The Reliability and Validity of the Action Fluency Test in Healthy College Students.

Thomas P Ross, Sydne O'Connor, Graham Holmes, Brittany Fuller, Megan Henrich
{"title":"The Reliability and Validity of the Action Fluency Test in Healthy College Students.","authors":"Thomas P Ross,&nbsp;Sydne O'Connor,&nbsp;Graham Holmes,&nbsp;Brittany Fuller,&nbsp;Megan Henrich","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acz016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examined the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the Action Fluency Test (AFT) as a measure of executive functioning.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using a correlational design, 128 healthy college students (M Age = 19.24, SD = 2.01; M education = 13.29 years, SD = 0.81) completed the AFT, and measures of verbal and figural fluency, executive functioning and other relevant constructs (e.g., vocabulary, working memory, and attention).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Coefficients of stability were acceptable for AFT correct words (r = .76; p < .01), but not for errors (r = .41) or perseverations (r = .14). No practice effects were observed upon repeat testing (M interval = 39.21 days). Divergent validity evidence was mixed. AFT scores were unrelated to working memory and perceptual-reasoning abilities; however, correlations with vocabulary (r = .32; p < .01) and information-processing speed (r = .30; p < .01) were greater than associations between AFT scores and executive measures. Regarding convergent validity, AFT scores correlated with other fluency tasks (r = .4 range), but correlations with measures of executive functioning were absent or small. Action and letter fluency correlated with measures of attentional control and inhibition; however, these associations were no longer significant after controlling for shared variance with information-processing speed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings are consistent with previous research suggesting vocabulary and information-processing speed underlie effective fluency performance to a greater extent than executive functioning. The AFT measures unique variance not accounted for by semantic and letter fluency tasks, and therefore may be used for a variety of research and clinical purposes.</p>","PeriodicalId":520564,"journal":{"name":"Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists","volume":" ","pages":"1175-1191"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/arclin/acz016","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acz016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Objective: This study examined the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the Action Fluency Test (AFT) as a measure of executive functioning.

Method: Using a correlational design, 128 healthy college students (M Age = 19.24, SD = 2.01; M education = 13.29 years, SD = 0.81) completed the AFT, and measures of verbal and figural fluency, executive functioning and other relevant constructs (e.g., vocabulary, working memory, and attention).

Results: Coefficients of stability were acceptable for AFT correct words (r = .76; p < .01), but not for errors (r = .41) or perseverations (r = .14). No practice effects were observed upon repeat testing (M interval = 39.21 days). Divergent validity evidence was mixed. AFT scores were unrelated to working memory and perceptual-reasoning abilities; however, correlations with vocabulary (r = .32; p < .01) and information-processing speed (r = .30; p < .01) were greater than associations between AFT scores and executive measures. Regarding convergent validity, AFT scores correlated with other fluency tasks (r = .4 range), but correlations with measures of executive functioning were absent or small. Action and letter fluency correlated with measures of attentional control and inhibition; however, these associations were no longer significant after controlling for shared variance with information-processing speed.

Conclusions: Findings are consistent with previous research suggesting vocabulary and information-processing speed underlie effective fluency performance to a greater extent than executive functioning. The AFT measures unique variance not accounted for by semantic and letter fluency tasks, and therefore may be used for a variety of research and clinical purposes.

健康大学生动作流畅性测验的信效度。
目的:本研究检验动作流畅性测验(AFT)作为执行功能测量的重测信度和构念效度。方法:采用相关设计对128名健康大学生(M年龄= 19.24,SD = 2.01;M教育程度= 13.29年,SD = 0.81)完成了AFT,并测量了语言和图形流畅性、执行功能和其他相关结构(如词汇、工作记忆和注意力)。结果:AFT正确词的稳定性系数可接受(r = 0.76;P < 0.01),但不包括误差(r = 0.41)或持续性(r = 0.14)。重复测试(M间隔= 39.21 d)未见练习效果。不同的效度证据是混合的。AFT得分与工作记忆和感知推理能力无关;然而,词汇量的相关性(r = 0.32;P < 0.01)和信息处理速度(r = .30;p < 0.01)大于AFT评分与执行措施之间的相关性。关于收敛效度,AFT得分与其他流畅性任务相关(r = 0.4范围),但与执行功能测量的相关性不存在或很小。动作和字母流畅性与注意控制和抑制相关;然而,在控制了信息处理速度的共享方差后,这些关联不再显著。结论:研究结果与先前的研究一致,表明词汇和信息处理速度在更大程度上是有效流畅性表现的基础,而不是执行功能。AFT测量了语义和字母流畅性任务无法解释的独特差异,因此可用于各种研究和临床目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信