TY - JOUR
T1 - Reliability and validity of the computerized revised token test
T2 - Comparison of reading and listening versions in persons with and without aphasia
AU - McNeil, Malcolm R.
AU - Pratt, Sheila R.
AU - Szuminsky, Neil
AU - Sung, Jee Eun
AU - Fossett, Tepanta R.D.
AU - Fassbinder, Wiltrud
AU - Lim, Kyoung Yuel
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
PY - 2015/4/1
Y1 - 2015/4/1
N2 - 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) fullsentence presentation, (b) self-paced word-by-word fullsentence 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 = .89 to r = .97. Correlations between the listening and reading versions ranged from r = .79 to r = .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.
AB - 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) fullsentence presentation, (b) self-paced word-by-word fullsentence 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 = .89 to r = .97. Correlations between the listening and reading versions ranged from r = .79 to r = .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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84927590816&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-13-0030
DO - 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-13-0030
M3 - Article
C2 - 25569547
AN - SCOPUS:84927590816
SN - 1092-4388
VL - 58
SP - 311
EP - 324
JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
IS - 2
ER -