ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2022
Quality of Measurement in Core Lexicon Measures.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The curious case of the Cat Rescue: can picture narrative description inform visuospatial processing in aphasia?Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Core lexicon in aphasia: A longitudinal study.Aphasiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCore lexicon measures have received growing attention in research. They are intended to provide clinicians with a clinician-friendly means to quantify word retrieval ability in discourse based on normal expectations of discourse production for specific discourse elicitation tasks. To date, different criteria have been used to develop core lexicon measures by groups of researchers. The need for statistical guidance in pursuit of the psychologically robust measure has been recognized.
aimsThis study was to investigate the best criterion for accurate measurement. Specifically, we focused on two criteria (
methodCore lexicon measures consisting of five different checklists by word class (verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and function words) and developed by the two criteria were applied to language samples produced by 470 cognitively healthy adults. Performance in word retrieval ability at the discourse level was modeled as a latent variable based on the observed proportions of the production of core lexicon items in two different sets of core lexicon measures using structural equation modeling.
resultsResults indicated that both criterion for core lexicon measures capture word retrieval ability in discourse. Greater residual variances were found in the core lexicon measure established by the percentage criterion compared to the one established by the frequency criterion. This indicates that the measure based on the percentage criterion is more affected by measurement errors.
conclusionsThe findings provide evidence that the frequency criterion is better to use for the development of core lexicon measures for core nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, but not for function words. However, our findings are limited to core lexicon measures based on language samples elicited by wordless picture books. This may not be easily applied to other core lexicon measures that use different discourse elicitation tasks due to the difference in quality and quantity of language samples. Ideally, the same approach should be replicated to evaluate the appropriateness of respective criteria in the development of core lexicon measures. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.20304144.
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.