Rehab Measures Database
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised

Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised

Last Updated

Purpose

To assess visuospatial learning and processing abilities in individuals with different neuropsychological diagnoses.

Link to Instrument

Link to Instrument

Acronym BVMT-R

Area of Assessment

Cognition
Mental Functions

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$736.00

Cost Description

Cost figure indicated is for a complete kit as described below. Administration kits include multiple components. Elements of the kits may be purchased separately. Entire kits are discounted by $66.00 when purchased through Psychological Assessment Resources (PAR).

BVMT-R In-Person e-Admin Introductory Kit:
• BVMT-R Recall In-Person e-Stimulus Book - $95.00
• HVLT-R/BVMT-R e-Manual Supplement - $62.00
• BVMT-R e-Manual - $118.00
• BVMT-R Response Forma (pkg/25) - $143.00
• BVMT-R Recognition In-Person e-Stimulus Book - $318.00

BVMT-R Introductory Kit:
• BVMT-R Professional Manual - $118.00
• BVMT-R Reusable Recall Stimulus Booklet - $95.00
• BVMT-R Response Forms (pkg/25) - $143.00
• BVMT-R Recognition Stimulus Booklet (Easel Format) - $318.00
• HVLT-R/BVMT-R Professional Manual Supplement - $62

CDE Status

Not a CDE - as of 3/30/2025

Populations

Multiple Sclerosis
Mixed Conditions
Neurologic Conditions
Non-Patient

Key Descriptions

  • The BVMT-R tests for short-term and delayed memory learning and processing, and neuro-spatial learning and processing abilities.
  • The subject is presented with 6 drawings in a 2 x 3 arrangement for 3, 10-second trials, and then is asked to draw them from memory in the correct location. Following a 25-minute delay period with distracter tasks, the subject must again attempt to replicate the designs. An optional delayed yes/no recognition test follows.
  • The assessment serves various neuropsychological populations, including individuals with TBIs, Parkinson’s disease, and MS.

Number of Items

6 geometric figures used in 3 learning trials

Equipment Required

  • stopwatch
  • BVMT-R response forms
  • BVMT-R Kit (includes recognition stimulus booklet)

Time to Administer

45 minutes

Time indicated includes a 25-minute time delay between three learning trials, delayed recall trial, and a recognition trial.

Required Training

Training Course

Required Training Description

A background in psychological testing can be helpful to administer and score the BVMT-R. Interpretation of the results requires training in clinical psychology or neuropsychology.

Age Ranges

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 - 79

years

Instrument Reviewers

Reviewed on 5/5/2025 by UIC Occupational Therapy Students Brianna Nielsen, OTS; Bren Guerrero, OTS; Grace Irla, OTS; and Jennifer Zundel, OTS under the direction of Sabrin Rizk, PhD, OTR/L, Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Illinois Chicago.

ICF Domain

Body Structure
Body Function

Measurement Domain

Cognition

Professional Association Recommendation

Clinical Practice Guidelines:

  • The BVMT-R is part of the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS), which was developed by the National Institute of Mental Health and considered the gold standard battery for assessing cognitive impairment in schizophrenia patients (Grover, 2025).
  • An international committee of neurologists and neuropsychologists selected for their expertise in MS cognition conducted an exhaustive literature review and recommend a Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS), which includes BVMT-R (Langdon, 2012).

 

Considerations

  • The assessment requires upper extremity function sufficient to produce drawn shapes
  • Designed for brief and clinical administration at patient’s bedside
  • Respondents should have sufficient vision and hearing to perceive test stimuli and hear auditory instructions, respondents with brain dysfunction may not meet these criteria
  • Stimuli may be verbally encoded, reducing reliability as a visuospatial assessment measure
  • Scores are limited in distribution and many patients score at ceiling levels
  • Age and education were found to be significant predictors of BVMT-R Total Recall (β = -0.23 and 0.31, p < 0.05, respectively) and Delayed Recall (β = -0.26 and 0.33, p < 0.01, respectively) (Kane & Yochim, 2014)

 

  

Multiple Sclerosis

back to Populations

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Multiple Sclerosis: (de Caneda, 2018; n = 40; mean age = 42.67 years (age range = 21 – 67 years), male = 29 (72.5%))

  • MDC95 = 8.03 points

 

Normative Data

Multiple Sclerosis: (de Caneda, 2018)

  • Mean (SD) BVMT-R score: 22.57 (7.48)

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Multiple Sclerosis: (de Caneda, 2018)

  • Acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.85)

 

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Multiple Sclerosis: (de Caneda, 2018)

  • Adequate inter-rater reliability (k = 0.62)

 

Multiple Sclerosis: (Gaines, 2008; n = 70; mean age = 44.87 (9.30) years, mean years of education = 14.53 (2.20))

  • Adequate to Excellent inter-rater reliability (r = 0.70 to 0.90)

 

Internal Consistency

Multiple Sclerosis: (de Caneda, 2018)

  • Excellent internal consistency (α = 0.92*)

*Scores higher than 0.9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Multiple Sclerosis: (Gaines, 2008; n = 72 healthy adults, mean age = 42.31 (9.41) years, female = 49 (68%), mean years of education = 14.56 (2.09))

  • Adequate correlations* between BVMT-R Intrusions and Total errors with Total learning Trials 1-3 (r = -0.44 and r = -0.59, respectively) and Delayed recall (r = -0.42 and r = -0.56)
  • Adequate correlations* between BVMT-R Recall consistency and Total learning Trials 1-3 (r = 0.43), Delayed recall (r = 0.35), and Symbol digit modalities test, oral version (r = 0.31)
  • Adequate correlations* between BVMT-R Location errors BVMT-R Total learning Trials 1-3 (r = -0.31), California verbal learning test – recall consistency (r = -0.38), Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) 2.0 (2-second interval) (r = -0.34), and PASAT 3.0 (3-second interval) (r = -0.42)
  • Adequate correlations* between BVMT-R Rotations BVMT-R Total learning Trials 1-3 (r = -0.49), Delayed recall (r = -0.51), Recognition (r = -0.35), and PASAT 3.0 (3-second interval) (r = -0.30)

*p < 0.01, two-tailed

 

Construct Validity

Discriminant validity:

Multiple Sclerosis: (Gaines, 2008; n = 70; mean age = 44.87 (9.30) years, mean years of education = 14.53 (2.20))

  • 76.8% of participants were correctly classified as MS versus healthy adults, in a significant model retaining total learning trials 1–3 (odds ratio = 0.776, confidence interval = 0.697 to 0.863, p < 0.001) plus the new BVMT-R intrusion score (odds ratio = 0.298, confidence interval = 0.090 to 0.989, p < 0.05)

 

Face Validity

Multiple Sclerosis: (Langdon et al., 2022)

  • Though this wasn’t statistically assessed, the BVMT-R is a frequently used assessment (Havlik et al., 2020) and has been recommended for use as part of the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS), a neuropsychological battery for Multiple Sclerosis.

 

Responsiveness

Multiple Sclerosis: (de Caneda, 2018)

  • Moderate effect size (η2 = 0.059)
    • Cohen’s d = 0.51 (95% C.I. = - 0.03 to 0.99)

 

Mixed Conditions

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Older Adults and Geriatric Care: (Duff, 2016; n = 290; community-dwelling adults age ≥ 65, mean age = 77.1 (7.5) years, age range = 65-96, female = 80%)

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) for BVMT-R Scores

BVMT-R Responses

SEM

Trial 1

2.86

Trial 2

2.72

Trial 3

2.68

Total Recall

2.68

Delayed Recall

2.63

Hits

1.54

False Positives

1.59

Retention (%)

2.95

RDI (Recognition Discrimination Index)

1.52

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

lder Adults and Geriatric Care: (Duff, 2016)

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC) for BVMT-R Scores

BVMT-R Responses

MDC

Trial 1

7.93

Trial 2

7.54

Trial 3

7.43

Total Recall

7.43

Delayed Recall

7.29

Hits

4.27

False Positives

4.41

Retention (%)

8.18

RDI (Recognition Discrimination Index)

4.21

 

 

 

Normative Data

Older Adults and Geriatric Care:(Kane & Yochim, 2014; n = 29; mean age of 83.2 (2.3) years, age range = 80-88 years; mean of 14.4 (2.6) years of formal education, range = 8-20 years)

 

Normative Data for Adults Age 80-88 on all BVMT-R Scores (n = 29) 

BVMT-R Score

Mean (SD)

    Total recall

15.52 (5.40)

    Delayed recall

6.41 (2.01)

    Percent retained

94.93 (23.84)

   Discrimination index

5.34 (1.26)

 

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Older Adults and Geriatric Care: (Gradwohl et al., 2020; n = 156, mean age = 75.6 (8.0), diagnoses: cognitively healthy (n = 104), mild impairment (n = 36), and dementia (n = 16))

  • Excellent interrater reliability for trials 1-3, total recall, and delayed recall (ICC = 0.93-0.97)

 

Internal Consistency

Older Adults and Geriatric Care: (Gradwohl et al., 2020)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha for Total Recall (immediate) range from 0.84-0.85
  • Adequate: Cronbach’s alpha for Delayed Recall range from 0.78-0.79

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Older Adults and Geriatric Care: (Gradwohl et al., 2020; n = 156)

BVMT-R Total recall (immediate):

  • Adequate correlation with Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (RCFT) test of visual memory (RCFT Delay) (r = 0.48 for both standard and modified BVMT-R)
  • Adequate correlation with Verbal Encoding (r = 0.58 for standard and r = 0.57 for modified BVMT-R)
  • Adequate correlation with Verbal Recall (r = 0.58 for both standard and modified BVMT-R)

BVMT-R Total recall (delayed):

  • Adequate correlation with tests of visual memory (RCFT Delay) (r = 0.49 for both standard and modified BVMT-R)
  • Excellent correlation with Verbal Encoding (r = 0.62 for both standard and modified BVMT-R)
  • Excellent correlation with Verbal Recall (r = 0.69 for standard and r = 0.68 for modified BVMT-R)

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Older Adults and Geriatric Care:(Kane &Yochim, 2014; n = 109)

  • Adequate correlations between BVMT-RTotal and Delayed Recall and similar variables of the California Verbal Learning Test, 2nd Edition (CVLT-II) (r = 0.50 to 0.59)
  • Poor correlation between the BVMT-R Percent Retained score and the CVLT-II Percent Retained score (r = 0.19, p ≤ 0.05)
  • Adequate correlation between BVMT-R Recognition Discrimination Index score and the CVLT-II Recognition Discriminability Index variable (r = 0.48, p < 0.01).

 

Discriminant validity:

Older Adults and Geriatric Care:(Kane &Yochim, 2014; n = 109)

  • Excellent to adequate discriminant validity between the BVMT-R Total Recall score and the D- KEFS letter and category fluency scores (r = 0.26 and r = 0.36, p < 0.01, respectively), as well as between the BVMT-R Delayed Recall score and the D- KEFS letter and category fluency scores (r = 0.19, p < 0.05 and r = 0.37, p < 0.01, respectively).
  • Poor discriminant validity between the BVMT-R Total Recall and Delayed Recall scores and the D-KEFS Trail Makingcondition 4  (r = -0.57 and r = -0.63, p < 0.01, respectively)
  • Excellent discriminant validity between the BVMT-R Percent Retained score and the D-KEFS Trail Makingcondition 4  (r = -0.29, p < 0.01)
  • Adequate discriminant validity between the BVMT-R Discrimination Index and the D-KEFS Trail Making condition 4  (r = -0.35, p < 0.01)
  • Adequate to Excellent discriminant validity between BVMT-R scores and the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery Naming Form I:
    • BVMT-R Total Recall: r = 0.38, p < 0.01
    • BVMT-R Delayed Recall: r = 0.40, p < 0.01
    • BVMT-R Percent Retained: r = 0.16
    • BVMT-R Discrimination Index: r = 0.27, p < 0.01

 

 

Content Validity

Compared with the CLVT-11 the BVMT-R discrimination index score has a strong correlation to the CLVT-11 recognition discrimination index variability (r = 0.48). The correlation is similar to results found between other verbal and visual memory tests (Kane & Yochim, 2014).

 

Face Validity

Not statistically assessed, however researchers note that memory is commonly evaluated in older adults and performance on visual memory measures predicts the future development of dementia. The BVMT-R is used to assess visuospatial memory (Kane & Yochim, 2014).

 

Neurologic Conditions

back to Populations

Construct Validity

Discriminant validity:

Parkinson’s Disease: (Havlik et al., 2020; n = 60 (n = 35 - Parkinson’s Disease w/normal cognition, mean age = 59.43 (8.62) years, male = 60%; n = 25 – Parkinson’s Disease w/mild cognitive impairment, mean age = 62.00 (9.71) years, male = 56%)

  • Significant ability of the BVMT-R to discriminate between subjects with Parkinson’s Disease and normal cognition and subjects with Parkinson’s Disease and mild cognitive impairment (p = 0.038)

 

 

Non-Patient

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

High School and College Athletes: (Register-Mihalik et al., 2012; n = 40 (20 high-school athletes, mean age = 16 (0.86) years and 20 college athletes, mean age = 20 (0.79)); exclusions = individuals age 18)

  • Poor test-retest reliability for total recall (immediate) (ICC = 0.5)
  • Poor test-retest reliability for total recall (delayed) (ICC = 0.12)

 

Bibliography

Benedict, R. H. B., Schretlen, D., Groninger, L., Dobraski, M., & Shpritz, B. (1996). Revision of the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test: Studies of normal performance, reliability, and validity. Psychological Assessment, 8(2), 145-153. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.2.145

Brief visuospatial memory test–revised TM. PAR Inc. (n.d.). https://www.parinc.com/products/BVMT-R

Brief visuospatial memory test–revised TM. Edge Clinical Solutions (n.d.). https://edgeclinicalsolutions.org/product/brief-visuospatial- memory-test-revised-bvmt-r#tab-description

de Caneda, M. A. G., Cuervo, D. L. M., Marinho, N. E., & de Vecino, M. C. A. (2018) The Reliability of the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised in Brazilian multiple sclerosis patients. Dement Neuropsychol, 12(2):205-211. Find it on PubMed.

Donders, J., Forness, K., Anderson, L. B., Gillies, J., & Benedict, R. H. B. (2022). Performance on, and correlates of, the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised after traumatic brain injury. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 44(1), 42–49. Find it on PubMed.

Duff, K. (2016). Demographically corrected normative data for the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised in an elderly sample. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 23(3), 179-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2016.1030019

Gaines, J. J., Gavett, R. A., Lynch, J. J., Bakshi, R., & Benedict, R. H. (2008). New error type and recall consistency indices for the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test - Revised: performance in healthy adults and multiple sclerosis patients. The Clinical neuropsychologist, 22(5), 851–863. Find it on PubMed.

Gradwohl, B., Spencer, R., Spezzaferri, M., Uguru, O., Moncrieffe, K., Nolty, A. & Harrington, M. (2020). Modified Scoring Criteria for the BVMT-R: Does Awarding Half-Point Credit Improve Precision in Detecting Memory Impairment? Poster presented at the International Neuropsychological Society.

Grover, S., Mohapatra, D., Vaitheswaran, S., Mehta, U. M., Venkatasubramanian, G., & Thirthalli, J. (2025). Clinical practice guidelines for assessment and management of cognitive impairment in schizophrenia. Indian J Psychiatry, 67(1):65-83. doi: 10.4103/indianjpsychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_690_24. Epub 2025 Jan 13. Find it on PubMed.

Hammers, D. B., Gradwohl, B. D., Kucera, A., Abildskov, T. J., Wilde, E. A., & Spencer, R. J. (2021). Preliminary Validation of the Learning Ratio for the HVLT–R and BVMT–R in Older Adults. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 34(3): 170-181. doi: 10.1097/WNN.0000000000000277

Havlík, F., Mana, J., Dušek, P., Jech, R., Růžička, E., Kopeček, M., Georgi, H., & Bezdicek, O. (2020). Brief Visuospatial Memory Test- Revised: normative data and clinical utility of learning indices in Parkinson's disease. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 42(10), 1099–1110. Find it on PubMed.

Kane, K. D., & Yochim, B. P. (2014). Construct validity and extended normative data for older adults for the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test, Revised. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias. 29(7):601-606. doi:10.1177/1533317514524812

Langdon, D. W., Amato, M. P., Boringa, J., Brochet, B., Foley, F., Fredrikson, S., Hämäläinen, P., Hartung, H.P., Krupp, L., Penner, I.K., Reder, A.T., & Benedict, R. H. (2012) Recommendations for a Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS). Mult Scler, 18(6):891-8. doi: 10.1177/1352458511431076. Epub 2011 Dec 21. Find it on PubMed.

Register-Mihalik, J.K., Kontos, D. L., Guskiewiczm K. M., Mihalik, J. P., Conder, R., & Shields, W. E. (2012) Age-Related Differences and Reliability on Computerized and Paper-and-Pencil Neurocognitive Assessment Batteries. Journal of Athletic Training. 47(3): 297-305. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-47.3.13

Tam, J. W., & Schmitter-Edgecombe, M. (2013). The role of processing speed in the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test - revised. The Clinical neuropsychologist, 27(6), 962–972. Find it on PubMed.

 

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Aug 29, 2025

Beck Depression Inventory

read more

updated Jul 10, 2025

High-level Mobility Assess...

read more

updated Jul 7, 2025

Inpatient Rehabilitation F...

read more