ArticleJMIR formative research2023
A Tablet-Based Aphasia Assessment System "STELA": Feasibility and Validation Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. 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.
- Computerized Platform in Hindi Language: Exploring Its Use in Aphasia Screening.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2026Article
- Research hotspots and frontiers of post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation: a bibliometric study and visualization analysis.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an extensive library of language tests, each with excellent psychometric properties; however, many of the tests available take considerable administration time, possibly bearing psychological strain on patients. The Short and Tailored Evaluation of Language Ability (STELA) is a simplified, tablet-based language ability assessment system developed to address this issue, with a reduced number of items and automated testing process.
objectiveThe aim of this paper is to assess the administration time, internal consistency, and validity of the STELA.
methodsThe STELA consists of a tablet app, a microphone, and an input keypad for clinician's use. The system is designed to assess language ability with 52 questions grouped into 2 comprehension modalities (auditory comprehension and reading comprehension) and 3 expression modalities (naming and sentence formation, repetition, and reading aloud). Performance in each modality was scored as the correct answer rate (0-100), and overall performance expressed as the sum of modality scores (out of 500 points).
resultsThe time taken to complete the STELA was significantly less than the time for the WAB (mean 16.2, SD 9.4 vs mean 149.3, SD 64.1 minutes; P<.001). The STELA's total score was strongly correlated with the WAB Aphasia Quotient (r=0.93, P<.001), supporting the former's concurrent validity concerning the WAB, which is a gold-standard aphasia assessment. Strong correlations were also observed at the subscale level; STELA auditory comprehension versus WAB auditory comprehension (r=0.75, P<.001), STELA repetition versus WAB repetition (r=0.96, P<.001), STELA naming and sentence formation versus WAB naming and word finding (r=0.81, P<.001), and the sum of STELA reading comprehension or reading aloud versus WAB reading (r=0.82, P<.001). Cronbach α obtained for each modality was .862 for auditory comprehension, .872 for reading comprehension, .902 for naming and sentence formation, .787 for repetition, and .892 for reading aloud. Global Cronbach α was .961. The average of the values of item-total correlation to each subscale was 0.61 (SD 0.17).
conclusionsOur study confirmed significant time reduction in the assessment of language ability and provided evidence for good internal consistency and validity of the STELA tablet-based aphasia assessment system.
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.