We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts of the system and expound.
123/A, Miranda City Likaoli Prikano, Dope United States
+0989 7876 9865 9
info@crtt.com
Computerized Revised Token Test Special Tests
GOAL: Data from Task 1 is used to estimate basic motor-related speed across ages, hands, and clinical populations.
The purpose of this task is to provide a nonlinguistic-specific index of fundamental, repetitive, alternate movement speed using a single muscle group (as opposed to AMR measures of speech that use respiratory, velopharyngeal, lingual and labial muscle groups). Finger taping has been used frequently and meaningfully as a proxy for general movement speed associated with disease and aging. Because the CRTT requires finger taping speed and control and could influence the final calculation of scores and times measured by the CRTT language processing tasks, this task can be used as a statistical or conceptual covariate for interpreting CRTT test performance.
GOAL: This task is intended to measure the time required for detecting and responding to one of thirty different tokens (squares and circles of five colors) with a simple mouse button press. Simple reaction time is frequently classified as a stimulus detection task (Luce, 1986). However, simple RT is the combination of taping speed and stimulus detection. As such, this speeded response in this RT task can be separated conceptually (and computationally) from pure stimulus detection (see derived measures below). Task stimuli in the form of written words in the case of the CRTT-R tasks and auditory stimuli in the case of the CRTT-L tasks, as well as the 10 or 20 colored circles and squares on the screen used for response selection and enactment for the prepositional phrases in subtest V through VIII, require responses that are timed. Although speeded responses are not instructed for the CRTT-L or CRTT-R tasks, response times are measured for the CRTT-R-wf and figure into the calculations for scores of 13 (delays), item, command, and overall scores. There is an approximately 100+ msec. cost for this task compared to the inter-tap interval. This time difference is considered as an estimate of the stimulus detection time (see derived measures below), although it is recognized that although unlikely, response planning and execution requirements could be different from those involved in the AMR taping task.
GOAL: This task adds the requirement of a simple skilled movement to the previous task. It is intended to measure movement time plus reaction time. It evaluates the speed at which participants detected and then motorically move the mouse cursor and click on a token displayed on the screen. It reflects one of the primary task requirements of the enactment required in the Computerized Revised Token Test.
GOAL: This task is the first of the three choice reaction time tasks that require the participant to cognitively map stimulus items to finger response selections. The primary purpose of this task is to assess (primarily) response inhibition and secondarily, goal maintenance (assessed with hits and misses). In this task, the participant is set to respond to the next stimulus as quickly as possible; requiring inhibition of response if the “NoGo” stimulus appears. Since a premium is placed on speed of response, and the perceptual requirements of the stimuli for this task are not demanding (as is required for the CRTT-R-wf-Stroop color-word task) the attentional bottleneck is placed primarily on response inhibition. Discussed below under “derived” measures, another relevant measure for evaluating the goals of this task, is the subtraction of the correct RTs for Task 4 from the simple RTs from task 2. This subtraction reflects the costs associated with goal maintenance (remembering and responding only to the target stimulus) and stimulus inhibition. In addition to the detection of goal maintenance (sustained attention) problems, the number of false positives may also reflect the difficulty suppressing the irrelevant stimulus.
GOAL: This task is the second of the three choice reaction time tasks that require the participant to cognitively map stimulus items to finger response selections. In this choice reaction time task, like task 4, one token (circle or square) is randomly presented on the screen at a time. However, unlike task 4, participants are required to respond to each stimulus that is mapped to a specific, predetermined, effector (finger/mouse response button). While CRTT task demands are minimal for stimulus/response mapping, response selection in general can be a bottleneck in the processing stream and can be impacted by neurological insult.
GOAL: This task provides a measure of conflict resolution through challenges of stimulus/response sequence mapping with both congruent (circle on left and left button response) and incongruent (square on left and right button response) trials. This task adds complexity to the response mapping demands from those involved in task 5. Two responses are always required hence no suppression effects (as in Task 4) are directly targeted and evaluated in this task. Congruency effects can be evaluated by subtracting the RT to correct responses for incongruent trials compared to the correct responses for the congruent trials. The effects of adding the two stimuli/two response requirements plus the sequencing requirement (overall increased cognitive load) to the single stimulus two-response task can be evaluated by subtracting the RTs for the correct responses in the congruent trials from the RTs for correct trials in Task 5.
–American Sign Language (ASL) [Goldberg, Pratt & McNeil, Szuminsky]
–ASL-Stroop [Goldberg, Pratt & McNeil, Szuminsky]
–CRTT-L-Cantonese [McNeil, Pratt, Szuminsky, Bakhtiar, Wong]
–CRTT-R-wf-Cantonese [McNeil, Pratt, Szuminsky, Bakhtiar, Wong]
–CRTT-SOP-Cantonese [McNeil, Pratt, Szuminsky, Bakhtiar, Wong]
–CRTT-L-English [McNeil, Pratt, Szuminsky]
–CRTT-R-wf-English [McNeil, Pratt, Szuminsky]
–CRTT-R-wf-Stroop-English [McNeil, Pratt, Szuminsky]
–CRTT-R-wf-Subject/Object-English [McNeil, Pratt, Szuminsky]
–CRTT-R-wf-Garden Path-English [Fassbinder, McNeil, Pratt, Szuminsky]
–CRTT-SOP-English (Speed Of Processing) [McNeil, Pratt, Szuminsky]
1. Finger Tapping speed;
2. Simple Reaction Time;
3. RT + Movement;
4.Go/NoGo;
5. Simple Response Mapping;
6. Sequential Response Mapping
–CRTT-L-Mandarin-Taiwanese [McNeil, Pratt, Szuminsky, Chen]
–CRTT-R-wf-Mandarin-Taiwanese [McNeil, Pratt, Szuminsky, Chen]
Farsi (Persian)
French
German
Greek
Hebrew
Hindi
Korean
Lebanese
Norwegian
Portuguese
Russian
*Spanish
**Turkish
*Gallardo, G.G., Guardia, J.G., Villasenor, T.V. & McNeil, M.R. Psychometric data for the Revised Token Test in normally developing Mexican children ages 4-12 years. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (Advance Online Access published March 25, 2011)
*Quintana, M., Gonzalez, I.S., Gallardo, G. & McNeil, M.R. “An Item Response Theory Analysis of the Revised Token Test in Normally Developing Native Spanish Speaking Children”. Anuario de Psicologia/The UB Journal of Psychology. 45, 2, 147-160, 2015.
**Turkyilmaz, D. & Belgin, E. Reliability, validity, and adaptation of Computerized Revised Token Test in Normal Subjects. International Advances in Otolaryngology. 8, 1, 103-112, 2012.
-All Published and tests currently in-development can be improved with additional data collaboration. Individuals interested in collaboration on these or development of other language versions are encouraged to contact Dr. McNeil through this website or at malcolmrmcneil@gmail.com .
–Adult Healthy Control (N=42):
Mean Score 13.70; Range 12.43-14.62 (SD. = .51): [Mean – Efficiency= 1.19]
**Cutoff Score = 13.75; ***SEM = .19
Mean Efficiency Score 12.51; Range 11.32-13.99 (SD. = .65)
Cutoff Score = 12.97
–Adult With Aphasia (N=32):
Mean Score 11.48; Range 6.24-13.75 (SD. = 1.71):
[Mean – Efficiency= 1.43] SEM = .29
Mean Efficiency Score 10.05; Range 5.20-12.87 (SD. = 1.81)
–Adult Healthy Control (N=42):
Mean Score 13.76; Range 12.38-14.89 (SD. = .65): [Mean – Efficiency= 1.21]
Cutoff Score = 13.12; SEM = .21
Mean Efficiency Score 12.55; Range 10.29-14.16 (SD. = .92)
Cutoff Score = 12.06
–Adult With Aphasia (N=32):
Mean Score 11.60; Range 8.36-13.10 (SD. = 1.22):
[Mean – Efficiency= 1.61] SEM = .60
Mean Efficiency Score 9.99; Range 4.92-12.05 (SD. = 1.57)
-Data collection in progress.
–Adult Healthy Control (N=34): Age 34-64
Mean Score 14.10; Range 11.84-14.67; (SD. = 0.71):
*Cutoff Score =13.91; ***SEM = 0.20
Mean Efficiency Score: 12.35; Range: 9.48-13.39; (SD. = 0.87);
[Mean – Efficiency=1.75]
–Adult With Aphasia (N=103) Age 31-85:
Mean Score: 11.83; Range: 7.79-13.77; (SD.=1.21):
SEM = 0.31
Mean Efficiency Score: 9.06; Range: 4.27-11.85; (SD. =1.50);
[Mean – Efficiency=2.77]
–*Adult Healthy Control (N=37) Age 34-64:
Mean Score:14.34; Range: 12.43-14.89; (SD. = 0.49):
*Cutoff Score =13.25; SEM = 0.20
Mean Efficiency Score: 12.85; Range: 10.55-13.80; (SD. = 0.84);
[Mean – Efficiency=1.49]
–Adult With Aphasia (N=107) Age 31-85:
Mean Score:12.28; Range: 8.57-14.42; (SD.=1.42): (SD.=1.42):
SEM = 024
Mean Efficiency Score: 9.91; Range: 6.38-13.16; (SD. =1.64);
[Mean – Efficiency=2.37]
*Bryne, A. “Effects of age and hand preference on the CRTT-R-Word Fade” Master’s Thesis, University of Pittsburgh. 2017.
*Hendricks, E. “Reaction time performance in healthy adults as an effect of age and hand preference on the CRTT-RT Battery.” Master’s Thesis, 2017; University of Pittsburgh.
*Brumbaugh, R.L. “Effects of aging and hand use on language comprehension using the computerized revised token test- reading-word fade and speed of processing battery”. B. Phil Thesis, University of Pittsburgh. 2019.
**Cutoff Score derived from 2SD below the control subject’s mean (McNeil, M.R., Pratt, S.R., Szuminsky, N., Sung, J.E., Fossett, T.R.D., Fassbinder, W. & Lim, K.Y. (2015). Reliability and Validity of the Computerized Revised Token Test: Comparison of Reading and Listening Versions in Persons With and Without Aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 1-14.
*** SEM = Standard Error of Measurement
Data are in collection.
Data are in collection.
–*Adult Healthy Control (N=19): Age Mean: 50.58; Range: 41-68
Mean Score 13.54; (SD. = 0.59)
Mean Efficiency Score: 11.29; (SD. = 1.06);
[Mean – Efficiency=2.25]
–Adult With Aphasia (N=11) Age Mean: 50.45; Range: 40-80
Mean Score: 10.23; (SD. =0.89):
Mean Efficiency Score: 7.19; (SD. =1.19);
[Mean – Efficiency=3.04]
Chen, S-H.K. “Translating and validating a Mandarin Chinese version of the Computerized Revised Token Test” Master’s Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 2010.
Chen, S-H. K., Chen, M-C., Heilman, L. & McNeil, M.R. “Comparison of Access Modes Between English & Mandarin Speakers on the Computerized Revised Token Test.” Paper presented to the Annual Convention of the American Speech, Language, Hearing Association, Chicago, Nov. 2013.
Chen, S-H.K., McNeil, M.R., Hill, K., and Pratt, R.R. Translating and validating a Mandarin Chinese version of the Computerized Revised Token Test. Speech, Language and Hearing. 16, 1, 2013.
“The Computerized Revised Token Test Battery is a valid and reliable set of language (available in multiple languages), executive function, and non-language speed of processing tasks that capitalize on the reliability of computer administration and scoring, using a sensitive, multidimensional scoring system with millisecond timing of responses. The test is appropriate for pediatric through geriatric age ranges. Participant/patient performance is reported with individual part-of-speech, item, subtest and overall scores and graphed data. Normative data are provided for age-appropriate healthy control, aphasic, and deaf (for the American Sign Language battery) populations. The summarized and graphed test performance can be exported to pdf and Excel files for clinical and research purposes.
As the test is computer administered and scored, it can be used by individuals from numerous professions for clinical and research purposes.
When the test is used in research for descriptive purposes, it is recommended that the 3 or 5 item test is adequate. When the test is used as a primary dependent measure the 5 or 10 item test is recommended.
When the test is used for clinical purposes to detect deficits, quantify comprehension severity impairment or as a measure of change, any of the three test lengths provides a valid and reliable metric.”
Eberwein C.A., Pratt S.R., McNeil M.R., Fossett T.R.D., Szuminsky N.J., Doyle P.J. 2007. Auditory performance characteristics of the Computerized Revised Token Test (CRTT). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4): 865–877.
Heilman L.E. 2008. An Examination of the Effects of Mode of Access on the Computerized Revised Token Test. (Master’s thesis, University of Pittsburgh). Available from: http://etd. library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-07222008-151505/
McNeil M.R., Brauer D., Pratt S.R. 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.R., Kim A., Sung J.E., Pratt S.R., Szuminsky N., Doyle, P.J. 2009. Comparison of left versus right hand, and mouse versus touchscreen access methods on the Computerized Revised Token Test. Paper presented at the 39th Clinical Aphasiology Conference, Keystone, CO. Abstract available from: http://aphasiology.pitt.edu/archive/00002085/.
McNeil M.R., Prescott T.E. 1978. Revised Token Test: Pro Ed. Austin, Tx.
Odell, K. “Comparisons between auditory and reading comprehension in Aphasic Adults.” Master’s Thesis, University of Wisconsin – Madison. 1983.
Sung, J.E., McNeil, M.R., Pratt, S.R., Dickey, M.W., Hula, W.D., Szuminsky, N.J. & Doyle, P.J.2009. ‘Verbal working memory and its relationship to sentence-level reading and listening comprehension in persons with aphasia’, Aphasiology,2 3:7,1040-1052. DOI: 10.1080/02687030802592884
Sung, J.E., McNeil, M.R., Pratt, S.R. Working Memory and its relation to comprehension in native and nonnative speakers. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing, 13, 1, 41-50, 2010.
Sung, J.E. , McNeil, M. R. , Pratt, S.R. , Dickey, M.W. , Fassbinder, W., Szuminsky, N.J., Kim, A. & Doyle, P. J. (2010). Real-time processing in reading sentence comprehension for normal adult individuals and persons with aphasia. Aphasiology, 25: 1, 57 — 70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02687031003714434
Campbell, T.F. & McNeil, M.R. “Effects of presentation rate and divided attention on auditory comprehension in acquired childhood language disorders.” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 4, 513‑520, 1985.
Hageman, C.F., McNeil, M.R., Rucci‑Zimmer, S. & Cariski, D.M. The Reliability of Patterns of Auditory Processing Deficits: Evidence from the Revised Token Test. Clinical Aphasiology, 12, 230-234, 1982.
McNeil, M.R. “Aphasia: Neurological Considerations.” Topics in Language Disorders, 3, (4) 1‑19, 1983.
McNeil, M.R. & Hageman, C. “Auditory Processing Deficits in Aphasics Evidenced on the Revised Token Test: Incidence and Prediction of Across Subtest and Across Item‑within Subtest Patterns” Clinical Aphasiology, 9, 47‑69, 1979.
McNeil, M.R., Odell, K.H. & Campbell, T.F. “The Frequency and Amplitude of Fluctuating Auditory Processing in Aphasic and Nonaphasic Brain Damaged Persons.” Clinical Aphasiology, 12, 220-229, 1982.