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

<p dir="ltr"><b>Purpose: </b>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.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Method:</b> 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.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Results: </b>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.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Conclusions:</b> 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.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S1.</b> Scoring categories of the CRTT.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S2.</b> Example commands from each subtest of the CRTT.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S3. </b>Descriptions of ASL linguistic characteristics for a subset of the CRTT commands.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S4.</b> Deaf proficient (DP) participant hearing and language background information.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S5. </b>A video frame of the signer in the CRTT-ASL. Permission to include this picture was given through signed consent by the individual photographed.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S6.</b> Post hoc “emmeans” output for mean CRTT scores. *<i>p</i> < .05, **<i>p</i> < .01, ***<i>p</i> < .001. Significant comparisons are bolded. DP = Deaf proficient; HP = hearing proficient; HNP = hearing nonproficient.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S7.</b> Post hoc “emmeans” output for mean efficiency scores. *<i>p</i> < .05, **<i>p</i> < .01, ***<i>p</i> < .001. Significant comparisons are bolded. DP = Deaf proficient; HP = hearing proficient; HNP = hearing nonproficient.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S8.</b> 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.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S9.</b> 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.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S10.</b> 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.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S11.</b> 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.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S12.</b> 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.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S13.</b> 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.</p><p dir="ltr">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. <i>Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research</i>, <i>68</i>(2), 665–684. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00207" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00207</a></p>