View : 43 Download: 0

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

Title
Reliability and Validity of the Computerized Revised Token Test: Comparison of Reading and Listening Versions in Persons With and Without Aphasia
Authors
McNeil, Malcolm R.Pratt, Sheila R.Szuminsky, NeilSung, Jee EunFossett, Tepanta R. D.Fassbinder, WiltrudLim, Kyoung Yuel
Ewha Authors
성지은
SCOPUS Author ID
성지은scopus
Issue Date
2015
Journal Title
JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH
ISSN
1092-4388JCR Link

1558-9102JCR Link
Citation
JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 311 - 324
Publisher
AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
Indexed
SCIE; SSCI; SCOPUS WOS
Document Type
Article
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 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.
DOI
10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-13-0030
Appears in Collections:
사범대학 > 언어병리학과 > Journal papers
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

BROWSE