Comparison of Alternatives to Multidimensional Scoring in the Assessment of Language Comprehension in Aphasia Purpose: Multidimensional scoring methods yield valuable information about communication abilities. However, issues of training demands for valid and reliable scoring, especially in current service delivery contexts, may preclude common usage. Alternatives to multidimensional scoring were investigated in a sample of adults with aphasia. Method: One alternative method involved modified multidimensional ... Research Article
Research Article  |   November 01, 2005
Comparison of Alternatives to Multidimensional Scoring in the Assessment of Language Comprehension in Aphasia
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Anshula Odekar
    Ohio University, Athens
  • Brooke Hallowell
    Ohio University, Athens
  • Contact author: Anshula Odekar, Ohio University, School of Hearing, Speech and Language Sciences, Athens, OH 45701.
    Contact author: Anshula Odekar, Ohio University, School of Hearing, Speech and Language Sciences, Athens, OH 45701.×
  • Corresponding author: E-mail: odekarini@hotmail.com
Article Information
Language Disorders / Aphasia / Research Articles
Research Article   |   November 01, 2005
Comparison of Alternatives to Multidimensional Scoring in the Assessment of Language Comprehension in Aphasia
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, November 2005, Vol. 14, 337-345. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2005/032)
History: Received February 28, 2005 , Revised June 9, 2005 , Accepted September 7, 2005
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, November 2005, Vol. 14, 337-345. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2005/032)
History: Received February 28, 2005; Revised June 9, 2005; Accepted September 7, 2005
Web of Science® Times Cited: 4

Purpose: Multidimensional scoring methods yield valuable information about communication abilities. However, issues of training demands for valid and reliable scoring, especially in current service delivery contexts, may preclude common usage. Alternatives to multidimensional scoring were investigated in a sample of adults with aphasia.

Method: One alternative method involved modified multidimensional scoring; the others incorporated correct/incorrect scoring. The scores for the 3 alternative methods were derived from the scores obtained using the traditional multidimensional method. Revised Token Test scores obtained using the traditional multidimensional method were collected from 10 participants with aphasia. These scores were manipulated to yield 3 additional sets of scores corresponding to the alternative methods.

Results: There were no significant differences between the traditional multidimensional method and 1 of the correct/incorrect methods. Significant differences were found between traditional multidimensional scoring and each of the other 2 methods.

Conclusions: The study findings suggest that simpler scoring systems might yield similar data to traditional multidimensional scoring. If simpler alternative methods yield similar results, using alternative scoring methods with published tests based on multidimensional scoring will help expand their use in everyday clinical practice.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant DC00153-01A1 and in part by an Ohio University Graduate Research Fellowship. The authors wish to thank Dr. Malcolm McNeil for extensive editorial assistance on this article and consultation on the shortened form of the RTT; Natalie Douglas, Melissa Elliott, and Sabine Heuer for their help with data collection; and Dr. Carlin Hageman for assistance with training in RTT scoring. The authors would also like to extend their gratitude to Dr. Sunny Kim and Dr. Robert Roe for statistical consultation and to Dr. Richard Dean and Dr. Sally Marinellie for guidance regarding experimental design.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access