Ross Thomas P, Calhoun Emily, Cox Tara, Wenner Carolyn, Kono Whitney, Pleasant Morgan
Department of Psychology, College of Charleston, 66 George Street, Charleston, SC 29424, United States.
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007 May;22(4):475-88. doi: 10.1016/j.acn.2007.01.026. Epub 2007 Feb 20.
The reliability and validity of two qualitative scoring systems for the Controlled Oral Word Association Test [Benton, A. L., Hamsher, de S. K., & Sivan, A. B. (1983). Multilingual aplasia examination (2nd ed.). Iowa City, IA: AJA Associates] were examined in 108 healthy young adults. The scoring systems developed by Troyer et al. [Troyer, A. K., Moscovich, M., & Winocur, G. (1997). Clustering and switching as two components of verbal fluency: Evidence from younger and older healthy adults. Neuropsychology, 11, 138-146] and by Abwender et al. [Abwender, D. A., Swan, J. G., Bowerman, J. T., & Connolly, S. W. (2001a). Qualitative analysis of verbal fluency output: Review and comparison of several scoring methods. Assessment, 8, 323-336] each demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (all indices at or above r(icc)=.9). Consistent with previous research [e.g., Ross, T. P. (2003). The reliability of cluster and switch scores for the COWAT. Archives of Clinical Psychology, 18, 153-164), test-retest reliability coefficients (N=53; M interval 44.6 days) for the qualitative scores were modest to poor (r(icc)=.6 to .4 range). Correlations among COWAT scores, measures of executive functioning, verbal learning, working memory, and vocabulary were examined. The idea that qualitative scores represent distinct executive functions such as cognitive flexibility or strategy utilization was not supported. We offer the interpretation that COWAT performance may require the ability to retrieve words in a non-routine manner while suppressing habitual responses and associated processing interference, presumably due to a spread of activation across semantic or lexical networks. This interpretation, though speculative at present, implies that clustering and switching on the COWAT may not be entirely deliberate, but rather an artifact of a passive (i.e., state-dependent) process. Ideas for future research, most noticeably experimental studies using cognitive methods (e.g., priming), are discussed.
在108名健康的年轻成年人中，对控制口语单词联想测验[本顿，A.L.，哈姆舍尔，德S.K.，&西万，A.B.（1983年）。多语言失语症检查（第2版）。爱荷华市，爱荷华州：AJA协会]的两种定性评分系统的信度和效度进行了检验。特罗耶等人[特罗耶，A.K.，莫斯科维奇，M.，&维诺库尔，G.（1997年）。聚类和转换作为言语流畅性的两个组成部分：来自年轻和年长健康成年人的证据。神经心理学，11，138 - 146]以及阿布文德等人[阿布文德，D.A.，斯旺，J.G.，鲍尔曼，J.T.，&康诺利，S.W.（2001年a）。言语流畅性输出的定性分析：几种评分方法的综述和比较。评估，8，323 - 336]开发的评分系统均显示出极好的评分者间信度（所有指标在r(icc)=.9或以上）。与先前的研究一致[例如，罗斯，T.P.（2003年）。COWAT聚类和转换分数的信度。临床心理学档案，18，153 - 164]，定性分数的重测信度系数（N = 53；平均间隔44.6天）从中等至较差（r(icc)=.6至.4范围）。对COWAT分数与执行功能、言语学习、工作记忆和词汇量测量之间的相关性进行了检验。定性分数代表诸如认知灵活性或策略运用等不同执行功能的观点未得到支持。我们提出这样的解释，即COWAT表现可能需要以非常规方式检索单词的能力，同时抑制习惯性反应和相关的加工干扰，推测这是由于激活在语义或词汇网络中的扩散所致。这种解释目前虽具推测性，但意味着COWAT上的聚类和转换可能并非完全是刻意的，而是一个被动（即状态依赖）过程的产物。讨论了未来研究的思路，最显著的是使用认知方法（如启动）的实验研究。
