Comparing the PPVT and ROWPVT (Ingvalson et al., 2023)

<b>Purpose:</b> We sought to compare raw scores, standard scores, and age equivalences on two commonly used vocabulary tests, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) and the Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT).<b>Method:</b> Sixty-two children, 31 with hearing loss (HL) and 31 with normal hearing (NH), were given both the PPVT and ROWPVT as part of an ongoing longitudinal study of emergent literacy development in preschoolers with and without HL. All children were between 3 and 4 years old at administration, and the two tests were administered within 3 weeks of each other. Both tests were given again 6 months later. Standard scores and age equivalencies were calculated for both tests using published guidelines.<b>Results:</b> There was no significant effect of test for any of our analyses. However, there was a main effect of time, with both standard scores and age equivalencies being significantly higher at the second test. Children with NH had significantly higher standard scores and age equivalencies than children with NH, but there was no interaction between hearing status and time, suggesting that the two groups were growing at the same rate.<b>Conclusions:</b> Clinicians can be comfortable administering both the PPVT and ROWPVT to estimate children’s vocabulary levels, but there may be practice effects when administering the tests twice within a calendar year. These data also indicate that children with HL continue to lag behind their peers with NH on vocabulary development.<b>Supplemental Material S1.</b> Number of references found for literature searches of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) and Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT or ROW-PVT).Ingvalson, E. M., Perry, L. K., VanDam, M., &amp; Grieco-Calub, T. M. (2023). Comparing scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test in preschoolers with and without hearing loss. <i>American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 32</i>(4), 1610–1619. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-22-00352