Letter reversal assessments: A systematic review of measurement properties, administration guidelines and reversal content and Richmond Reversal Rating: Construct validity in relation to visual-spatial abilities
Date of Award
Bachelor of Science (Occupational Therapy) Honours
School of Exercise and Health Sciences
Health, Engineering and Science
Dr Janet Richmond
Background: With several assessments available that purport to measure the letter reversal rates of young school-aged children, the question was raised how reliable and comparable these assessments are and to what extent each assessment addresses the concept of letter reversals? A systematic review of these assessments was performed to evaluate the measurement properties and administration guidelines, and to compare the reversal content of these assessments.
Method: Relevant assessments and studies were identified through literature searches. For each of the assessments the measurement properties, quality of the studies that report the measurement properties, and administration guidelines were evaluated, and the content of the assessments were compared.
Results: Insufficient evidence existed for the measurement properties of all three assessments. None of the current assessments clearly explain to what extent they address the concept of letter reversal. Due to the differences in design and scoring, comparison of the results between the different assessments will be difficult.
Conclusion: The value of the current assessments are questionable due to the low level of evidence supporting their measurement properties, and the lack of clarity surrounding the types of reversals and the underlying construct the assessments are measuring.
Keywords: letter reversals, measurement properties, administration guidelines
Venter, L. (2014). Letter reversal assessments: A systematic review of measurement properties, administration guidelines and reversal content and Richmond Reversal Rating: Construct validity in relation to visual-spatial abilities. Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons/195