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}
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.
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.