ASL Stories Test ASL Stories Test Structure n

ASL Stories Test

ASL Stories Test Structure n Similar to WMS “logical memory” subtest n Two stories conceived in ASL n Train story (~ 1’ 30”), 43 scoreable elements n Kidnap story (~ 2’ 07”), 63 scoreable elements n (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 • “*(2 H) SCL: V “jumping”*th”, PLAY • SIT-IN WHEELCHAIR • (2 H) DCL: f “holes in eyes… • …and nose areas” • WITH NUMBER 4 -5 -3 (downwards) • PRINCIPAL (nod)

Method n Same healthy participants as SPAT study n N = 41 n Mean age 27. 6 (s. d. , 4. 7, range 18 -34) n 54% male, 46% female n Mean PIQ 104 (s. d. 12. 8, range 75 -128) n Administered ASL Stories, SPAT, PIQ

Method (cont. ) n First story learning trail, immediate recall n Second story learning trial, immediate recall n ~20” delay period (non-verbal tasks) n Delayed recall (both stories) n Three-step cueing quiz, 20 elements (each) n Freely recalled, recalled w/ question, 3 choices n 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 n Review, complete data analyses n Draft manuscript for publication n Prepare DVDs of stories and instructions

Future Research Ideas n Why is Kidnap story easier? n Why were so many elements necessary? n Can it differentiate a clinical sample? n Correlation with non-verbal tests? n Correlation with “hearing” verbal tests? n How much ASL fluency is needed? n Alternate administration methods?