Lucid Recall

Lucid Recall

I will not tutor a new pupil without assessing them first with the appropriate Lucid test. I cannot speak highly enough of their ease of use, speed, accuracy and fun content.

Maureen Huxtable (Private Tutor)

Lucid Recall swiftly identifies children who require classroom intervention strategies to help them to learn effectively.
Recall assesses the fundamental working memory functions identified by leading international researchers including Professor Alan Baddeley. It’s easy to use, fully automated, requires minimal supervision and needs no input from the teacher. Recall is made up of three subtests:

  • Phonological loop – assessed by a word recall test
  • Visuo-spatial sketchpad – assessed by a pattern recall test
  • Central executive function – assessed by a counting recall test

And also measures the speed and efficiency of working memory (processing speed).

The manual contains advice and case studies showing how to use the results to help them achieve their potential.

Results and reporting

Immediate results enable instant evaluation of how each student’s working memory compares with expected levels for their age, based on nationally standardised norms for ages 7:0 to 16:11. Reports cover:

  • Standard scores
  • Confidence intervals
  • Centile scores
  • Age equivalents (down to age 5:0)
  • Memory span
  • Average time

FAQ

Are results from Lucid Recall acceptable by JCQ and exam boards as measures of cognitive processing when applying for access arrangements?

Yes, results from Lucid Recall are acceptable measures of cognitive processing for JCQ purposes. Lucid Recall assesses working memory and processing speed in the age range 7:0 to 16:11. All the subtests in Lucid Recall are appropriate measures of cognitive processing when assessing for exam access arrangements, provided the student is not older than the test ceiling which is 16 years 11 months.
The current (2014-15) JCQ regulations (section 5.2.2) state that 25% extra time in examinations may be granted to students who show substantial impairment in literacy or processing speed, i.e. “…at least one below average standardised score of 84 or less which relates to an assessment of:
• speed of reading; or
• speed of reading comprehension; or
• speed of writing; or
• cognitive processing measures which have a substantial and long term adverse effect on speed of working.”
Section 7.5.11 of the JCQ regulations goes on to state that ‘Cognitive processing assessments would include, for example, investigations of working memory, phonological or visual processing, sequencing problems, organisational problems, visual/motor co-ordination difficulties or other measures as determined appropriate for the individual by a specialist assessor.’
Hence results of all five of the measures provided by Lucid Recall, i.e.
• Verbal working memory (Word Recall test)
• Visual working memory (Pattern Recall test)
• Central executive working memory functioning (Counting Recall test)
• Composite working memory skills
• Working memory processing speed
can, if required, be used in completing JCQ Form 8, Section C(5) when applying for examination access arrangements, provided the student is not older than the test ceiling which is 16 years 11 months. Note that the Working memory processing speed measure is derived from a counting task and although it may be argued that this activity necessarily demands the use of (internal) verbal labels in order to arrive at an answer, the counting task in Lucid Recall chiefly involves visual processing and hence is best described in this manner on JCQ Form 8. Speed of reading comprehension can be assessed using another Lucid product: Lucid Exact, which is a suite of literacy tests for the age range 11:11 to 24:11, and the results entered into JCQ Form 8, Section C(2). Assessors planning to use Lucid Recall or Lucid Exact for exam access assessments should be fully familiar with current JCQ regulations, which stipulate the qualifications of assessors and conditions for assessment. In particular, the regulations state that the assessment must be carried out by a suitably qualified person, who could be a psychologist or a specialist teacher, and the Head of Centre must satisfy themselves that this person is competent to

Lucid Research Ltd
3 Spencer Street
BEVERLEY
East Yorkshire
HU17 9EG
United Kingdom
T: +44 (0)1482 882121
F: +44 (0)1482 882911
Office@lucid-research.com
FAQ_rc1 Dec 2014
carry out such assessments (JCQ Regulations 2014-15, Section 7.3). This person then takes responsibility for selecting appropriate tests, interpreting the results, and making the recommendations for access arrangements. Careful administration is advised when using group assessment in order that individual student responses are observed and monitored. The declaration on page 5 of JCQ Form 8 stipulates that the specialist assessor carried out all the assessments in Section C. JCQ regulations give guidance on what qualifications and experience may be expected of named specialist teachers (JCQ Regulations 2014-15, Section 7.5.4). These requirements apply whatever tests are used, whether Lucid Recall, Lucid Exact or any others.
For further information, please consult the Lucid Recall Manual (version 1.06 or later), Sections 1.1.5 and 5.5 (the latter section presents a case study showing how Lucid Recall results can be used in completing JCQ Form 8). You may also like to consult our FAQ ‘What scores in Lucid Recall should I use for access arrangement and which are more important?’ available below.

How does reading ability affect a student’s performance on Lucid Recall?

The Word Recall test in Lucid Recall assesses phonological loop functioning. The child hears sequences of words through the computer speakers/ headphones and is then required to recall the words in the same order in which they were presented, using the computer mouse to select
(i.e. click on) the target words from within a 3 x 3 matrix of nine words on the computer (see the Lucid Recall Teacher’s Manual, Section 2.1.1). Some teachers have expressed concern that children who have poor reading skills might score low on this test not because of a working memory
difficulty but because of a reading difficultly.
In fact, reading ability generally has a limited influence on Word Recall scores. The average correlation between reading ability and the Word Recall test is 0.46, which means that reading ability is responsible for approximately one-fifth of the total factors contributing to Word Recall scores. The remaining factors are principally memory skills, although a small proportion will be due to motivation and general intelligence. This is partly because all the words in this test (target
words and distractors) are common single-syllable words between three and five letters in length, which most 7 year olds (the youngest age for which the test is regarded as suitable) can read without difficulty. In fact, most of the words are very simple (e.g. ball, big, dad, leg, pan, nut) so most 6 year olds (and some 5 year olds) can read them without difficulty. In addition, in order to minimise reading load there are built-in checks to avoid rhyming or alliterative pairs which might
confuse the child.
Of course, there will inevitably be a small proportion of children whose reading ability is significantly behind that of their peers. National Curriculum Test results show that 85% of 7 year olds achieve their expected level (Level 2) in reading, while 12% are at Level 1 (i.e. that expected of the average 5-6 year old) and only 3% still to reach Level 1. Therefore we can be reasonably confident that the percentage of pupils who are likely to have significant difficultly on the Word Recall test because of their inability to read is about 3% of 7 year olds and fewer in the older groups of children taking the test.
The Lucid Recall Teacher’s Manual (Section 1.1) explains how children with poor working memory are much more likely to have SEN than other children, a conclusion that is backed up by extensive research evidence. In Section 1.4.3 details of a study comparing SEN and non-SEN children using the program are reported. However, despite the reasonable expectation that these two groups would be found to differ significantly in Word Recall scores, this did not turn out to be the case, although they did differ significantly in scores on the two other tests in Lucid Recall. This finding lends further support to the conclusion that reading ability generally has a relatively small influence on Word Recall scores, even in SEN children.
Nevertheless, it would be prudent for teachers using Lucid Recall to bear in mind that the results of children who score very low on the Word Recall test (especially if they have satisfactory scores on the other two tests in the program) could possibly be due to poor reading skills. This is going to be a rare occurrence and when it does happen the teacher will generally be aware of the child’s reading difficulties already and can take this into account when drawing conclusions and making recommendations based on the results.

What scores in Lucid Recall should I use for access arrangement and which are more important?

No one test score from Lucid Recall is more important than any other. Each reflects different aspects of working memory and hence standard scores below 85 on any one of the five components that comprise the Lucid Recall test is valid evidence of slow speed of working as far as JCQ is concerned. The student does not have to score below 85 on several (or all) of them. So a student who scored (say) 78 on Executive Function would clearly qualify on these grounds while the student who scored (say) 88 on Executive Function would not. Although the Working Memory Composite score is an aggregated measure drawn from the Word Recall, Pattern Recall and Counting Recall tests, a score below 85 on this represents a broader deficit than, say, a score below 85 on one of the three tests Word Recall, Pattern Recall and Counting Recall. But it is not necessarily more ‘important’.
For example, say a student had standard scores as follows: Word Recall 72, Pattern Recall 83, Counting Recall 84, WM Composite 81; which is more ‘important’? One might say ‘Word Recall’ because it was numerically the lowest. But, again, one might say ‘WM Composite’ because it subsumes the other three scores and together represents a broad deficiency in all three aspects of working memory. What if the scores were Word Recall 72, Pattern Recall 85, Counting Recall 86,
WM Composite 84? Here, the WM Composite is only just below the criterion level of SS85, suggesting a mild overall deficit, while the Word Recall is almost a whole standard deviation below the criterion level, indicating a major specific deficit in phonological loop processing. It can be seen that there cannot be a clear-cut answer to the question asked by some teachers: ‘What Lucid Recall score should be used for access arrangements when there is a selection to
choose from?’ because it is likely to vary from case to case. However, JCQ Form 8 for applying for access arrangements, Section 5, provides two columns for two different tests and in each column a box for giving a composite score and a box for giving a subtest score. In addition, further test scores can be entered into the box lower down, marked ‘Other relevant information’. So it is therefore not necessary to leave out scores because all the scores below 85 from Lucid Recall can
be included if desired. There is no point in including scores of 85 or above except in exceptional circumstances (see below) because they do not provide evidence of need.
If the various scores cross over the criterion threshold of 85 standard score then obviously the choice is between those that fall below 85. But JCQ Regulations (Section 5.2.2) also allow for cases where at least two standard scores on appropriate tests fall between 85 and 89. In this situation, which JCQ regards as ‘exceptional circumstances’, there can be eligibility for access arrangements (e.g. extra time) provided it can be shown that this is the student’s normal way of working and there is other supporting evidence that paints an appropriate ‘picture of need’. For example, an A-level student who was found to be dyslexic in Year 7, when re-assessed on entry to the 6th Form had reading accuracy and comprehension skills well within the average range so on that basis would not be eligible for extra time in exams. However working memory and processing speed
Lucid Research Ltd
3 Spencer Street
BEVERLEY
East Yorkshire
HU17 9EG
United Kingdom
T: +44 (0)1482 882121
F: +44 (0)1482 882911
FAQ_rc3 Dec 2014
scores were in the low average range (i.e. SS 85-89). His history of need shows that he has received and utilised extra time in exams since his diagnosis and it is well established that his difficulties are exacerbated when working under the pressure of examination conditions. This picture of need from specialist assessment data and normal way of working indicates that the students should be eligible for extra time in forthcoming ‘A’ Level examinations.