Semantic clustering on common list-learning tasks: a systematic review of the state of the literature and recommendations for future directions.

INTRODUCTION:On some list-learning tasks, such as the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT) or Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT), examinees have the opportunity to group words based on semantically related categories (i.e., semantic clustering). Semantic clustering (SC) is often considered the most efficient organizational strategy and adopting SC is presumed to improve learning and memory. In addition, SC is conceptualized as reflecting higher-order executive functioning skills. Although SC measures have intuitive appeal, to date, there are no comprehensive reviews of the SC literature base that summarize its psychometric utility. In this systematic review, we synthesize the literature to judge the validity of SC scores. METHOD:We conducted a systematic literature search for empirical articles reporting SC from the CVLT and HVLT. We qualitatively described the relationship of SC with other list-learning and cognitive test scores and clinical diagnoses, contrasting SC with serial clustering and total learning scores when possible. RESULTS:SC was inversely correlated with serial clustering. Higher SC was strongly associated with better learning and memory performances. When compared with cognitive tests, SC tended to have the strongest relationships with other memory measures and modest relationships with tests of executive functioning. SC had negligible to small relationships with most other cognitive domains. Traditional memory scores yielded stronger relationships to cognitive test performances than did SC. SC across clinical groups varied widely, but clinical groups tended to use SC less often than healthy comparison groups. CONCLUSION:Our comprehensive review of the literature revealed that SC is strongly related to measures of learning and memory on the CVLT and HVLT and is correlated with a wide range of cognitive functions. SC has been understudied in relevant populations and additional research is needed to test the degree to which it adds incremental validity beyond traditional measures of learning and memory.