ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2025
Validity and Reliability of the Transactional EXchanges in Texting for Aphasia Rating Scale.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeText messaging is an increasingly relevant rehabilitation target for people with aphasia (PWA). Given the chronicity of aphasia and the likelihood that communication through this modality will remain a mainstay of daily life, it is critical to develop assessment tools to capture the texting abilities of PWA. This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Transactional EXchanges in Texting for Aphasia (TEXT-A) rating scale.
methodParticipants included 60 individuals with poststroke aphasia (40 females, 20 males). Performance on a texting script was evaluated using the TEXT-A's three-category rating in which turns elicited from participants with aphasia received a score of 0 (
resultsThe average Krippendorff's alpha between each of the raters and the gold standard (scores from first author) was .902 (min α = .855). The adjusted greatest lower bound for both the expert rater and the rater associated with the lowest reliability estimate from the previous analysis was .736 while Cronbach's alpha was equal to .73 (95% confidence interval [.61, .85]). Spearman correlations between the total TEXT-A score and the WAB-R AQ, LQ, and Writing subscale scores were .58, .73, and .73, respectively (for all correlations,
conclusionsThis study extends our initial evaluation of the TEXT-A, applying the scale to a larger, more heterogeneous sample. Findings suggest excellent interrater reliability, acceptable internal consistency, and moderate-to-strong criterion validity of the TEXT-A measure based on the relationship between TEXT-A and WAB-R scores.
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.