HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hula, W. Articles by Mikolic, J. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hula, W. Articles by Mikolic, J. M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Rasch Modeling of Revised Token Test Performance: Validity and Sensitivity to Change

Joseph M. Mikolic
VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System

Contact author: William Hula, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, 7180 Highland Drive, 132A-H Pittsburgh, PA 15206. Email: william.hula{at}med.va.gov

The purpose of this research was to examine the validity of the 55-item Revised Token Test (RTT) and to compare traditional and Rasch-based scores in their ability to detect group differences and change over time. The 55-item RTT was administered to108 left- and right-hemisphere stroke survivors, and the data were submitted to Rasch analysis. Traditional and Rasch-based scores for a subsample of 60 stroke survivors were submitted to analyses of variance with group (left hemisphere with aphasia vs. right hemisphere) and time post onset (3 vs. 6 months post onset) as factors. The 2 scoring methods were compared using an index of relative precision. Forty-eight items demonstrated acceptable model fit. Misfitting items came primarily from Subtest IX. The Rasch model accounted for 71% of the variance in the responses to the remaining items. Intersubtest patterns of item difficulty were well predicted by item content, but unexpected within-subtest differences were found. Both traditional and Rasch person scores demonstrated significant group differences, but only the latter demonstrated statistically significant change over time. Analysis of relative precision, however, failed to confirm a significant difference between the 2 methods. The findings generally support the RTT's validity, but a minority of items appears to respond to a different construct. Also, within-subtest differences in item difficulty suggest the need for further examination of variability in impaired language performance. Finally, the results suggest an equivocal advantage for Rasch scores in detecting change over time.

KEY WORDS: assessment, aphasia, auditory comprehension, spoken language comprehension assessment, standardized assessment

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. R. Baylor, K. M. Yorkston, T. L. Eadie, R. M. Miller, and D. Amtmann Developing the Communicative Participation Item Bank: Rasch Analysis Results From a Spasmodic Dysphonia Sample J Speech Lang Hear Res, October 1, 2009; 52(5): 1302 - 1320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. H. Milman, A. Holland, A. W. Kaszniak, J. D'Agostino, M. Garrett, and S. Rapcsak Initial Validity and Reliability of the SCCAN: Using Tailored Testing to Assess Adult Cognition and Communication J Speech Lang Hear Res, February 1, 2008; 51(1): 49 - 69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]