ArticlePloS one2024
Validation of a Cantonese Version of the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (CANELT): A functional approach.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (CST) on People with Concurrent Visual Impairment and Dementia: A Preliminary Study.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Quality of Assessment Tools for Aphasia: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current study aimed to validate the Cantonese version of the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (CANELT), a functional communication assessment tool for Cantonese speakers with aphasia. A quantitative scoring method was adopted to examine the pragmatics and informativeness of the production of people with aphasia (PWA).
methodCANELT was translated from its English version with cultural adaptations. The performance on the 20-item CANELT collected from 56 PWA and 100 neurologically healthy Cantonese-speaking controls aged 30 to 79 years was orthographically transcribed. Scoring was based on the completeness of the main concepts produced in the preamble and subsequent elaborations, defined as Opening (O) and New Information (NI). Measures examining the validity and reliability were conducted.
resultsAn age effect was found in neurologically healthy controls, and therefore z scores were used for subsequent comparisons between neurologically healthy controls and PWA. The test showed strong evidence for known-group validity in both O [χ2 (2) = 95.2, p < .001] and NI [χ2 (2) = 100.4, p < .001]. A moderate to strong correlation was found between CANELT and standardized aphasia assessment tools, suggesting satisfactory concurrent validity. Reliability measures were excellent in terms of internal consistency (Cronbach's α of .95 for both 'O' and 'NI'), test-retest reliability (ICC = .96; p < .001), intra-rater reliability (ICC = 1.00; p < .001), and inter-rater reliability for O (ICC = .99; p < .001) and NI (ICC = .99; p < .001). Sensitivity and specificity for O are 97% and 76.8%, respectively, while for NI, a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 91.1% were obtained.
conclusionsMeasures on validity and reliability yielded promising results, suggesting CANELT as a useful and reliable functional communication assessment for PWA. Its application in managing PWA and potential areas for development are discussed.
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.