PURPOSE In the current age of greater digital delivery of services, it is important to examine the validity and differences between spoken and digital delivery of materials. The current study is a practice-based research partnership between school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and researchers, evaluating presentation effects and validity of a narrative retell assessment tool created by SLPs. METHOD Fifty-one children across kindergarten, Grade 1, and Grade 2 completed the narrative retell task, retelling One Frog Too Many and Frog Goes to Dinner in three in-person story presentation conditions administered 1 week apart: spoken, iPad with audio-recorded natural rate of speech, and iPad with slow rate of speech. This was followed by 10 comprehension questions related to story events. Children also completed the Story Retelling subtests from the Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills (TILLS). RESULTS Children recalled significantly fewer events in the spoken condition compared to audio-recorded iPad conditions. No significant effect of speaking rate was found. Presentation condition and rate did not affect performance on comprehension questions. Correlations among retell measures and corresponding subtests on a standardized language test ranged from weak to strong, providing some evidence of concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS This practice-based research partnership provided valuable insight into differences in delivery modality as well as the validity of a school-based SLP created narrative retell assessment tool. This study found that rate did not impact recall of events or performance on comprehension questions. Additionally, children performed better on narrative retell measures when stories were told using an iPad. This highlights the potential for iPad delivery as an option in narrative retell tasks. Finally, this study provided an initial examination of the Narrative Evaluation Tool's validity, finding the tool captures ability to recall narrative events; however, future studies are needed to examine the tool's validity as a measure of narrative comprehension. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25260910.

中文翻译：

---

在基于实践的研究合作中比较叙事复述评估工具的口语版本与 iPad 管理版本。


目的在当今服务数字化程度更高的时代，检查口头和数字材料交付的有效性和差异非常重要。目前的研究是学校言语病理学家 (SLP) 和研究人员之间基于实践的研究合作，评估 SLP 创建的叙事复述评估工具的呈现效果和有效性。方法 幼儿园、一年级和二年级的 51 名儿童完成了叙事复述任务，以三种面对面的故事演示方式复述《一只青蛙太多》和《青蛙去吃晚饭》，时间间隔 1 周：口语、iPad 和录音语速自然，而iPad语速较慢。接下来是 10 个与故事事件相关的理解问题。孩子们还完成了综合语言和读写技能测试 (TILLS) 中的故事复述子测试。结果 与 iPad 录音条件下相比，儿童在口头条件下回忆起的事件要少得多。没有发现语速的显着影响。演示条件和速率不会影响理解问题的表现。标准化语言测试中复述测量与相应子测试之间的相关性从弱到强，提供了同时有效性的一些证据。结论 这种基于实践的研究伙伴关系为了解交付方式的差异以及基于学校的 SLP 创建的叙事复述评估工具的有效性提供了宝贵的见解。这项研究发现，速度不会影响事件的回忆或理解问题的表现。此外，当使用 iPad 讲故事时，孩子们在叙事复述测试中表现得更好。 这凸显了 iPad 交付作为叙事复述任务选项的潜力。最后，本研究对叙事评估工具的有效性进行了初步检验，发现该工具捕捉了回忆叙事事件的能力；然而，未来的研究需要检验该工具作为叙事理解衡量标准的有效性。补充材料 https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25260910。