Search

Purpose: Individuals with aphasia identify discourse-level communication (i.e., language in use) as a high priority for treatment. The central premise of most aphasia treatments is that restoring language at the phoneme, word, and/or sentence level will generalize to discourse. However, treatment-related changes in discourse-level communication are modest, are poorly understood, and vary greatly among individuals with aphasia. In response, this study consisted of a multilevel discourse analysis of archival, monologic discourse outcomes across two high-intensity Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) clinical trials. Aim 1 evaluated changes in theoretically motivated discourse outcomes representing lexical-semantic processing, lexical diversity, grammatical complexity, and discourse informativeness. Aim 2 explored the potential moderating role of nonlanguage cognitive factors (semantic memory, divided attention, and executive function) on discourse outcomes., Method: This study was a retrospective analysis of archival monologic discourse outcomes after intensive SFA for n = 60 (Aim 1) and a subset n = 44 (Aim 2). Outcome measures included lexical-semantic processing (% semantic errors), lexical diversity (moving average type-token ratio), grammatical complexity (mean utterance length), and discourse informativeness (% correct information units). Bayesian generalized mixed-effects models were used to examine changes across four study time points: enrollment, entry, exit, and 1-month follow-up., Results: The present study found no evidence for meaningful or statistically reliable improvements in monologue discourse performance after SFA when measured using standard, general-topic discourse stimuli. There was weak and inconsistent evidence that nonlanguage cognitive factors may play a role in moderating treatment response., Conclusions: These findings indicate a clear need to pair theoretically informed treatments designed to facilitate generalization to discourse with intentional measurement paradigms designed to capture it. Furthermore, there is a clear need to examine how established treatments, restorative or compensatory, can better facilitate generalization to discourse-level communication. These priorities are critical for meaningfully improving everyday communication and reducing the profound communication and psychosocial consequences of aphasia., Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26524081.

Purpose: Item response theory (IRT) is a modern psychometric framework with several advantageous properties as compared with classical test theory. IRT has been successfully used to model performance on anomia tests in individuals with aphasia; however, all efforts to date have focused on noun production accuracy. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the Verb Naming Test (VNT), a prominent test of action naming, can be successfully modeled under IRT and evaluate its reliability., Method: We used responses on the VNT from 107 individuals with chronic aphasia from AphasiaBank. Unidimensionality and local independence, two assumptions prerequisite to IRT modeling, were evaluated using factor analysis and Yen's Q 3 statistic (Yen, 1984), respectively. The assumption of equal discrimination among test items was evaluated statistically via nested model comparisons and practically by using correlations of resulting IRT-derived scores. Finally, internal consistency, marginal and empirical reliability, and conditional reliability were evaluated., Results: The VNT was found to be sufficiently unidimensional with the majority of item pairs demonstrating adequate local independence. An IRT model in which item discriminations are constrained to be equal demonstrated fit equivalent to a model in which unique discrimination parameters were estimated for each item. All forms of reliability were strong across the majority of IRT ability estimates., Conclusions: Modeling the VNT using IRT is feasible, yielding ability estimates that are both informative and reliable. Future efforts are needed to quantify the validity of the VNT under IRT and determine the extent to which it measures the same construct as other anomia tests., Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22329235.

Anomia assessment is a fundamental component of clinical practice and research inquiries involving individuals with aphasia, and confrontation naming tasks are among the most commonly used tools for quantifying anomia severity. While currently available confrontation naming tests possess many ideal properties, they are ultimately limited by the overarching psychometric framework they were developed within. Here, we discuss the challenges inherent to confrontation naming tests and present a modern alternative to test development called item response theory (IRT). Key concepts of IRT approaches are reviewed in relation to their relevance to aphasiology, highlighting the ability of IRT to create flexible and efficient tests that yield precise measurements of anomia severity. Empirical evidence from our research group on the application of IRT methods to a commonly used confrontation naming test is discussed, along with future avenues for test development., Competing Interests: W.D.H. reports grants from Portland State University, during the conduct of the study., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Purpose The purpose of this study was to verify the equivalence of 2 alternate test forms with nonoverlapping content generated by an item response theory (IRT)-based computer-adaptive test (CAT). The Philadelphia Naming Test (PNT; Roach, Schwartz, Martin, Grewal, & Brecher, 1996)was utilized as an item bank in a prospective, independent sample of persons with aphasia. Method Two alternate CAT short forms of the PNT were administered to a sample of 25 persons with aphasia who were at least 6 months postonset and received no treatment for 2 weeks before or during the study. The 1st session included administration of a 30-item PNT-CAT, and the 2nd session, conducted approximately 2 weeks later, included a variable-length PNT-CAT that excluded items administered in the 1st session and terminated when the modeled precision of the ability estimate was equal to or greater than the value obtained in the 1st session. The ability estimates were analyzed in a Bayesian framework. Results The 2 test versions correlated highly ( r = .89) and obtained means and standard deviations that were not credibly different from one another. The correlation and error variance between the 2 test versions were well predicted by the IRT measurement model. Discussion The results suggest that IRT-based CAT alternate forms may be productively used in the assessment of anomia. IRT methods offer advantages for the efficient and sensitive measurement of change over time. Future work should consider the potential impact of differential item functioning due to person factors and intervention-specific effects, as well as expanding the item bank to maximize the clinical utility of the test. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.11368040.

Purpose In this study, we investigated the agreement between the 175-item Philadelphia Naming Test (PNT; Roach, Schwartz, Martin, Grewal, & Brecher, 1996 ) and a 30-item computer adaptive PNT (PNT-CAT; Fergadiotis, Kellough, & Hula, 2015 ; Hula, Kellough, & Fergadiotis, 2015 ) created using item response theory (IRT) methods. Method The full PNT and the PNT-CAT were administered to 47 participants with aphasia in counterbalanced order. Latent trait-naming ability estimates for the 2 PNT versions were analyzed in a Bayesian framework, and the agreement between them was evaluated using correlation and measures of constant, variable, and total error. We also evaluated the extent to which individual pairwise differences were credibly greater than 0 and whether the IRT measurement model provided an adequate indication of the precision of individual score estimates. Results The agreement between the PNT and the PNT-CAT was strong, as indicated by high correlation ( r = .95, 95% CI [.92, .97]), negligible bias, and low variable and total error. The number of statistically robust pairwise score differences did not credibly exceed the Type I error rate, and the precision of individual score estimates was reasonably well predicted by the IRT model. Discussion The strong agreement between the full PNT and the PNT-CAT suggests that the latter is a suitable measurement of anomia in group studies. The relatively robust estimates of score precision also suggest that the PNT-CAT can be useful for the clinical assessment of anomia in individual cases. Finally, the IRT methods used to construct the PNT-CAT provide a framework for additional development to further reduce measurement error. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8202176.