Search for: All records

Purpose:Numerous tasks have been developed to measure receptive vocabulary, many of which were designed to be administered in person with a trained researcher or clinician. The purpose of the current study is to compare a common, in-person test of vocabulary with other vocabulary assessments that can be self-administered. Method:Fifty-three participants completed the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) via online video call to mimic in-person administration, as well as four additional fully automated, self-administered measures of receptive vocabulary. Participants also completed three control tasks that do not measure receptive vocabulary. Results:Pearson correlations indicated moderate correlations among most of the receptive vocabulary measures (approximatelyr= .50–.70). As expected, the control tasks revealed only weak correlations to the vocabulary measures. However, subsets of items of the four self-administered measures of receptive vocabulary achieved high correlations with the PPVT (r> .80). These subsets were found through a repeated resampling approach. Conclusions:Measures of receptive vocabulary differ in which items are included and in the assessment task (e.g., lexical decision, picture matching, synonym matching). The results of the current study suggest that several self-administered tasks are able to achieve high correlations with the PPVT when a subset of items are scored, rather than the full set of items. These data provide evidence that subsets of items on one behavioral assessment can more highly correlate to another measure. In practical terms, these data demonstrate that self-administered, automated measures of receptive vocabulary can be used as reasonable substitutes of at least one test (PPVT) that requires human interaction. That several of the fully automated measures resulted in high correlations with the PPVT suggests that different tasks could be selected depending on the needs of the researcher. It is important to note the aim was not to establish clinical relevance of these measures, but establish whether researchers could use an experimental task of receptive vocabulary that probes a similar construct to what is captured by the PPVT, and use these measures of individual differences. 

Intelligibility measures, which assess the number of words or phonemes a listener correctly transcribes or repeats, are commonly used metrics for speech perception research. While these measures have many benefits for researchers, they also come with a number of limitations. By pointing out the strengths and limitations of this approach, including how it fails to capture aspects of perception such as listening effort, this article argues that the role of intelligibility measures must be reconsidered in fields such as linguistics, communication disorders, and psychology. Recommendations for future work in this area are presented.