ASL Stories Test

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)

Video:Instructions and Stories

1. Train Story 2. Kidnap Story

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)

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

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.

Inter-Rater Reliability (ICC)

Story/Condition ICC*

Train Immediate Recall Correct Total 0.941

Train Delayed Recall Correct Total 0.888

Kidnap Immediate Recall Correct Total 0.771

Kidnap Delayed Recall Correct Total 0.808

• 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)

ASL Stories Norms (averaged over three raters)

Story/Condition Mean (S.D.) Percent Correct

Train Immediate Correct Overall Mean 24.8 (8.77) 57.8 (.20)

Train Delayed Correct Overall Mean 27.0 (8.04) 62.9 (.19)

Kidnap Immediate Correct Overall Mean 41.5 (9.93) 65.9 (.16)

Kidnap Delayed Correct Overall Mean 42.7 (10.4) 67.8 (.16)

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

No Age Correlation

Story/Condition Correlation P-Value

Train Immediate Correct Total 0.01 0.963

Train Delayed Correct Total -0.11 0.508

Kidnap Immediate Correct Total 0.04 0.818

Kidnap Delayed Correct Total -0.11 0.480

• Age range was restricted, as in SPAT study (18 – 34)

PIQ Correlation

Story/Condition Correlation P-Value

Train Immediate Correct Total 0.36 0.042*

Train Delayed Correct Total 0.42 0.007*

Kidnap Immediate Correct Total 0.24 0.180

Kidnap Delayed Correct Total 0.23 0.144

• Train story is harder

• Restricted score range (no clinical sample)

• PIQ consists of non-verbal tasks

• WMS-3 verbal tasks correlate .39 with PIQ

SPAT & ASL Stories Correlations

CORRELATION OF COMBINED STORIES IMMEDIATE CORRECT WITH:

N CORRELATION P-VALUE

SPAT: Immediate Recall Easy 39 0.288 0.075

SPAT: Immediate Recall Hard 39 0.372 0.020 *

SPAT: Immediate Recall Total 39 0.378 0.018 *

CORRELATION OF COMBINED STORIES DELAYED CORRECT WITH:

N CORRELATION P-VALUE

SPAT: Delayed Recall Easy 39 0.289 0.081

SPAT: Delayed Recall Hard 39 0.297 0.070 ~

SPAT: Delayed Recall Total 39 0.338 0.040 *

CORRELATION OF COMBINED STORIES DELAYED CORRECT WITH:

N CORRELATION P-VALUE

SPAT: Delayed + Cued Recall Easy 39 0.271 0.100

SPAT: Delayed + Cued Recall Hard 39 0.257 0.119

SPAT: Delayed + Cued Recall Total 39 0.283 0.085

Next Steps

Review, complete data analyses Draft manuscript for publication Prepare DVDs of stories and instructions

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?