Reliability and validity of the computerized revised token test: Comparison of reading and listening versions in persons with and without aphasia

Malcolm R. McNeil, Sheila R. Pratt, Neil Szuminsky, Jee Eun Sung, Tepanta R.D. Fossett, Wiltrud Fassbinder, Kyoung Yuel Lim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

22 Scopus citations

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) 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)311-324
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume58
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Apr 2015

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Reliability and validity of the computerized revised token test: Comparison of reading and listening versions in persons with and without aphasia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this