Short test of semantic and phonological fluency: Normal performance, validity and test-retest reliability

Tests of verbal fluency, whether of Semantic Fluency (SF) or Phonological Fluency (PF), are often used as a standard method of neuropsychological assessment. However, very little normative data, standardized on a UK sample, is available, and little is known about the utility of popularly used '...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of clinical psychology 2000-06, Vol.39 (2), p.181-191
Hauptverfasser: Harrison, John E., Buxton, Pauline, Husain, Masud, Wise, Richard
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 191
container_issue 2
container_start_page 181
container_title British journal of clinical psychology
container_volume 39
creator Harrison, John E.
Buxton, Pauline
Husain, Masud
Wise, Richard
description Tests of verbal fluency, whether of Semantic Fluency (SF) or Phonological Fluency (PF), are often used as a standard method of neuropsychological assessment. However, very little normative data, standardized on a UK sample, is available, and little is known about the utility of popularly used 'short‐forms of these tasks. Additionally, very little is known about verbal fluency test‐retest reliability. In this report we describe the performance of N = 365 normal participants on a version of SF requiring the generation of exemplars of the category 'animals and a version of the PF task requiring participants to generate words beginning with the letter 'B. From this data we have derived a percentile distribution for both tasks. We also addressed the impact of sex, age, years of education and IQ upon both SF and PF performance. No sex differences were found on either the PF or the SF tasks. A significant but small correlation between age and SF, but not PF, was observed. Modest correlations between both years of education and IQ and PF and SF performance were also seen. We also report test‐retest reliability scores for performance on both SF and PF tasks. Performance on the longer 'FAS version was found to correlate highly with scores obtained using just the letter 'B. This suggests that little additional advantage obtains from administering three‐letter versions of PF. An extremely high degree of correlation between SF tasks in which participants are given 1 minute and scores obtained when participants are given 1 minute 30 seconds was also observed. Finally, in order to assist users in deciding whether a changed retest score is due to error measurement or a real effect, we calculated Standard Error of Prediction (SEP) scores.
doi_str_mv 10.1348/014466500163202
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85532294</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>56392095</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5890-a1059136c859cc0a680411e5cdc5b36ac3720447bb6725d8ea9472a8d6b4e7ae3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1v1DAQxS0EotuFMzcUIdQTof620xusYKGslgMFjpbjONTFiRc7Afa_x2lWgHrZk23N773xzAPgCYIvEaHyHCJKOWcQIk4wxPfAAkNKS4k5vA8WU7XMZXECTlO6yRQhkDwEJwjKihGOFsB9ug5xKAabhiK0RbKd7gdnCt03xe469MGHb85oX7R-tL3ZXxTbELv83tnYTrfe2BfFT-1d44b9rWzyKqO9tYzWO107n2uPwINW-2QfH84l-Pz2zdXqXbn5uH6_erUpDZMVLDWCrEKEG8kqY6DmElKELDONYTXh2hAxjSjqmgvMGml1RQXWsuE1tUJbsgRns-8uhh9j_oTqXDLWe93bMCYlGSMYV_QoKBCmsJLwKMgEkwzS6ihIZJ6Q5RCW4Nkd8CaMsc9rURhJjomQKEPnM2RiSCnaVu2i63TcKwTVlL66k35WPD3YjnVnm__4Oe4MPD8AOuVQ25jjc-kfRyqMscwYnrFfztv9sbbq9eWKTVsqZ5FLg_39V6Tjd8UFEUx93a4V3nz5QNbbS3VF_gAJfdLs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218623781</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Short test of semantic and phonological fluency: Normal performance, validity and test-retest reliability</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Harrison, John E. ; Buxton, Pauline ; Husain, Masud ; Wise, Richard</creator><creatorcontrib>Harrison, John E. ; Buxton, Pauline ; Husain, Masud ; Wise, Richard</creatorcontrib><description>Tests of verbal fluency, whether of Semantic Fluency (SF) or Phonological Fluency (PF), are often used as a standard method of neuropsychological assessment. However, very little normative data, standardized on a UK sample, is available, and little is known about the utility of popularly used 'short‐forms of these tasks. Additionally, very little is known about verbal fluency test‐retest reliability. In this report we describe the performance of N = 365 normal participants on a version of SF requiring the generation of exemplars of the category 'animals and a version of the PF task requiring participants to generate words beginning with the letter 'B. From this data we have derived a percentile distribution for both tasks. We also addressed the impact of sex, age, years of education and IQ upon both SF and PF performance. No sex differences were found on either the PF or the SF tasks. A significant but small correlation between age and SF, but not PF, was observed. Modest correlations between both years of education and IQ and PF and SF performance were also seen. We also report test‐retest reliability scores for performance on both SF and PF tasks. Performance on the longer 'FAS version was found to correlate highly with scores obtained using just the letter 'B. This suggests that little additional advantage obtains from administering three‐letter versions of PF. An extremely high degree of correlation between SF tasks in which participants are given 1 minute and scores obtained when participants are given 1 minute 30 seconds was also observed. Finally, in order to assist users in deciding whether a changed retest score is due to error measurement or a real effect, we calculated Standard Error of Prediction (SEP) scores.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0144-6657</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-8260</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1348/014466500163202</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10895361</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJCPDW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical psychology ; Female ; Forecasts ; Humans ; Language ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Neuropsychological Tests - standards ; Neuropsychological Tests - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Phonological processing ; Phonology ; Psychological tests ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychometric properties ; Psychometrics ; Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems ; Psychopathology. Psychiatry ; Reference Values ; Reliability ; Reproducibility of Results ; Semantic processing ; Semantics ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Techniques and methods ; Test design ; Validity ; Verbal Behavior - classification</subject><ispartof>British journal of clinical psychology, 2000-06, Vol.39 (2), p.181-191</ispartof><rights>2000 The British Psychological Society</rights><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright British Psychological Society Jun 2000</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5890-a1059136c859cc0a680411e5cdc5b36ac3720447bb6725d8ea9472a8d6b4e7ae3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1348%2F014466500163202$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1348%2F014466500163202$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,12826,27903,27904,30978,30979,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1392228$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10895361$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Harrison, John E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buxton, Pauline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Husain, Masud</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wise, Richard</creatorcontrib><title>Short test of semantic and phonological fluency: Normal performance, validity and test-retest reliability</title><title>British journal of clinical psychology</title><addtitle>Br J Clin Psychol</addtitle><description>Tests of verbal fluency, whether of Semantic Fluency (SF) or Phonological Fluency (PF), are often used as a standard method of neuropsychological assessment. However, very little normative data, standardized on a UK sample, is available, and little is known about the utility of popularly used 'short‐forms of these tasks. Additionally, very little is known about verbal fluency test‐retest reliability. In this report we describe the performance of N = 365 normal participants on a version of SF requiring the generation of exemplars of the category 'animals and a version of the PF task requiring participants to generate words beginning with the letter 'B. From this data we have derived a percentile distribution for both tasks. We also addressed the impact of sex, age, years of education and IQ upon both SF and PF performance. No sex differences were found on either the PF or the SF tasks. A significant but small correlation between age and SF, but not PF, was observed. Modest correlations between both years of education and IQ and PF and SF performance were also seen. We also report test‐retest reliability scores for performance on both SF and PF tasks. Performance on the longer 'FAS version was found to correlate highly with scores obtained using just the letter 'B. This suggests that little additional advantage obtains from administering three‐letter versions of PF. An extremely high degree of correlation between SF tasks in which participants are given 1 minute and scores obtained when participants are given 1 minute 30 seconds was also observed. Finally, in order to assist users in deciding whether a changed retest score is due to error measurement or a real effect, we calculated Standard Error of Prediction (SEP) scores.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical psychology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Forecasts</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neuropsychological Tests - standards</subject><subject>Neuropsychological Tests - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Phonological processing</subject><subject>Phonology</subject><subject>Psychological tests</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychometric properties</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems</subject><subject>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Reference Values</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Semantic processing</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Techniques and methods</subject><subject>Test design</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>Verbal Behavior - classification</subject><issn>0144-6657</issn><issn>2044-8260</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1v1DAQxS0EotuFMzcUIdQTof620xusYKGslgMFjpbjONTFiRc7Afa_x2lWgHrZk23N773xzAPgCYIvEaHyHCJKOWcQIk4wxPfAAkNKS4k5vA8WU7XMZXECTlO6yRQhkDwEJwjKihGOFsB9ug5xKAabhiK0RbKd7gdnCt03xe469MGHb85oX7R-tL3ZXxTbELv83tnYTrfe2BfFT-1d44b9rWzyKqO9tYzWO107n2uPwINW-2QfH84l-Pz2zdXqXbn5uH6_erUpDZMVLDWCrEKEG8kqY6DmElKELDONYTXh2hAxjSjqmgvMGml1RQXWsuE1tUJbsgRns-8uhh9j_oTqXDLWe93bMCYlGSMYV_QoKBCmsJLwKMgEkwzS6ihIZJ6Q5RCW4Nkd8CaMsc9rURhJjomQKEPnM2RiSCnaVu2i63TcKwTVlL66k35WPD3YjnVnm__4Oe4MPD8AOuVQ25jjc-kfRyqMscwYnrFfztv9sbbq9eWKTVsqZ5FLg_39V6Tjd8UFEUx93a4V3nz5QNbbS3VF_gAJfdLs</recordid><startdate>200006</startdate><enddate>200006</enddate><creator>Harrison, John E.</creator><creator>Buxton, Pauline</creator><creator>Husain, Masud</creator><creator>Wise, Richard</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>British Psychological Society</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200006</creationdate><title>Short test of semantic and phonological fluency: Normal performance, validity and test-retest reliability</title><author>Harrison, John E. ; Buxton, Pauline ; Husain, Masud ; Wise, Richard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5890-a1059136c859cc0a680411e5cdc5b36ac3720447bb6725d8ea9472a8d6b4e7ae3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical psychology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Forecasts</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neuropsychological Tests - standards</topic><topic>Neuropsychological Tests - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Phonological processing</topic><topic>Phonology</topic><topic>Psychological tests</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychometric properties</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems</topic><topic>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Reference Values</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Semantic processing</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Techniques and methods</topic><topic>Test design</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>Verbal Behavior - classification</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Harrison, John E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buxton, Pauline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Husain, Masud</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wise, Richard</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>British journal of clinical psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Harrison, John E.</au><au>Buxton, Pauline</au><au>Husain, Masud</au><au>Wise, Richard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Short test of semantic and phonological fluency: Normal performance, validity and test-retest reliability</atitle><jtitle>British journal of clinical psychology</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Clin Psychol</addtitle><date>2000-06</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>181</spage><epage>191</epage><pages>181-191</pages><issn>0144-6657</issn><eissn>2044-8260</eissn><coden>BJCPDW</coden><abstract>Tests of verbal fluency, whether of Semantic Fluency (SF) or Phonological Fluency (PF), are often used as a standard method of neuropsychological assessment. However, very little normative data, standardized on a UK sample, is available, and little is known about the utility of popularly used 'short‐forms of these tasks. Additionally, very little is known about verbal fluency test‐retest reliability. In this report we describe the performance of N = 365 normal participants on a version of SF requiring the generation of exemplars of the category 'animals and a version of the PF task requiring participants to generate words beginning with the letter 'B. From this data we have derived a percentile distribution for both tasks. We also addressed the impact of sex, age, years of education and IQ upon both SF and PF performance. No sex differences were found on either the PF or the SF tasks. A significant but small correlation between age and SF, but not PF, was observed. Modest correlations between both years of education and IQ and PF and SF performance were also seen. We also report test‐retest reliability scores for performance on both SF and PF tasks. Performance on the longer 'FAS version was found to correlate highly with scores obtained using just the letter 'B. This suggests that little additional advantage obtains from administering three‐letter versions of PF. An extremely high degree of correlation between SF tasks in which participants are given 1 minute and scores obtained when participants are given 1 minute 30 seconds was also observed. Finally, in order to assist users in deciding whether a changed retest score is due to error measurement or a real effect, we calculated Standard Error of Prediction (SEP) scores.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>10895361</pmid><doi>10.1348/014466500163202</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0144-6657
ispartof British journal of clinical psychology, 2000-06, Vol.39 (2), p.181-191
issn 0144-6657
2044-8260
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85532294
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)
subjects Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Clinical psychology
Female
Forecasts
Humans
Language
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Neuropsychological Tests - standards
Neuropsychological Tests - statistics & numerical data
Phonological processing
Phonology
Psychological tests
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychometric properties
Psychometrics
Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Reference Values
Reliability
Reproducibility of Results
Semantic processing
Semantics
Sensitivity and Specificity
Techniques and methods
Test design
Validity
Verbal Behavior - classification
title Short test of semantic and phonological fluency: Normal performance, validity and test-retest reliability
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T14%3A18%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Short%20test%20of%20semantic%20and%20phonological%20fluency:%20Normal%20performance,%20validity%20and%20test-retest%20reliability&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20clinical%20psychology&rft.au=Harrison,%20John%20E.&rft.date=2000-06&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=181&rft.epage=191&rft.pages=181-191&rft.issn=0144-6657&rft.eissn=2044-8260&rft.coden=BJCPDW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1348/014466500163202&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E56392095%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218623781&rft_id=info:pmid/10895361&rfr_iscdi=true