Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36332139›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2022

The Severity-Calibrated Aphasia Naming Test.

Grant M Walker, Julius Fridriksson, Argye E Hillis, Dirk B den Ouden, Leonardo Bonilha, Gregory Hickok

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Assessing Relative Linguistic Impairment With Model-Based Item Selection.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Grant M WalkerDepartment of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine.ORCID 0000-0003-3521-9355
Julius FridrikssonDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Carolina, Columbia.ORCID 0000-0001-9255-2045
Argye E HillisDepartments of Neurology, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, and Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-5192-1171
Dirk B den OudenDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Carolina, Columbia.ORCID 0000-0001-6971-7606
Leonardo BonilhaDepartment of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.ORCID 0000-0002-6153-8942
Gregory HickokDepartment of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine.
Google (United States) · US

Funding

Telerehab for Aphasia (TERRA)P50DC014664 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI FRIDRIKSSON, JULIUS · 2016 to 2025
$25.0M
NIDCD NIH HHS P50 DC014664
6 · The paper itself

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

AphasiaStrokeHumansLanguage TestsReproducibility of ResultsSpeech

Identifiers

PMID36332139
PMCPMC9911092
OpenAlexW4308253910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.