ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2022
The Severity-Calibrated Aphasia Naming Test.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Subtle language deficits in WAB-recovered patients at 12 months after left-hemisphere stroke.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Language Processing in Posterior Fossa Tumour Patients: Psycholinguistic Insights into the Word-Finding Ability.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Article
- Rethinking anomia across the frontotemporal dementia spectrum: marker of language dysfunction or global cognitive decline?medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- How object naming dissociates from repetition and comprehension impairments when post stroke aphasia is less severe.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- PICTURE-IT: a pilot randomized cross-over trial encouraging right-hemisphere engagement for the treatment of aphasia via telemedicine.Aphasiology · 2025Article
- Quality of Assessment Tools for Aphasia: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Assessing Relative Linguistic Impairment With Model-Based Item Selection.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024Article
- Picture naming test through the prism of cognitive neuroscience and linguistics: adapting the test for cerebellar tumor survivors-or pouring new wine in old sacks?Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- A reconceptualization of sentence production in post-stroke agrammatic aphasia: the synergistic processing bottleneck model.Frontiers in language sciences · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe present a 20-item naming test, the Severity-Calibrated Aphasia Naming Test (SCANT), that can serve as a proxy measure for an aphasia severity scale that is derived from a thorough test battery of connected speech production, single-word production, speech repetition, and auditory verbal comprehension.
methodWe use lasso regression and cross-validation to identify an optimal subset from a set of 174 pictures to be named for prediction of aphasia severity, based on data from 200 participants with left-hemisphere stroke who were quasirandomly selected to represent the full impairment scale. Data from 20 healthy controls (i.e., participant caretakers/spouses) were also analyzed. We examine interrater reliability, test-retest reliability, sensitivity and specificity to the presence of aphasia, sensitivity to therapy gains, and external validity (i.e., correlation with aphasia severity measures) for the SCANT.
resultsThe SCANT has extremely high interrater reliability, and it is sensitive and specific to the presence of aphasia. We demonstrate the superiority of predictions based on the SCANT over those based on the full set of naming items. We estimate a 15% reduction in power when using the SCANT score versus the full test battery's aphasia severity score as an outcome measure; for example, to maintain the same power to detect a significant group average change in aphasia severity, a study with 25 participants using the full test battery to measure treatment effectiveness would require 30 participants if the SCANT were to be used as the testing instrument instead.
conclusionWe provide a linear model to convert SCANT scores to aphasia severity scores, and we identify a change score cutoff of four SCANT items to obtain a high degree of confidence based on test-retest SCANT data and the modeled relation between SCANT and aphasia severity scores. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21476871.
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.