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=.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.
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=.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.
Authors: Jennifer E Mack; Andrew Zu-Sern Wei; Stephanie Gutierrez; Cynthia K Thompson Journal: J Neurolinguistics Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Joaquín A Ibáñez-Alfonso; Rosalba Company-Córdoba; Claudia García de la Cadena; Antonio Sianes; Ian Craig Simpson Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2021-01-29
Authors: Hanane El Hachioui; Evy G Visch-Brink; Lonneke M L de Lau; Mieke W M E van de Sandt-Koenderman; Femke Nouwens; Peter J Koudstaal; Diederik W J Dippel Journal: J Neurol Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 4.849