ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2022
Beyond Percent Correct: Measuring Change in Individual Picture Naming Ability.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Relative Linguistic Impairment With Model-Based Item Selection.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024Article
- Defining aphasia: Content analysis of six aphasia diagnostic batteries.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2023Article
- Item Response Theory Modeling of the Verb Naming Test.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- ParAlg: A Paraphasia Algorithm for Multinomial Classification of Picture Naming Errors.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- The Severity-Calibrated Aphasia Naming Test.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMeaningful changes in picture naming responses may be obscured when measuring accuracy instead of quality. A statistic that incorporates information about the severity and nature of impairments may be more sensitive to the effects of treatment.
methodWe analyzed data from repeated administrations of a naming test to 72 participants with stroke aphasia in a clinical trial for anomia therapy. Participants were divided into two groups for analysis to demonstrate replicability. We assessed reliability among response type scores from five raters. We then derived four summary statistics of naming ability and their changes over time for each participant: (a) the standard accuracy measure, (b) an accuracy measure adjusted for item difficulty, (c) an accuracy measure adjusted for item difficulty for specific response types, and (d) a distance measure adjusted for item difficulty for specific response types. While accuracy measures address the likelihood of a correct response, the distance measure reflects that different response types range in their similarity to the target. Model fit was assessed. The frequency of significant improvements and the average magnitude of improvements for each summary statistic were compared between treatment groups and a control group. Effect sizes for each model-based statistic were compared with the effect size for the standard accuracy measure.
resultsInterrater and intrarater reliability were near perfect, on average, though compromised somewhat by phonological-level errors. The effects of treatment were more evident, in terms of both frequency and magnitude, when using the distance measure versus the other accuracy statistics.
conclusionsConsideration of item difficulty and response types revealed additional effects of treatment on naming scores beyond those observed for the standard accuracy measure. The results support theories that assume naming ability is decomposable into subabilities rather than being monolithic, suggesting new opportunities for measuring treatment outcomes. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.17019515.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.