Reliability and Validity of the Computerized Revised Token Test: Comparison of Reading and Listening Versions in Persons with and without Aphasia

Autor/inn/en	McNeil, Malcolm R.; Pratt, Sheila R.; Szuminsky, Neil; Sung, Jee Eun; Fossett, Tepanta R. D.; Fassbinder, Wiltrud; Lim, Kyoung Yuel
Titel	Reliability and Validity of the Computerized Revised Token Test: Comparison of Reading and Listening Versions in Persons with and without Aphasia
Quelle	In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58 (2015) 2, S.311-324 (14 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1092-4388
DOI	10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-13-0030
Schlagwörter	Aphasia; Test Validity; Test Reliability; Scores; Comparative Analysis; Sentences; Stimuli; Listening; Reading; Correlation; Severity (of Disability); Computer Assisted Testing + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Expressive Aphasie; Aphasie; Testvalidität; Testreliabilität; Sentence analysis; Satzanalyse; Anreizsystem; Hörvorgang; Zuhören; Leseprozess; Lesen; Korrelation; Schweregrad
Abstract	Purpose: This study assessed the reliability and validity of intermodality associations and differences in persons with aphasia (PWA) and healthy controls (HC) on a computerized listening and 3 reading versions of the Revised Token Test (RTT; McNeil & Prescott, 1978). Method: Thirty PWA and 30 HC completed the test versions, including a complete replication. Reading versions varied according to stimulus presentation method: (a) full-sentence presentation, (b) self-paced word-by-word full-sentence construction, and (c) self-paced word-by-word presentation with each word removed with the onset of the next word. Participants also received tests of aphasia and reading severity. Results: The listening version produced higher overall mean scores than each of the reading versions. Differences were small and within 1 standard error of measurement of each version. Overall score test-retest reliability among versions for PWA ranged from r = 0.89 to r = 0.97. Correlations between the listening and reading versions ranged from r = 0.79 to r = 0.85. All versions correlated highly with aphasia and reading severity. Correlations were generally low for the HC due to restricted variability. Factor analysis yielded a 2-factor solution for PWA and a single-factor for HC. Conclusions: Intermodality differences were small, and all 4 versions were reliable, concurrently valid, and sensitive to similar linguistic processing difficulties in PWA. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). 10801 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Tel: 800-638-8255; Fax: 301-571-0457; e-mail: subscribe@asha.org; Web site: http://jslhr.asha.org
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01