Reliability and validity of the computerized Revised Token Test: comparison of reading and listening versions in persons with and without aphasia.

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.