1 / 13

ASL Stories Test

This study presents two ASL stories for memory evaluation, akin to WMS logical memory subtest. Train and Kidnap stories are scored, showing significant differences in recall percentages. Future research includes correlation analyses and potential clinical applications.

trask
Télécharger la présentation

ASL Stories Test

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ASL Stories Test

  2. ASL Stories Test Structure • Similar to WMS “logical memory” subtest • Two stories conceived in ASL • Train story (~ 1’ 30”), 43 scoreable elements • Kidnap story (~ 2’ 07”), 63 scoreable elements • (WMS-R logical memory stories have 25)

  3. Video:Instructions and Stories1. Train Story 2. Kidnap Story

  4. Examples of Scoreable Elements • THREE-WEEK-AGO • WITH #DOG • 2 • “*(2H) SCL:V “jumping”*th”, PLAY • SIT-IN WHEELCHAIR • (2H) DCL:f “holes in eyes… • …and nose areas” • WITH NUMBER 4-5-3 (downwards) • PRINCIPAL (nod)

  5. Method • Same healthy participants as SPAT study • N = 41 • Mean age 27.6 (s.d., 4.7, range 18-34) • 54% male, 46% female • Mean PIQ 104 (s.d. 12.8, range 75-128) • Administered ASL Stories, SPAT, PIQ

  6. Method (cont.) • First story learning trail, immediate recall • Second story learning trial, immediate recall • ~20” delay period (non-verbal tasks) • Delayed recall (both stories) • Three-step cueing quiz, 20 elements (each) • Freely recalled, recalled w/ question, 3 choices • Recall videos scored by 3 ASL-fluent assists.

  7. Inter-Rater Reliability (ICC) • These are good intra-class correlation figures, suggesting reliable scoring results regardless of (sign-fluent) rater • Train story scoring was slightly more reliable probably due to fewer elements (43 vs. 63)

  8. ASL Stories Norms (averaged over three raters) Train story = 34 scoreable elements Kidnap story = 64 scoreable elements • Train vs. Kidnap immediate recall percentages significantly different (p = .0013) • Train vs. Kidnap delayed recall percentages significantly different (p = .0235) • Despite 20 fewer elements, Train story is significantly harder

  9. No Age Correlation • Age range was restricted, as in SPAT study (18 – 34)

  10. PIQ Correlation • Train story is harder • Restricted score range (no clinical sample) • PIQ consists of non-verbal tasks • WMS-3 verbal tasks correlate .39 with PIQ

  11. SPAT & ASL Stories Correlations

  12. Next Steps • Review, complete data analyses • Draft manuscript for publication • Prepare DVDs of stories and instructions

  13. Future Research Ideas • Why is Kidnap story easier? • Why were so many elements necessary? • Can it differentiate a clinical sample? • Correlation with non-verbal tests? • Correlation with “hearing” verbal tests? • How much ASL fluency is needed? • Alternate administration methods?

More Related