Validity and reliability of published comprehensive theory of mind tests for normal preschool children: A systematic

Objective: Theory of mind (ToM) or mindreading is an aspect of social cognition that evaluates mental states and beliefs of oneself and others. Validity and reliability are very important criteria when evaluating standard tests; and without them, these tests are not usable. The aim of this study was to systematically review the validity and reliability of published English comprehensive ToM tests developed for normal preschool children. Method: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed interface), Web of Science, Science direct, PsycINFO, and also evidence base Medicine (The Cochrane Library) databases from 1990 to June 2015. Search strategy was Latin transcription of 'Theory of Mind' AND test AND children. Also, we manually studied the reference lists of all final searched articles and carried out a search of their references. Inclusion criteria were as follows: Valid and reliable diagnostic ToM tests published from 1990 to June 2015 for normal preschool children; and exclusion criteria were as follows: The studies that only used ToM tests and single tasks (false belief tasks) for ToM assessment and/or had no description about structure, validity or reliability of their tests. Methodological quality of the selected articles was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Result: In primary searching, we found 1237 articles in total databases. After removing duplicates and applying all inclusion and exclusion criteria, we selected 11 tests for this systematic review. Conclusion: There were a few valid, reliable and comprehensive ToM tests for normal preschool children. However, we had limitations concerning the included articles. The defined ToM tests were different in populations, tasks, mode of presentations, scoring, mode of responses, times and other variables. Also, they had various validities and reliabilities. Therefore, it is recommended that the researchers and clinicians select the ToM tests according to their psychometric characteristics, validity and reliability

Evaluation of central auditory processing of azeri-persian bilinguals using dichotic listening tasks in first and second languages

Objectives Sometimes there is no hearing impairment, but it is possible to have an auditory disorder. This is known as a central auditory processing disorder (CAPD). Speech dichotic tasks are useful tools to evaluate CAPD, but there is almost no tool to assess this for Azeri people in their native language. The aim of this study was to evaluate central auditory processing of Azeri participants by Azeri dichotic digit test (ADDT). Materials & Methods Participants were 52 normal Iranian Azeri students (mean age 23.27± 4.71; 26 females, 26 males) in the Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran in 2016. They were chosen by convenient sampling. ADDT was constructed and administered in free recall conditions along with a Persian dichotic digit test (PDDT). After two to four weeks, reliability was performed. Results The mean of the right ear score of PDDT and ADDT was 98.90 and 99.09, respectively. ADDT was reliable in almost all scores. There was no significant difference in performance between men and women in any score of both tests (P>0.05). The results showed a significant difference between both ears� scores in PDDT (P<0.02) as well as in ADDT (P=0.00). The right ear advantage was seen in both tests. Conclusion All participants performed significantly better on digits presented in the right ear than the left ear in both tests. Central auditory processing of Azeri participants for Azeri is similar to that for Persian. © 2019, Iranian Child Neurology Society. All rights reserved

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE INTER-RATER RELIABILITY OF THE ASHWORTH SCALES IN ASSESSMENT OF SPASTICITY

Ashworth and modified Ashworth scales are the most widely used tests to assess the severity of muscle spasticity. These clinical scales offer qualitative and subjective information and consequently there are issues concerning reliability when two or more clinicians are involved in assessment of spasticity. This article presents the result of a study assessing inter-rater reliability of the original and of the modified Ashworth scales for the assessment of elbow flexor muscle spasticity in patients with hemiplegia. Thirteen patients with hemiplegia (8 men and 5 women) participated in this study. Two physiotherapists rated the muscle tone of elbow flexors according to the original and to the modified Ashworth scales. Each patient was assessed during a single session in a supine position on a bed with the arms at the sides of the body. Movements were performed three times by each assessor. No discussion of the results between the assessors occurred during the course of the study to ensure they were blind to each others’ results. Kappa values for the original Ashworth and the modified Ashworth scales were 0.22 (SE 0.27, P = 0.43) and 0.24 (SE 0.23, P = 0.24), respectively. The modified Ashworth scale was slightly more reliable than was the original scale but this difference was not significant (P &gt; 0.05). Inter-rater reliability of the original and of the modified Ashworth scales in the assessment of elbow flexor spasticity was poor and therefore these spasticity scales may not be valid