American Sign Language version of the CRTT (Goldberg et al., 2025)

Purpose: The present study assessed the test–retest reliability of the American Sign Language (ASL) version of the Computerized Revised Token Test (CRTT-ASL) and compared the differences and similarities between ASL and English reading by Deaf and hearing users of ASL.

Method: Creation of the CRTT-ASL involved filming, editing, and validating CRTT instructions, sentence commands, and scoring. Deaf proficient (DP), hearing nonproficient (HNP), and hearing proficient sign language users completed the CRTT-ASL and the English self-paced, word-by-word reading CRTT (CRTT-Reading-Word Fade [CRTT-R-wf]). Both tests were administered twice, 7–14 days apart, to assess test–retest reliability.

Results: Preliminary findings suggested that the CRTT-ASL was acceptably reliable for the DP group across CRTT metrics. All groups showed adequate test–retest reliability for the CRTT-R-wf. The DP group scored comparably across the two language conditions, and on average, the DP group produced significantly lower scores than the two hearing groups on the CRTT-R-wf. The hearing groups did not differ significantly from each other on the CRTT-R-wf.

Conclusions: The CRTT-ASL may be reliable for assessing Deaf ASL users, the target population for its use. These findings serve as preliminary support for clinical and research use of the novel CRTT-ASL to assess language processing in Deaf individuals who use ASL. The CRTT-ASL may be sensitive to lexical processing inefficiencies in the Deaf signing population.

Supplemental Material S1. Scoring categories of the CRTT.

Supplemental Material S2. Example commands from each subtest of the CRTT.

Supplemental Material S3. Descriptions of ASL linguistic characteristics for a subset of the CRTT commands.

Supplemental Material S4. Deaf proficient (DP) participant hearing and language background information.

Supplemental Material S5. A video frame of the signer in the CRTT-ASL. Permission to include this picture was given through signed consent by the individual photographed.

Supplemental Material S6. Post hoc “emmeans” output for mean CRTT scores. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Significant comparisons are bolded. DP = Deaf proficient; HP = hearing proficient; HNP = hearing nonproficient.

Supplemental Material S7. Post hoc “emmeans” output for mean efficiency scores. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Significant comparisons are bolded. DP = Deaf proficient; HP = hearing proficient; HNP = hearing nonproficient.

Supplemental Material S8. Deaf proficient (DP) participant performance on the CRTT-ASL across sessions. *Scores below the mean minus 1 SEM, established for healthy controls on the CRTT-R-wf score (McNeil et al., 2015). Bolded = CRTT-ASL Session 2 scores that are lower than Session 1.

Supplemental Material S9. Hearing nonproficient (HNP) participant performance on the CRTT-ASL across sessions. *Scores below the mean minus 1 SEM, established for healthy controls on the CRTT-R-wf score (McNeil et al., 2015). Bolded = CRTT-ASL Session 2 scores that are lower than Session 1.

Supplemental Material S10. Hearing proficient (HP) participant performance on the CRTT-ASL across sessions. Note. *Scores below the mean minus 1 SEM, established for healthy controls on the CRTT-R-wf score (McNeil et al., 2015). Bolded = CRTT-ASL Session 2 scores that are lower than Session 1.

Supplemental Material S11. Deaf proficient (DP) participant performance on the CRTT-R-wf across sessions. *Scores below the mean minus 1 SEM, established for healthy controls on the CRTT-R-wf score (McNeil et al., 2015). Bolded = CRTT-ASL Session 2 scores that are lower than Session 1.

Supplemental Material S12. Hearing nonproficient (HNP) participant performance om the CRTT-R-wf across sessions. *Scores below the mean minus 1 SEM, established for healthy controls on the CRTT-R-wf score (McNeil et al., 2015). Bolded = CRTT-ASL Session 2 scores that are lower than Session 1.

Supplemental Material S13. Hearing proficient (HP) participant performance om the CRTT-R-wf across sessions. *Scores below the mean minus 1 SEM, established for healthy controls on the CRTT-R-wf score (McNeil et al., 2015). Bolded = CRTT-ASL Session 2 scores that are lower than Session 1.

Goldberg, E. B., Pratt, S. R., McNeil, M. R., Szuminsky, N., DeHaan, K., & Zhen, L. Q. (2025). Development, reliability, and concurrent validity of the American Sign Language version of the Computerized Revised Token Test. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 68(2), 665–684. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00207