47.0
46.7
46.3
45.8
50.0
49.7
49.4
48.9
48.5
48.1
47.7
47.3
46.9
46.5
46.2
45.6
50.0
49.9
49.6
49.3
48.8
48.4
48.0
47.6
47.2
46.7
46.4
46.1
45.5
50.0
49.8
49.5
49.2
48.7
48.3
47.9
47.5
47.1
46.6
46.3
46.0
45.4
50.0
49.7
49.4
49.0
48.6
48.2
47.8
47.4
47.0
46.5
46.2
45.8
45.3
50.0
49.6
49.2
48.9
48.5
48.0
47.7
47.3
46.9
46.4
46.1
45.7
45.2

Table A14
Normative data for the TOMM trial 2 stratified by education levels for PUERTO RICO
Percentile
95
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
50.0
49.7
49.3
48.9
48.6
48.1
47.8
47.5
47.0
50.0
49.8
49.4
49.0
48.6
48.3
47.9
47.4
735

Normative Data For Ten Spanish-Language Neuropsychological Tests in Eleven Latin American Countries

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Normative Data For Ten Spanish-Language Neuropsychological Tests in Eleven Latin American Countries

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

493

NeuroRehabilitation 37 (2015) 493499

Methodology for the development

de Metodologia de les Ci`encies del Comportament, Facultat de Psicologia, Institut de Recerca

for correspondence: Joan Gu`ardia-Olmos, Department

is a significant lack of norms for Spanish-speakers in

1) A method that involves the adjustment of control

native language, d) had completed at least one year

Health Questionnaire9 (PHQ-9, Kroenke, Spitzer, &

administration, participants had to sign the informed

1. Obtain the predicted value using the regression

2. Obtain the residual value:

3. Standardize the residual obtained (transform to z

from Latin America. Among inclusion criteria for this

NeuroRehabilitation 37 (2015) 501513

Standard form of the Boston Naming Test:

of Psychology and Education, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain

for correspondence: Juan Carlos Arango-Lasprilla,

for Science, Bilbao, Spain. Tel.: +804 859 4329;

L. Olabarrieta-Landa et al. / Standard form of the Boston Naming Test

common disorders associated with normal aging and

L. Olabarrieta-Landa et al. / Standard form of the Boston Naming Test

Other research has shown that most of the coefficients

test to other populations and facilitate clinical practice.

L. Olabarrieta-Landa et al. / Standard form of the Boston Naming Test

spontaneously, the examiner provides a semantic clue

2.2. Instrument administration

p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001.

L. Olabarrieta-Landa et al. / Standard form of the Boston Naming Test

error). The total score is the sum of correct spontaneous

0.3, and therefore gender was not taken into account to

L. Olabarrieta-Landa et al. / Standard form of the Boston Naming Test

the residual value (indicated with an e in the equation),

the raw score the person obtained on the test. Reading

L. Olabarrieta-Landa et al. / Standard form of the Boston Naming Test

speak secondary languages. Future research should

L. Olabarrieta-Landa et al. / Standard form of the Boston Naming Test

de la Plata. C, Arango-Lasprilla. JC, Alegret. M, Moreno. A, Trraga.

LaBarge, E., Edwards, D., & Knesevich, J. W. (1986). Performance of

L. Olabarrieta-Landa et al. / Standard form of the Boston Naming Test

>12 years of education

>12 years of education

L. Olabarrieta-Landa et al. / Standard form of the Boston Naming Test

>12 years of education

>12 years of education

L. Olabarrieta-Landa et al. / Standard form of the Boston Naming Test

>12 years of education

>12 years of education

L. Olabarrieta-Landa et al. / Standard form of the Boston Naming Test

>12 years of education

>12 years of education

L. Olabarrieta-Landa et al. / Standard form of the Boston Naming Test

>12 years of education

>12 years of education

NeuroRehabilitation 37 (2015) 515561

Verbal Fluency Tests: Normative data

of Psychology and Education, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain

Address for correspondence: Juan

(Price et al., 2012), TBI (Henry & Crawford,

individual norms studies have been completed for the

Tinghag, & Osterberg,

p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001.

a function of age. The amount of variance explained in