Background: The Computerized Revised Token Test (CRTT) was recently developed to improve the reliability and accessibility of the Revised Token Test (RTT). The CRTT was standardized using a touchscreen monitor; however, for various reasons, clinicians may need to use a mouse for test administration. In general, research suggests that younger individuals who are familiar with computers are more accurate and prefer to use a mouse. However, this may not be the case for brain-damaged persons with physical limitations. Thus, comparable performance when different input devices are used cannot be assumed.
Aims: The purpose was to investigate similarities and differences between participants performance on subtest and overall scores obtained from touchscreen versus mouse on the CRTT. The study also examined the test-retest reliability of the CRTT when different input devices were used and user preference.
Methods & Procedures: Forty young, healthy adults participated in this study. All participants were native English speakers, and had no history of a speech, language, or learning disability. Participants passed a language screening, the Story Retell Procedure (SRP) (McNeil, Doyle, Park, Fossett, & Brodsky, 2002). Each participant took the CRTT with both modes of access, a mouse and a touchscreen, with their non-dominant hand. One-half (20) of the participants were administered both versions of the CRTT a second time. Additionally, all participants answered a preference questionnaire.
Outcomes & Results: The results revealed that touchscreen overall scores were significantly higher than mouse scores. There were also significant differences on six of the ten subtests. The test-retest reliability for both versions was equivalent and not significantly different. The results indicated a significant preference for the touchscreen.
Conclusions: While the touchscreen access method produced significantly higher subtest and overall CRTT scores than the mouse access method, along with equivalent reliability performance in this young normal participant population, it is not clear that it should be used as the preferred access method. If successful algorithms for equating the previously established psychometric data and normative sample derived from the touchscreen access method can be generated, then there will be no need to re-standardize the test.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:PITT/oai:PITTETD:etd-07222008-151505 |
| Date | 08 September 2008 |
| Creators | Heilman, Laura E. |
| Contributors | Sheila R. Pratt, Malcolm R. McNeil, Katharine J. Hill |
| Publisher | University of Pittsburgh |
| Source Sets | University of Pittsburgh |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-07222008-151505/ |
| Rights | unrestricted, I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached hereto a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to University of Pittsburgh or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds