Assessment and Management of Memory Problems

  • B. Wilson


Assessments are carried out to answer questions and the nature of these questions determines assessment procedure. Thus questions about theoretical issues require a different approach to assessment than do questions about treatment issues. For example, if we want to know whether implicit memory is a unitary concept we should assess as many different aspects of implicit memory as possible and also assess a large number of people in an attempt to find dissociations between subjects. If, on the other hand, we want to know which memory problems are causing most distress for a particular patient, we should interview that patient and perhaps other family members. We may need to observe the patient in a number of different settings and refer to rating scales, checklists, questionnaires and/or self report measures.


Implicit Memory Brain Damage Memory Problem Cognitive Rehabilitation Traumatic Head Injury 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Almli CR, Finger S (1988) Toward a definition of recovery of function. In: Finger S, LeVere TE, Almli CR, Stein DG (eds) Brain injury and recovery. Plenum, New York, pp 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braun JJ (1978) Time and recovery from brain damage. In: Finger S (ed) Recovery from brain damage: research and theory. Plenum, New York, pp 165–197Google Scholar
  3. Craik FIM, Lockhart RS (1972) Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. J Verb Learn Verb Behav 11: 671–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davies ADM, Binks MG (1983) Supporting the residual memory of a Korsakoff patient. Behav Psychother 11: 62–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ericsson KA, Chase WG, Falcon S (1980) Acquisition of a memory skill. Science 208: 1181–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gardner H (1977) The shattered mind: the person after brain damage. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Glisky EL, Schacter DL (1987) Acquisition of domain-specific knowledge in organic amnesia: training for computer-related work. Neuropsychologia 25: 893–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harris JE (1984) Ways of improving memory. In: Wilson BA, Moffat N (eds) Clinical management of memory problems. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Harris JE, Sunderland A (1981) A brief survey of the management of memory disorders in rehabilitation units in Britain. Int Rehabil Med 3: 206–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Jennett B, Bond M (1975) Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. Lancet 1: 480–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Landauer TK, Bjork RA (1978) Optimum rehearsal patterns and name learning. In: Gruneberg MM, Morris PE, Sykes RN (eds) Practical aspects of memory. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Laurence S, Stein DG (1978) Recovery after brain damage and the concept of localization of function. In: Finger S (ed) Recovery from brain damage: research and theory. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. LeVere TE (1980) Recovery of function after brain damage: a theory of the behavioral deficit. Physiol Psychol 8: 297–308Google Scholar
  14. Mackey S (1989) The use of computer-assisted feedback in a motor-control task for cerebral palsied children. Physiotherapy 75: 143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marshall JF (1985) Neural plasticity and recovery of function after brain injury. Int Rev Neurol 26: 201–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moffat N (1984) Strategies of memory therapy. In: Wilson BA, Moffat N (eds) Clinical management of memory problems. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Ponsford JL, Kinsella G (1988) Evaluation of a remedial programme for attentional deficits following closed head injury. J Clin Exp Psychol 10: 693–708Google Scholar
  18. Robertson I (1988) Unilateral visual neglect. PhD Thesis, University of LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Robertson I, Gray J, McKenzie S (1988) Microcomputer-based cognitive rehabilitation of visual neglect: 3 multiple-baseline single-case studies. Brain Injury 2: 151–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Robinson FP (1970) Effective study. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Schacter DL, Glisky EL (1986) Memory remediation: restoration, alleviation and the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge. In: Uzzell BP, Cross Y (eds) Clinical neuropsychology of intervention. Nijhoff, Boston, pp 257–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Skilbeck C (1984) Computer assistance in the management of memory and cognitive impairment. In: Wilson BA, Moffat N (eds) Clinical management of memory problems. Croom Helm, London, pp 112–131Google Scholar
  23. Sohlberg MM, Mateer CA (1987) Effectiveness of an attention-training program. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 9: 117–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sohlberg MM, Mateer CA (1988) Introduction to cognitive, rehabilitation. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilson BA (1984) Memory therapy in practice. In: Wilson BA, Moffat N (eds) Clinical management of memory problems. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilson BA (1987) Rehabilitation of memory. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilson BA (1991) Cognitive rehabilitation for brain injured adults. In: Deelman BG, Saan RJ, van Zomeren AH (eds) Traumatic brain injury. Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, pp 121–143Google Scholar
  28. Wilson BA, Cockburn J, Baddeley AD ( 1989 a) Assessment of everyday memory following brain injury. In: Mines ME, Wagner KA (eds) Neurotrauma: treatment, rehabilitation and related issues, vol 3. Butterworth, London, pp 83–99Google Scholar
  29. Wilson BA, Cockburn J, Baddeley AD, Hiorns R (1989b) The development and validation of a test battery for detecting and monitoring everyday memory problems. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 11: 855–870PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Wilson

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations