An Item Response Theory analysis of the Revised Token Test in normally developing native Spanish speaking children

  1. Quintana Aparicio, María
  2. Salinas González, Isabel
  3. Gallardo, Geisa
  4. McNeil, Malcolm R.
Aldizkaria:
Anuario de psicología

ISSN: 0066-5126

Argitalpen urtea: 2015

Alea: 45

Zenbakia: 2

Orrialdeak: 147-160

Mota: Artikulua

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Beste argitalpen batzuk: Anuario de psicología

Laburpena

Revised Token Test (RTT) is a proven sensitivity test for the evaluation of language comprehension. There is little evidence regarding the psychometric properties of the same in children. Similarly, many facts about the facilities of the item response theory (IRT) will not contribute to study these properties in neuropsychological tests and even less when applied to these populations.Thus, the objectives were to assess the psychometric properties of the RTT test population of children with normal development and also show the utility of the IRT models type of neuropsychological assessments. The sample consisted of a total of 250 healthy spanish-speaking children from 4 to 12 years old living in the city of Guadalajara (Mexico). This sample was divided into two groups,the older younger children (4-9 years) and (10 to 12 years). The results suggest high sensitivity of the RTT sample at different ages and also an excellent discriminant validity in both groups. In addition, the test allowed to properly classify different levels of skills related to language and other latent traits.

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Asún, R., & Zúñiga, C. (2008). Ventajas de los Modelos Politómicos de Teoría de Respuesta al Ítem en la Medición de Actitudes Sociales. El Análisis de un Caso. Psykhe, 17, 103-115.
  • De Renzi, A., & Vignolo, L. (1962). Token Test: A sensitive test to detect receptive disturbances in aphasics. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 85, 665-678.
  • Eberwein, C., Pratt, S., McNeil, M., Szuminsky, N., & Doyle, P. (2007). Auditory performance characteristics of the computerized Revised Token Test (CRTT). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 865-877.
  • Embretson, S.E., & Reise, S.P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologist. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
  • Franzen, M.D. (2000). Reliability and Validity in Neuropsychological Assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
  • Franzen, M.D. (2011). Classical Test Theory. In J. S. Kreutzer, J. De Luca, & B. Caplan (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology (pp 586-587). New York: Springer.
  • Gallardo, G., Guàrdia, J., Villaseñor, T., & McNeil, M. (2011). Psychometric Data for the Revised Token Test in Normally Developing Mexican Children Ages 4-12 Years. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 26, 225-34.
  • García-Cueto, E. (1997). La Teoría de Respuesta al Ítem. In G. Buela-Casal & C. Sierra (Eds.), Manual de Evaluación Psicológica. Fundamentos, técnicas y aplicaciones (pp. 205-219). Madrid: Siglo XXI.
  • García-Cueto, E., & Fidalgo, A.M. (2005). Análisis de los ítems. In J. Muñiz, A.M. Fidalgo, E. García-Cueto, R. Martínez & R. Moreno (Eds.), Análisis de los ítems (pp. 53-131). Madrid: Editorial La Muralla.
  • Gernsbacher, M. A., & Kaschak, M. P. (2006).Language comprehension. Encyclopedia of cognitive science. Washington: John Wiley y Sons, Ltd.
  • Gómez-Velázquez, F.R., González-Garrido, A.A., Zarabozo, D., & Amano, M. (2010). La velocidad de denominación de letras. El mejor predictor temprano del desarrollo lector en español. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 15, 823-847.
  • Hambleton, R.K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H.J. (1991). Fundamentals of the item response theory. Beverly Hills: SAGE.
  • Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 193-225). New York: Academic Press.
  • Hays, R.D., Morales, L.S., & Reise, S. (2000). Item Response Theory and Health Outcomes Measurement in the 21st Century. Medical Care, 38, 28-42.
  • Hula, W.D., Doyle, P.J., McNeil, M.R., & Mikiloc, J.M. (2006). Rasch Modeling of Revised Token Test Performance: Validity and Sensitivity to Change. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 27-46.
  • Lesser, R. (1976). Verbal and non-verbal memory components in the Token Test. Neuropsychologia, 14, 79-85.
  • Little, R.J., Cohen, M.L., Dickersin, K., Emerson, S.S., Farrar, J.T., Neaton, J.D., Stern, H. (2012). The design and conduct of clinical trials to limit missing data. Statistics in Medicine, 31(28), 3433-3443.
  • McNeil, M. R., Brauer, D., & Pratt, S. (1990). A test of auditory language processing regression: Adult aphasia versus normal children ages 5-13 years. Australian Journal of Human Communication Disorders, 18, 21-39.
  • McNeil, M., & Prescott, T. (1978). Revised Token Test. Austin, Texas: PRO-ED, Inc.
  • Muñiz, J. (1997). Introducción a la Teoría de Respuesta a los Ítems. Madrid: Ediciones Pirámide.
  • Park, G., McNeil, M., & Tompkins, C. (2000). Reliability of the Five-Item Revised Token Test for individuals with aphasia. Aphasiology, 14, 527-535.
  • Peña-Casanova, J., Guàrdia-Olmos, J., Jarne-Esparcia, A., & Böhm, P. (2005). Test Barcelona abreviado: desarrollo, puntuación global y validación. In J. Peña-Casanova (Ed.), Normalidad, semiología y patología neuropsicológica. Programa Integrado de Exploración Neuropsicológica. Test Barcelona Revisado (2nd ed.) (pp. 33-48). Barcelona: Masson.
  • Quintana, M., Peña-Casanova, J., Sánchez-Benavides, G., Langohr, K., Manero, R. M., Aguilar, M., Blesa, R. (2011). Spanish Multicenter Normative Studies (Neuronorma Project): Norms for the abbreviated Barcelona Test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 26, 144-157.
  • R Development Core Team (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved November 21, 2011, from http://www.R-project.org.
  • Reise, S.P., & Henson, J.M. (2003). A discussion of Modern versus Traditional Psychometrics As Applied to Personality Assessment Scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 93-103.
  • Rizopoulos, D. (2006). Ltm: An R Package for Latent Variable Modeling and Item Response Theory Analyses. Journal of Statistical Software, 17, 1-25.
  • Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika monograph supplement.
  • Schafer, J.L., & Graham, J.W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177.
  • Schapira, M.M., Walker, C.M., & Sedivy, S.K. (2009). Evaluating existing measures of health numeracy using item response theory. Patient Education and Counseling, 75, 308-314.
  • Schwartz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461-464.
  • Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary (3rd ed.) New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Wassenberg, R., Hurks, P.P., Hendriksen, J.G., Feron, F.J., Meijs, C.J.C., Vles, J.S.H., & Jolles, J. (2008). Age-related improvement in complex language comprehension: Results of a crosssectional study with 361 children aged 5 to 15. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 30, 435-448.
  • Wiener, D.A., Connor, L.T., & Obler, L.K. (2004). Inhibition and auditory comprehension in Wernicke's aphasia. Aphasiology, 18, 599-609.
  • Willmes, K. (1981). A new look at the token test using probabilistic test models. Neuropsychologia, 19 (5), 631-645.
Datuen iturria: Dialnet