Content area
Full text
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.
Key Words: multidimensional scoring, Revised Token Test, assessment
The strategic selection of an appropriate scoring system for aphasia assessment depends on the intended use and means of interpretation of test results as well as a variety of training and service delivery issues. Aphasia tests have long employed a variety of systems to record responses to linguistic stimuli. Recording or scoring methods include detailed descriptions of behavior (Goldstein, 1948; Head, 1926 [cited in Goldstein. 1948]; Lahey, 1988; Murray & Chapey, 2001; Shadden, 1998; Weisenberg & McBride, 1935), correct versus incorrect scoring (Eisenson, 1954; Goodglass & Kaplan, 1983; Goodglass, Kaplan, & Barresi. 2001; Helm-Estabrooks, 1992: Kertesz. 1982; Schuell. 1965), rating scales (Butfield & Zangwill, 1946 [as cited in Porch, 1967]; Goodglass & Kaplan, 1983; Goodglass et al., 2001; Helm-Estabrooks, 1992; Schuell, 1965; Taylor, 1965; Vignolo, 1964; Wepman & Jones, 1961), and multidimensional scoring (McNeil & Prescott, 1978; Porch, 1967, 1981).
Porch (1967), in the Porch Index of Communicative Ability (PICA), incorporated the descriptive nature of recording responses into a multidimensional scoring system by defining every response in terms of five dimensions: accuracy, responsiveness, completeness, promptness, and efficiency. Specification of these dimensions was based...