Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025
Development, Reliability, and Concurrent Validity of the American Sign Language Version of the Computerized Revised Token Test.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Goldberg Emily B, Pratt Sheila R, McNeil Malcolm R, Szuminsky Neil, DeHaan Kenneth, Zhen Leslie Q
Аннотация
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.
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.