Designing an Auditory Working Memory Task and Investigating the Validity and Reliability

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Student of master of Sciences of speech and language pathology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences of Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant professor, Expert PhD of speech and language pathology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences of Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant professor, Expert PhD of Biostatistics Department, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences of Tehran, Iran

4 Student of bachelor of Sciences of speech and language pathology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences of Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Abstract
Purpose:
The role of auditory working memory in children’s language acquisition is important. In addition, its connection with development of important language parts such as word acquisition has been well investigated. The present study aimed to develop a suitable tool by use of non-words which reflect the real performance of audithory working memory for evaluation of this system’s performance in such a way that it would be possible to determine its capacity as well as its capability to manipulate information.
Methods:
The current study has a cross-sectional and tool-making design. Words and non-words were first determined and after designing the task, questionnaire that contained 16 words for word level and 16 non words for non-word level were presented to the specialists for validity determination. Statistical population consisted of 9 to 14 years-old Persian language children of elementary (classes three to six) and Secondary school (classes seven and eight) of which 96 subjects were selected by a multistage method. Test was performed in two levels.
Results:
Results showed that words and non-words have content validity. Mean score of the subjects in words and non-words parts was calculated as 8.49 and 7.76, respectively and mean of total scores was 16.25. There was also a correlation coefficient of coefficient 0.952 in word and 0.729 in nonword section in the significance level of pConclusion:
According to the results, we concluded that achieved auditory memory is valid and reliable for the subjects of the present study.

Keywords

References

  1. Baddeley AD. Working memory. Science 1992; 255(5044): 556-9.
  2. Gathercole SE, Baddeley AD. Phonological working memory: A critical building block for reading development and vocabulary acquisition? European Journal of Psychology of Education 1993; 8 )372-259).
  3. Gardner H, Froud K, McClelland A, van der Lely HK. Development of the Grammar and Phonology Screening (GAPS) test to assess key markers of specific language and literacy difficulties in young children. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 2006; 41(5): 513-40.
  4. Gathercole SE, Baddeley AD. Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children: Is there a causal connection? Journal of memory and language 1990; 29(3): 336-60.
  5. Gathercole SE, Willis CS, Baddeley AD, Emslie H. The children's test of nonword repetition: A test ofphonological working memory. Memory 1994; 2(2): 103-27.
  6. Kirchner WK. Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1958; 55(4): 353.
  7. Mackworth JF. Paced memorizing in a continuous task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1959; 58(3): 206.
  8. Dollaghan CA, Campbell TF. Nonword repetition and child language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 1998; 41(5): 1136-46.
  9. Chiat S, Roy P. The Preschool Repetition Test: An evaluation of performance in typically developing and clinically referred children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2007; 50(2): 429-43.
  10. Sayyahi F, Soleymani Z, Mahmoudi Bakhtiyari B, Sh J. Providing a non word repetition test in 4-year-old Persian children and determining its validity and reliability. Audiology 20(2):47-53.
  11. Moossavi A, Khavarghazalani B, Lotfi Y, Mehrkian S, Bakhshi E, B. MB. Validity and reliability of a non-sense syllable test for evaluating phonological working memory in Persian speaking children. Audiology 2014; 23(4): 9-31.
  12. Farazi1 M, Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari B, Rahgozar3 M. Comparison of the Speed of Naming in Persian-Speaking Children with and without stuttering. J Rehab Med 2014; 3(2): 32-8.
  13. Shriberg LD, Lohmeier HL, Campbell TF,  D, C. A, Green JR, Moore CA. A nonword repetition task for speakers with misarticulations: The Syllable Repetition Task (SRT). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2009; 52(5): 1189-212.
  14. Gathercole SE, Baddeley AD. Working memory and language. Psychology Press, journal of communication disorders 2014, 36(2003); 189-208
  15. American educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. 2nd ed. chapter 1. Washington DC: 1999.
  16. F. Robert Wilson, Wei Pan, Donald A. Schumsky.Recalculation of the Critical Values for Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 2012; 45(3): 197-210.

Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation
Volume 6, Issue 2
June 2017
Pages 79-85

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics