CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Psychometric Methodologies and TestingNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismPsychological Testing and Assessment

Enhancing the Efficiency of Confrontation Naming Assessment for Aphasia Using Computer Adaptive Testing

Open access
Fergadiotis, Gerasimos, Hula, William D., Swiderski, Alexander M., Lei, Chia-Ming, Kellough, Stacey·2019·Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
DOI 10.1044/2018_jslhr-l-18-0344PMC PMC6808378
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: In this study, we investigated the agreement between the 175-item Philadelphia Naming Test (PNT; Roach, Schwartz, Martin, Grewal, & Brecher, 1996 ) and a 30-item computer adaptive PNT (PNT-CAT; Fergadiotis, Kellough, & Hula, 2015 ; Hula, Kellough, & Fergadiotis, 2015 ) created using item response theory (IRT) methods. Method: The full PNT and the PNT-CAT were administered to 47 participants with aphasia in counterbalanced order. Latent trait-naming ability estimates for the 2 PNT versions were analyzed in a Bayesian framework, and the agreement between them was evaluated using correlation and measures of constant, variable, and total error. We also evaluated the extent to which individual pairwise differences were credibly greater than 0 and whether the IRT measurement model provided an adequate indication of the precision of individual score estimates. Results: The agreement between the PNT and the PNT-CAT was strong, as indicated by high correlation ( r = .95, 95% CI [.92, .97]), negligible bias, and low variable and total error. The number of statistically robust pairwise score differences did not credibly exceed the Type I error rate, and the precision of individual score estimates was reasonably well predicted by the IRT model. Discussion: The strong agreement between the full PNT and the PNT-CAT suggests that the latter is a suitable measurement of anomia in group studies. The relatively robust estimates of score precision also suggest that the PNT-CAT can be useful for the clinical assessment of anomia in individual cases. Finally, the IRT methods used to construct the PNT-CAT provide a framework for additional development to further reduce measurement error. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8202176

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/2018_jslhr-l-18-0344

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies examining tablet-based and computer-delivered versions of tools such as the Philadelphia Naming Test, Western Aphasia Battery, and Russian Aphasia Test consistently demonstrated strong agreement with their pen-and-paper counterparts.

    “Studies examining tablet‐based and computer‐delivered versions of tools such as the Philadelphia Naming Test (Fergadiotis et al. 2019), the Western Aphasia Battery (Vallila‐Rohter et al. 2018) and the Russian Aphasia Test (Ivanova et al. 2021) consistently demonstrated strong agreement with their pen‐and‐paper counterparts”

    From Exploring the Effectiveness of Technology‐Based Interventions in Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as Fergadiotis et al. 2019

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1 -48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bock, R. D., & Mislevy, R. J. (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6 (4), 431 -444. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 014662168200600405
  3. Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14 (1), 177 -208. https://doi.org/10.1080/026432997381664 · DOI
  4. Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M. D., Lee, D., Goodrich, B., Betancourt, M., . . . Riddell, A. (2017). Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software, 76 (1), https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v076.i01 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Carragher, M., Conroy, P., Sage, K., & Wilkinson, R. (2012). Can impairment-focused therapy change the everyday conversations of people with aphasia? A review of the literature and future directions. Aphasiology, 26 (7), 895 -916. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02687038.2012.676164 · DOI
  6. De Ayala, R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
  7. del Toro, C. M., Bislick, L. P., Comer, M., Velozo, C., Romero, S., Rothi, L. J. G., & Kendall, D. L. (2011). Development of a short form of the Boston Naming Test for individuals with aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54 (4), 1089 -1100. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/090119) · DOI
  8. Druks, D. J., & Masterson, J. (2000). An object and action naming battery . United Kingdom: Psychology Press.
  9. Fergadiotis, G., Kellough, S., & Hula, W. D. (2015). Item response theory modeling of the Philadelphia Naming Test. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58 (3), 865 -877. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015\_JSLHR-L-14-0249 · DOI
  10. Fergadiotis, G., Swiderski, A. M., & Hula, W. D. (2018). Predicting confrontation naming item difficulty. Aphasiology, 33 (6), 689 -709. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2018.1495310 · DOI
  11. Fergadiotis, G., & Wright, H. H. (2015). Modelling confrontation naming and discourse performance in aphasia. Aphasiology, 30 (4), 1 -17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2015.1067288 · DOI
  12. Foygel, D., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Models of impaired lexical access in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 43 (2), 182 -216. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2716 · DOI
  13. Gelman, A., Carlin, J., Stern, H., Dunson, D., Vehtari, A., & Rubin, D. (2013). Bayesian data analysis (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  14. Gierl, M. J., & Haladyna, T. M. (2012). Automatic item generation: Theory and practice . New York: Routledge.
  15. Goodglass, H., & Wingfield, A. (1997). Anomia: Neuroanatomical and cognitive correlates . San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  16. Hula, W. D., Kellough, S., & Fergadiotis, G. (2015). Development and simulation testing of a computerized adaptive version of the Philadelphia Naming Test. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58 (3), 878 -890. https://doi.org/10.1044/ 2015\_JSLHR-L-14-0297
  17. Kaplan, E., Goodlgass, H., & Weintraub, S. (2001). Boston Naming Test (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
  18. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
  19. Kohn, S. E., & Goodglass, H. (1985). Picture-naming in aphasia. Brain and Language, 24 (2), 266 -283. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0093-934X(85)90135-X
  20. Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 (1), 1 -38. https://doi.org/10.3115/992628.992631 · DOI
  21. Lotery, A. J., Wiggam, M. I., Jackson, A. J., Refson, K., Fullerton, K. J., Gilmore, D. H., & Beringer, T. R. (2000). Correctable visual impairment in stroke rehabilitation patients. Age and Ageing, 29 (3), 221 -222.
  22. McElreath, R. (2018). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan . Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  23. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22 (3), 276 -282.
  24. Mirman, D., Strauss, T. J., Brecher, A., Walker, G. M., Sobel, P., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2010). A large, searchable, web-based database of aphasic performance on picture naming and other tests of cognitive function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27 (6), 495 -504. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2011.574112 · DOI
  25. Nickels, L. (2002). Therapy for naming disorders: Revisiting, revising, and reviewing. Aphasiology, 16 (10 -11), 935 -979. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02687030244000563 · DOI
  26. Pedraza, O., Sachs, B. C., Ferman, T. J., Rush, B. K., & Lucas, J. A. (2011). Difficulty and discrimination parameters of Boston Naming Test items in a consecutive clinical series. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 26 (5), 434 -444. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/arclin/acr042 · DOI
  27. Rasch, G. (1993). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests . Chicago, IL: MESA Press.
  28. Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
  29. Strand, E. A., Duffy, J. R., Clark, H. M., & Josephs, K. (2014). The Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale: A tool for diagnosis and description of apraxia of speech. Journal of Communication Disorders, 51, 43 -50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014. 06.008 · DOI
  30. Swinburn, K., Porter, G., & Howard, D. (2004). Comprehensive Aphasia Test . New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  31. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
  32. Thissen, D. (2000). Reliability and measurement precision. In Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  33. Thompson, N. A. (2009). Item selection in computerized classification testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69 (5), 778 -793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408324460 · DOI
  34. Vale, C. D. (2006). Computerized item banking. In S. M. Downing &T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development . Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
  35. Wainer, H., Dorans, N. J., Flaugher, R., Green, B. F., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer . New York: Routledge.
  36. Walker, G. M., Hickok, G., & Fridriksson, J. (2018). A cognitive psychometric model for assessment of picture naming abilities in aphasia. Psychological Assessment, 30 (6), 809 -826. https:// doi.org/10.1037/pas0000529 · DOI
  37. Walker, G. M., & Schwartz, M. F. (2012). Short-form Philadelphia Naming Test: Rationale and empirical evaluation. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21 (2), S140 -S153. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0089) · DOI
  38. Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design . Chicago, IL: MESA Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fergadiotis, G., Hula, W. D., Swiderski, A. M., Lei, C.-M., & Kellough, S.
Affiliations
  • Portland State University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Publisher
American Speech Language Hearing Association
Published
2019-06-19
Volume
62
Issue
6
Pages
1724-1738
ISSN
  • 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9102
DOI
10.1044/2018_jslhr-l-18-0344
PMC
PMC6808378
OpenAlex
W2948461466
Cited by
23
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PDXScholar (Portland State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R03DC014556)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
aphasia, confrontation naming, computerized adaptive testing, anomia, item response theory, test agreement, measurement error
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anomia, Aphasia, Bayes Theorem, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Humans, Language Tests, Male, Middle Aged, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review