A comparison of ranked scores of two forms of the token test

Cardinal Scholar

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Stack, Mary W. en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2011-06-03T19:37:36Z
dc.date.available 2011-06-03T19:37:36Z
dc.date.created 1977 en_US
dc.date.issued 1977
dc.identifier LD2489.Z9 1977 .S72 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/handle/handle/185695
dc.description.abstract The assessment of receptive language is an important aspect in evaluating a child's overall language skills. Conclusions about his receptive language are usually made on the basis of observing the child's behaviors when responding to questions or carrying out commands. These procedures are merely subjective in nature, and though they contribute to the clinician's overall picture of the child, they do not offer any definitive data. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Dunn, 1965) is often used in assessing receptive language. However, this test has been criticized (Noll and Berry, 1969) since it appears to test single-word receptive vocabulary, not receptive language. Portions of other tests such as the Northwestern Syntax Screening Test (Lee, 1969) and the Preschool Language Scale (Zimmerman et al', 1969) have also been used. However, these can require considerable time to administer.The public school clinician's time is limited. While responsible for diagnostic testing, she is also required to do speech and language screening and must have a short valid test for assessing receptive language disturbances. A test which may meet this requirement is a short form of the Token Test (DeRenzi and Vignolo, 1962). The Token Test was originally developed by DeRenzi and Vignolo as a sensitive measure to detect receptive disturbances in adult aphasics. It employs linguistic complexity as its main variable without using unusual syntactical constructions or uncommon words. Recently the test has been used in evaluating receptive language disturbances in children. One form of the Token Test has been used by Noll (1970) with normal children to obtain normative data. The results showed that with increasing age, there was an increase in the number of correct items on the test, thus differentiating various levels of linguistic development in children. Lass, et al. (1975) administered the short form of the Token Test which was developed by Spellacy and Spreen (1969) as a screening test. They found that the short form did not differentiate among age groups and did not differentiate various levels of linguistic development. Would a different form of the Token Test derived directly from the one used by Noll prove more useful as a screening measure? Could significant correlation be found between children's ranked scores on the Token Test as used by Noll and its short form? If so, this correlation may demonstrate that the short form is as discriminating in detecting receptive disturbances in children as the long form but less time consuming. Therefore it could be used as a screening instrument.The purpose of this paper will be to test the correlation between the two forms of the Token Test to ascertain if the short form can be used in screening. en_US
dc.format.extent ii, 49 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm. en_US
dc.source Virtual Press en_US
dc.title A comparison of ranked scores of two forms of the token test en_US
dc.type Research paper (M.A.), 4 hrs. en_US
dc.description.degree Thesis (M.A.) en_US
dc.identifier.cardcat-url http://liblink.bsu.edu/catkey/493707 en_US


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Research Papers [5055]
    Research papers submitted to the Graduate School by Ball State University master's degree candidates in partial fulfillment of degree requirements.

Show simple item record

Search Cardinal Scholar


Browse

My Account