Running Head: TEST REVIEW

Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, Second Edition

Christina Majcher
University of Calgary
March 2014

TEST REVIEW

2
Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning

Memory is the cognitive process used to acquire, store, retain and later retrieve
information (Adams & Reynolds, 2009). This cognitive process allows us to gain knowledge,
perform jobs and to have healthy relationships. Humans are extremely dependent on memory.
Although memory is a vital cognitive process, it is also a highly vulnerable brain function that
can range widely across individuals (Adams & Reynolds, 2009). Although theoretical models of
memory have been researched since the 1930s, a general consensus of memory has begun to
emerge over the past 10-15 years (Sheslow & Adams, 2003). This has led to the current belief
that memory is an active and dynamic, multi-system that involves the interaction of long-term
memory and executive functions that control and regulate an individuals mental actions,
knowledge and skills (Sheslow & Adams, 2003).
Test Summary
The Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning (WRAML2) is a standardized
assessment used to evaluate an individuals memory functioning (Sheslow & Adams, 2003).
This includes immediate and delayed memory ability as well as the acquisition of new learning
(Sheslow & Adams, 2003). Although the WRAML2 is not bound to a particular theoretical
model, it is inline with contemporary views of memory (Adams & Reynolds, 2009). The
original WRAML, created in 1990, was the first normed and standardized test battery used to
assess memory in children (Sheslow & Adams, 2003). It was revised in 2003.
Administration
The WRAML2 is individually administered to people aged five to ninety to aid with
intervention planning (Sheslow & Adams, 2003). This test helps differentiate between verbal,
visual or more global memory deficits (Sheslow & Adams, 2003). It is suitable to use after brain

TEST REVIEW

injury or infection, degenerative disorders, dementias or to assess memory deficits associated

with learning and developmental disabilities (Sheslow & Adams, 2003).
Organization
The Core Battery is composed of two verbal, two visual and two attention/concentration
subtests. This provides a Verbal Memory Index, a Visual Memory Index and an
Attention/Concentration Index. Together the subtests create the General Memory Index. This
test also includes four optional subtests, three delay recall subtests and four recognition subtests.
The WRAML2 has a wide variety of uses and can be very helpful with ADHD assessment
(Sheslow & Adams, 2003).
This highly versatile test can be used for a wide range of individuals. The manual contains
information about how to score a response, when to prompt, how to read the stories, starting
points and discontinue rules. Raw scores are collected on the WRAML2 and turned into scaled
scores. Administration times may vary based on the individuals age, memory ability and
comfort with testing (Sheslow & Adams, 2003). Using the General Memory Index (GMI)
provides the strongest psychometric finding as it is made up of three indexes or six subtest scores
(Sheslow & Adams, 2003). It is recommended that if the three index scores resulting in the GMI
are close together, the GMI is the preferred statistic to use for reporting and interpreting
(Sheslow & Adams, 2003). However, if there is variability between any of the three core
indexes, it is not recommended that the GMI be used as a summary statistic (Sheslow & Adams,
2003). The examiner would then use the Verbal, Visual and Attention/Concentration Index
Scores. As with the GMI, the index scores should only be used as a summary statistic if the two
subtest scores are fairly similar. Interpretation of subtests scores is not recommended due to
lower reliability of the scores (Sheslow & Adams, 2003). However, psychologists do use subtest

TEST REVIEW

comparisons to help create diagnostic hypotheses. This interpretation must be done with a high
level of caution and only when there are similar quantitative and qualitative findings. It is also
important to note that examiners must be extra cautious when interpreting the test results of the
youngest and oldest people included within the norms (Sheslow & Adams, 2003). This is
referred to as floor limitations (Sheslow & Adams, 2003). Conversely, the WRAML2 does not
have limiting ceiling effects and therefore memory giftedness can be determined with a high
level of psychometric certainty at all age levels (Sheslow & Adams, 2003).
Psychometric Properties
The WRAML2 is a well normed assessment that went through a thorough standardization
process including testing 1,200 children and adults (Dunn & Haynes, 2005). The sample was
matched as closely as possible to the 2001 United States Census. Group comparisons provide
evidence that the WRAML2 can be used with the same degree of accuracy across groups
differing in gender, ethnicity, age and educational background (Sheslow & Adams, 2003).
Adams and Reynolds (2003) indicate the WRAML2 has strong psychometric integrity.
Reliability of this test is strong as demonstrated from Rasch statistics ranging from 0.85 to 0.94
on the core subtests (Dunn & Haynes, 2005). The WRAML2 has very good internal consistency,
ranging from 0.82 to 0.96 on the core indexes and 0.71 to 0.95 on the six subtests (Dunn &
Haynes, 2005). External validity was examined with other memory measures, showing adequate
to moderate correlations overall (Dunn & Haynes, 2005). The test-retest reliability is a bit lower
ranging from 0.53 to 0.85 (Sheslow & Adams, 2003). This lower level of reliability is due to a
learning effect common with tests of memory.

TEST REVIEW

Critical Analysis
Although the WRAML2 has strong properties, there are several potential limitations that
must be considered. The first significant limitation is that it is an American normed assessment.
The concern regarding whether U.S. norms are appropriate for use within a Canadian population
is not isolated to this assessment tool. It is a concern that has been researched with results
demonstrating significant score differences between Canadian and U.S. populations (Saklofske
& Janzen, 1990). Individuals using the WRAML2 must ensure that the norms are appropriate for
the child. A second and similar limitation is related to Sheslow and Adams (2003) claim that
this assessment can be used with the same degree of accuracy across gender, ethnicity, age and
educational background. It is hard to imagine that these factors wouldnt influence the validity
of the test to a greater degree, particularly with certain subtests requiring a high language
comprehension required for Story Memory.
A third limitation highlighted by Adams and Reynolds (2003) indicates that motivation may
play a factor in the test, particularly as some subtests may lack interest or require sustained
attention. This might lead to significant fatigue or resentment lowering the test scores.
Individuals administering this test, must be aware of these factors and the risk of response bias.
A fourth limitation is the low level of test-retest reliability. Although this is considered common
with tests of memory, it does not appear to be a factor with a comparable test of memory, such as
the Childrens Memory Scale (CMS). The CMS is noted to have a test-retest reliability rating of
0.89 (Hartman, 2007). The lower test-retest reliability found in the WRAML2 may be a result of
poor test content or construction and is an area that could be improved in future versions. A fifth
limitation of this instrument is the high correlation between the memory screening score and the
General Memory Index (Dunn & Haynes, 2006). Although the screening scale is an efficient

TEST REVIEW

option, the high correlation suggests that there may be considerable overlap with the scales of the
core subtests and the scales for general memory (Dunn & Haynes, 2006).
A sixth limitation with the WRAML2 is the lack of peer-reviewed publications as it has only
been available for clinical use and research since 2004, particularly when comparing research
with comparable measures of memory (Hartman, 2007). Finally, the WRAML2 requires
examiners to be aware of external factors that may influence the testing situation. Many
conditions can mimic memory impairments such as improper medication usages, recreational
drug usage, and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and renal problems (Adams &
Reynolds, 2003). Examiners must be cautious of these conditions as well as aspects of
malingering if memory assessment is related to insurance claims.
Conclusion
Overall the WRAML2 has strong psychometric properties. Current research indicates it
is a psychometrically sound, dependable and adaptable assessment for measuring memory.
However, there are several limitations with this test that examiners must be aware of when using
and interpreting this measure. I have begun using the WRAML2 in my current practicum and
have found it to be a useful addition to add qualitative and quantitative findings to my existing
test batteries. I feel this is an assessment tool that I would recommend and will use when I
become a School Psychologist.

TEST REVIEW

7
References

Adams, W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2009). Essentials of WRAML2 and TOMAL-2 assessment.
Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons.
Dunn, T. M., & Haynes, S. D. (2005). Test review of the Wide Range Assessment of Memory
and Learning, Second Edition. In B. S. Plake & R. A. Spies (Eds.), The sixteenth mental
measurements yearbook [Electronic version]. Retrieved from the Buros Institute.
Hartman,D.E.(2007).WideRangeAssessmentofMemoryandLearning2(WRAML2):
WRedesignedandWReallyImproved.
Saklofske,D.H.,&Janzen,H.L.(1990).SchoolbasedassessmentresearchinCanada.McGill
JournalofEducation/Revuedessciencesdel'ducationdeMcGill,25(001).
Sheslow, D., & Adams, W. (2003). Wide range assessment of memory and learning, second
edition administration and technical manual, Wilmington, Del: Wide Range.