2.3.6. Speed of Processing

Speed of processing was measured by rapid automatized naming (RAN) and Child Language and Learning's speed of processing tests [66]. Two tasks with black and white drawings of objects were used to assess expressive processing speed. The objects represented high-frequency words usually acquired at a very early age, such as RAN1: a sun, a boat, a mouse, a door, and a bus; and RAN2: a light, a ball, a boy, a house, and a car. The

five pictures were shown randomly in four rows with five items in each row. The child was asked to name each picture. The time it took to complete the task was recorded, and mean summary scores were calculated for the total amount of time used on the two tasks. The intraclass correlation between RAN1 and RAN2 was moderate (ICC = 0.57; when using a two-way mixed effects model with absolute agreement based on an average of the two measures [67].

Two tasks were used to assess the receptive speed of processing: both involved focusing on objects; the words used were high frequency and usually acquired at an early age [66]. In the first speed of processing task (SPEED 1), the child was given a sheet of paper showing black and white drawings of a sun, a boat, a mouse, a door, and a bus. The five pictures were shown randomly in six rows with seven items in each row. There were four sheets in total. For each sheet, the child was shown a mouse and asked to collect all the mice on the sheet. Then, the child was given a marker and asked to set a dot on all the mice on the sheet. Finally, the child was asked to do the task as quickly as possible for one minute. The number of tasks that the child completed correctly within the time frame was summarized. In the second speed of processing task (SPEED 2), the child carried out the same task as in SPEED 1, but the pictures were of a light, a ball, a boy, a house, and a car, and the child was asked to collect cars. The scoring scheme for SPEED 2 was the same as that for SPEED 1. The mean summary scores were calculated for the total amount of time taken to complete the two speed tasks. The intraclass correlation between SPEED 1 and SPEED 2 was good (ICC = 0.87; when using a two-way mixed effects model with absolute agreement based on an average of the two measures).
