开发,可靠性,并发有效性的美国手语版本的计算机修订令牌测试。

IF 2.2 2区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research Pub Date : 2025-02-04 Epub Date: 2025-01-24 DOI:10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00207
Emily B Goldberg, Sheila R Pratt, Malcolm R McNeil, Neil Szuminsky, Kenneth DeHaan, Leslie Q Zhen
{"title":"开发,可靠性,并发有效性的美国手语版本的计算机修订令牌测试。","authors":"Emily B Goldberg, Sheila R Pratt, Malcolm R McNeil, Neil Szuminsky, Kenneth DeHaan, Leslie Q Zhen","doi":"10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The present study assessed the test-retest reliability of the American Sign Language (ASL) version of the Computerized Revised Token Test (CRTT-ASL) and compared the differences and similarities between ASL and English reading by Deaf and hearing users of ASL.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Creation of the CRTT-ASL involved filming, editing, and validating CRTT instructions, sentence commands, and scoring. Deaf proficient (DP), hearing nonproficient (HNP), and hearing proficient sign language users completed the CRTT-ASL and the English self-paced, word-by-word reading CRTT (CRTT-Reading-Word Fade [CRTT-R-wf]). Both tests were administered twice, 7-14 days apart, to assess test-retest reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Preliminary findings suggested that the CRTT-ASL was acceptably reliable for the DP group across CRTT metrics. All groups showed adequate test-retest reliability for the CRTT-R-wf. The DP group scored comparably across the two language conditions, and on average, the DP group produced significantly lower scores than the two hearing groups on the CRTT-R-wf. The hearing groups did not differ significantly from each other on the CRTT-R-wf.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CRTT-ASL may be reliable for assessing Deaf ASL users, the target population for its use. These findings serve as preliminary support for clinical and research use of the novel CRTT-ASL to assess language processing in Deaf individuals who use ASL. The CRTT-ASL may be sensitive to lexical processing inefficiencies in the Deaf signing population.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28216259.</p>","PeriodicalId":51254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","volume":" ","pages":"665-684"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development, Reliability, and Concurrent Validity of the American Sign Language Version of the Computerized Revised Token Test.\",\"authors\":\"Emily B Goldberg, Sheila R Pratt, Malcolm R McNeil, Neil Szuminsky, Kenneth DeHaan, Leslie Q Zhen\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The present study assessed the test-retest reliability of the American Sign Language (ASL) version of the Computerized Revised Token Test (CRTT-ASL) and compared the differences and similarities between ASL and English reading by Deaf and hearing users of ASL.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Creation of the CRTT-ASL involved filming, editing, and validating CRTT instructions, sentence commands, and scoring. Deaf proficient (DP), hearing nonproficient (HNP), and hearing proficient sign language users completed the CRTT-ASL and the English self-paced, word-by-word reading CRTT (CRTT-Reading-Word Fade [CRTT-R-wf]). Both tests were administered twice, 7-14 days apart, to assess test-retest reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Preliminary findings suggested that the CRTT-ASL was acceptably reliable for the DP group across CRTT metrics. All groups showed adequate test-retest reliability for the CRTT-R-wf. The DP group scored comparably across the two language conditions, and on average, the DP group produced significantly lower scores than the two hearing groups on the CRTT-R-wf. The hearing groups did not differ significantly from each other on the CRTT-R-wf.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CRTT-ASL may be reliable for assessing Deaf ASL users, the target population for its use. These findings serve as preliminary support for clinical and research use of the novel CRTT-ASL to assess language processing in Deaf individuals who use ASL. The CRTT-ASL may be sensitive to lexical processing inefficiencies in the Deaf signing population.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28216259.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"665-684\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00207\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00207","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究评估了美国手语(ASL)版计算机修正标记测试(CRTT-ASL)的重测信度,并比较了聋人和听力健全的美国手语使用者的美国手语与英语阅读的异同。方法:CRTT- asl的创建包括拍摄、编辑、验证CRTT指令、句子命令和评分。聋人熟练(DP)、听力非熟练(HNP)和听力熟练的手语使用者分别完成了CRTT- asl和英语自定节奏逐字阅读CRTT (CRTT- reading -word Fade [CRTT- r -wf])。两项测试均进行两次,间隔7-14天,以评估重测信度。结果:初步研究结果表明,CRTT- asl在DP组的CRTT指标中是可接受的可靠的。所有组的CRTT-R-wf均显示足够的重测信度。DP组在两种语言条件下的得分相当,平均而言,DP组在CRTT-R-wf上的得分明显低于两个听力组。听力组在CRTT-R-wf上没有显著差异。结论:CRTT-ASL量表可用于评估聋人ASL使用者,即其使用的目标人群。这些发现为临床和研究使用新的CRTT-ASL来评估使用ASL的聋人的语言处理提供了初步支持。CRTT-ASL可能对聋人手语群体的词汇加工效率低下敏感。补充资料:https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28216259。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Development, Reliability, and Concurrent Validity of the American Sign Language Version of the Computerized Revised Token Test.

Purpose: The present study assessed the test-retest reliability of the American Sign Language (ASL) version of the Computerized Revised Token Test (CRTT-ASL) and compared the differences and similarities between ASL and English reading by Deaf and hearing users of ASL.

Method: Creation of the CRTT-ASL involved filming, editing, and validating CRTT instructions, sentence commands, and scoring. Deaf proficient (DP), hearing nonproficient (HNP), and hearing proficient sign language users completed the CRTT-ASL and the English self-paced, word-by-word reading CRTT (CRTT-Reading-Word Fade [CRTT-R-wf]). Both tests were administered twice, 7-14 days apart, to assess test-retest reliability.

Results: Preliminary findings suggested that the CRTT-ASL was acceptably reliable for the DP group across CRTT metrics. All groups showed adequate test-retest reliability for the CRTT-R-wf. The DP group scored comparably across the two language conditions, and on average, the DP group produced significantly lower scores than the two hearing groups on the CRTT-R-wf. The hearing groups did not differ significantly from each other on the CRTT-R-wf.

Conclusions: The CRTT-ASL may be reliable for assessing Deaf ASL users, the target population for its use. These findings serve as preliminary support for clinical and research use of the novel CRTT-ASL to assess language processing in Deaf individuals who use ASL. The CRTT-ASL may be sensitive to lexical processing inefficiencies in the Deaf signing population.

Supplemental material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28216259.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research
Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
19.20%
发文量
538
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Mission: JSLHR publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on the normal and disordered processes in speech, language, hearing, and related areas such as cognition, oral-motor function, and swallowing. The journal is an international outlet for both basic research on communication processes and clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, and management of communication disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. JSLHR seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of communication sciences and disorders, including speech production and perception; anatomy and physiology of speech and voice; genetics, biomechanics, and other basic sciences pertaining to human communication; mastication and swallowing; speech disorders; voice disorders; development of speech, language, or hearing in children; normal language processes; language disorders; disorders of hearing and balance; psychoacoustics; and anatomy and physiology of hearing.
期刊最新文献
Progress Toward Estimating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Intelligibility: A Crowdsourced Perceptual Experiment. The Benefits of Robustness in Measures of Spatiotemporal Stability: An Investigation in Childhood Apraxia of Speech. Cognitive Predictors of Perception and Adaption to Dysarthric Speech in Older Adults. Conflicting Evidence for a Motor Timing Theory of Stuttering: Choral Speech Changes the Rhythm of Both Neurotypical and Stuttering Talkers, but in Opposite Directions. Disease-Specific Speech Movement Characteristics of the Tongue and Jaw.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1