Development of the english listening and reading computerized revised token test into cantonese: Validity, reliability, and sensitivity/specificity in people with aphasia and healthy controls

Abstract

Purpose: This study reports the psychometric development of the Cantonese versions of the English Computerized Revised Token Test (CRTT) for persons with aphasia (PWAs) and healthy controls (HCs). Method: The English CRTT was translated into standard Chinese for the Reading–Word Fade version (CRTT-R-WF-Cantonese) and into formal Cantonese for the Listening version (CRTT-L-Cantonese). Thirty-two adult native Cantonese PWAs and 42 HCs were tested on both versions of CRTT-Cantonese tests and on the Cantonese Aphasia Battery to measure the construct and concurrent validity of CRTT-Cantonese tests. The HCs were retested on both versions of the CRTT-Cantonese tests, whereas the PWAs were randomly assigned for retesting on either version to measure the test–retest reliability. Results: A two-way, Group × Modality, repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed significantly lower scores for the PWA group than the HC group for both reading and listening. Other comparisons were not significant. A high and significant correlation was found between the CRTT-R-WF-Cantonese and the CRTT-L-Cantonese in PWAs, and 87% of the PWAs showed nonsignificantly different performance across the CRTT-Cantonese tests based on the Revised Standardized Difference Test. The CRTT-R-WF-Cantonese provided better aphasia diagnostic sensitivity (100%) and specificity (83.30%) values than the CRTT-L-Cantonese. Pearson correlation coefficients revealed significant moderate correlations between the Cantonese Aphasia Battery scores and the CRTT-Cantonese tests in PWAs, supporting adequate concurrent validity. Intraclass correlation coefficient showed high test–retest reliability (between .82 and .96, p < .001) for both CRTT-Cantonese tests for both groups. Conclusions: Results support that the validly translated CRTT-R-WF-Cantonese and CRTT-L-Cantonese tests significantly differentiate the reading and listening comprehension of PWAs from HCs and provides acceptable concurrent validity and high test–retest reliability for both tests. Furthermore, favorable PWA versus HC sensitivity and specificity cutoff scores are presented for both CRTT-Cantonese listening and reading tests.