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

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.