Does self-correction in the Rapid Naming Test reflect cognitive and language performance in teens?

Jesus, Luciana Cássia de; Martins-Reis, Vanessa de Oliveira; Alves, Luciana Mendonça

doi:10.1590/1982-0216/20202219019

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLES • Rev. CEFAC 22 (1) • 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20202219019 copy

Does self-correction in the Rapid Naming Test reflect cognitive and language performance in teens?

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Objective:

to describe the occurrence of self-correction among adolescents in the rapid automatic naming test and the influence of schooling, type of visual stimulation and cognitive and language skills.

Methods:

83 typical adolescents from 11 to 16 years old, enrolled from 6th to 9th grade of two public schools in Belo Horizonte participated in the study. The following tests were applied: rapid automatic naming, NEUPSILIN Brief Neuropsychological Assessment Instrument and Boston Naming. During rapid naming, substitutions and self-correction were accounted for. The variation in the number of errors, with and without self-correction, was related to schooling, functions and skills evaluated. Appropriate statistical tests were applied, adopting a significance level lower than 0.05.

Results:

individuals who made no mistakes had a better performance in attention, executive functions, memory, and vocabulary than those who made. Adolescents who performed self-correction were better at attention than those who did not correct themselves. Non-alphanumeric stimuli presented a higher occurrence of self-correction. Non-alphanumeric and alphanumeric tasks differed in terms of number of errors, both with and without self-correction. Adolescents from the early and late years of middle school differed regarding self-correction in the task of naming letters.

Conclusion:

self-correction was frequent in the evaluated sample and differentiated the group of adolescents who self-corrected or not, regarding attention, executive functions and vocabulary.

Keywords:
Adolescents; Language Tests; Language; Mental Processes

Task	Mean	SD	Min.	Max.
Colors	1.19	1.30	0	6
Objects	1.06	1.17	0	5
Letters	0.29	0.63	0	3
Digits	0.41	0.75	0	4
Friedman’s Test (Value - p)	< 0.001
Task	Wilcoxon test (p-value)
Object - Colors	0.761
Letters - Colors	< 0.001
Digits - Colors	< 0.001
Letters - Objects	< 0.001
Digits - Objects	< 0.001
Digits - Letters	0.221

Groups	Freq.	Education Level		Total
Groups	Freq.	6th and 7th grade	8th and 9th grade	Total
Substitution without self-correction	N	15	6	21
Substitution without self-correction	%	38.5	25	33.3
Substitution with self-correction	N	24	18	42
Substitution with self-correction	%	61.5	75	66.7
Total	N	39	24	63
Total	%	100	100	100
P-value	0.410*

Task	6th and 7th grade (n = 39)					8th and 9th grade (n = 24)					p-value*
Task	Mean	Median	SD	Min	Max.	Mean	Median	SD	Min	Max.	p-value*
Colors	1.38	1	1.49	0	6	0.88	1	0.85	0	2	0.306
Objects	1.15	1	1.46	0	5	0.92	1	1.01	0	4	0.570
Letters	0.15	0	0.43	0	2	0.50	0	0.83	0	3	0.045
Digits	0.46	0	0.82	0	4	0.33	0	063	0	2	0.527

Measurements	General Attention	Digit Sequence Repeat	General Executive Functions	Verbal fluency	Vocabulary
	No substitution and self-correction (n = 20)
Mean	24.10	5.15	6.25	4.90	Vocabulary	46.15
Median	26.00	6.00	6.00	5.00	47.50
SD	3.65	1.81	1.71	1.48	6.75
Min.	13	2	2	2	30
Max.	27	7	10	8	55
	Presence of substitution without self-correction (n = 21)
Mean	21.14	3.62	5.14	3.71	55	40.10
Median	23.00	4.00	5.00	4.00	39.00
SD	5.57	1.59	1.42	1.23	6.14
Min.	4	1	3	2	28
Max.	27	7	9	7	50
	Presence of substitution with self-correction (n = 42)
Mean	23.29	4.67	5.67	4.40	50	42.88
Median	25.00	5.00	5.00	4.00	42.50
SD	4.84	1.79	1.66	1.59	6.41
Min.	2	1	2	1	26
Max.	27	7	10	8	56
P-value*	0.017	0.010	0.030	0.020	0.010

Groups/ P-value	General Attention	Digit Sequence Repeat	General Executive Functions	Verbal fluency	Vocabulary
No substitution versus substitution and no self-correction	0.014*	0.007*	0.006*	0.008*	0.005*
No substitution versus substitution and self-correction	0.296	0.209	0.079	0.150	0.043*
Substitution and no self-correction versus substitution and self-correction	0.017*	0.016*	0.204	0.073	0.085

ABRAMO Associação Brasileira de Motricidade Orofacial Rua Uruguaiana, 516, Cep 13026-001 Campinas SP Brasil, Tel.: +55 19 3254-0342 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistacefac@cefac.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding address: Luciana Mendonça Alves, Curso de Fonoaudiologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Departamento de Fonoaudiologia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Avenida Prof. Alfredo Balena, 190 - Santa Efigênia, CEP: 30130-100 - Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brasil, E-mail: lumendocaalves@gmail.com