Computer Adaptive Testing for the Assessment of Anomia Severity

Abstract

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.

Keywords

assessment - anomia - item response theory - confrontation naming tests

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
14. Juli 2021

• References

• 1 Raymer AM, Rothi LJG. Impairments of word comprehension and production. In: Chapey R. ed. Language Intervention Strategies in Aphasia and Related Neurogenic Communication Disorders. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001: 606-625
• 2 Simmons-Mackie N. Aphasia in North America: A Comprehensive Report on Incidence, Causes and Impact. Moorestown, NJ: Aphasia Access; 2018
• 3 Goodglass H, Kaplan E, Barresi B. Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination. 3rd ed.. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001
• 4 Kertesz A. Western Aphasia Battery – R. New York: Grune & Stratton; 2007
• 5 Swinburn K, Porter G, Howard D. Comprehensive Aphasia Test. United Kingdom: Psychology Press; 2004
• 6 Wilson SM, Eriksson DK, Schneck SM, Lucanie JM. A quick aphasia battery for efficient, reliable, and multidimensional assessment of language function. PLoS One 2018; 13 (02) e0192773
• 7 Cho-Reyes S, Thompson CK. Verb and sentence production and comprehension in aphasia: Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and Sentences (NAVS). Aphasiology 2012; 26 (10) 1250-1277
• 8 El Hachioui H, Visch-Brink EG, de Lau LML. et al. Screening tests for aphasia in patients with stroke: a systematic review. J Neurol 2017; 264 (02) 211-220
• 9 Kaplan E, Goodlgass H, Weintraub S. Boston Naming Test. 2nd ed.. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001
• 10 Roach A, Schwartz MF, Martin N, Grewal RS, Brecher A. The Philadelphia naming test: scoring and rationale. Clin Aphasiol 1996; 24: 121-133
• 11 Druks DJ, Masterson J. An Object and Action Naming Battery. Psychology Press; 2000
• 12 German DJ. Test of Adolescent/Adult Word Finding. Dallas, TX: DLM; 1990
• 13 Nozari N, Dell GS. How damaged brains repeat words: a computational approach. Brain Lang 2013; 126 (03) 327-337
• 14 Dell GS, Schwartz MF, Nozari N, Faseyitan O, Branch Coslett H. Voxel-based lesion-parameter mapping: identifying the neural correlates of a computational model of word production. Cognition 2013; 128 (03) 380-396
• 15 Kendall DL, Hunting Pompon R, Brookshire CE, Minkina I, Bislick L. An analysis of aphasic naming errors as an indicator of improved linguistic processing following phonomotor treatment. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2013; 22 (02) S240-S249
• 16 Fridriksson J, Richardson JD, Fillmore P, Cai B. Left hemisphere plasticity and aphasia recovery. Neuroimage 2012; 60 (02) 854-863
• 17 Quique YM, Evans WS, Walsh-Dickey M. Acquisition and generalization responses in aphasia naming treatment: a meta-analysis of semantic feature analysis outcomes. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2019; 28 (1S): 230-246
• 18 Brady MC, Kelly H, Godwin J, Enderby P, Campbell P. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; (06) CD000425
• 19 Kiran S, Cherney LR, Kagan A. et al. Aphasia assessments: a survey of clinical and research settings. Aphasiology 2018; 32 (Suppl. 01) 47-49
• 20 Herbert R, Hickin J, Howard D, Osborne F, Best W. Do picture-naming tests provide a valid assessment of lexical retrieval in conversation in aphasia?. Aphasiology 2008; 22 (02) 184-203
• 21 Mayer J, Murray L. Functional measures of naming in aphasia: word retrieval in confrontation naming versus connected speech. Aphasiology 2003; 17 (05) 481-497
• 22 Dell GS. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychol Rev 1986; 93 (03) 283-321
• 23 Fergadiotis G, Kapantzoglou M, Kintz S, Wright HH. Modeling confrontation naming and discourse informativeness using structural equation modeling. Aphasiology 2019; 33 (05) 544-560
• 24 Schuell H, Jenkins JJ, Jimenez-Pabon E. Aphasia in Adults. New York: Harper & Row; 1964
• 25 Walker GM, Schwartz MF. Short-form Philadelphia naming test: rationale and empirical evaluation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2012; S140-S153
• 26 Dell GS, Schwartz MF, Martin N, Saffran EM, Gagnon DA. Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychol Rev 1997; 104 (04) 801-838
• 27 Dell GS, O'Seaghdha PG. Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition 1992; 42 (1-3): 287-314
• 28 Mirman D, Strauss TJ, Brecher A. et al. A large, searchable, web-based database of aphasic performance on picture naming and other tests of cognitive function. Cogn Neuropsychol 2010; 27 (06) 495-504
• 29 Traub RE. Classical test theory in historical perspective. Educ Meas 1997; 16 (04) 8-14
• 30 Willse JT. Classical test theory. In: Salkind NJ. ed. Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2010: 150-153
• 31 Spearman C. Correlations of sums or differences. Br J Psychol 1913; 5 (04) 417-426
• 32 Spearman C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol 1904; 15 (01) 72-101
• 33 Spearman C. Demonstration of formulae for true measurement of correlation. Am J Psychol 1907; 18 (02) 161-169
• 34 Embretson SE. The new rules of measurement. Psychol Assess 1996; 8 (04) 341-349
• 35 de Ayala RJ. Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory. New York: Guilford Press; 2009
• 36 Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000
• 37 Fergadiotis G, Kellough S, Hula WD. Item response theory modeling of the Philadelphia Naming Test. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2015; 58 (03) 865-877
• 38 Fergadiotis G, Hula WD, Swiderski AM, Lei C-M, Kellough S. Enhancing the efficiency of confrontation naming assessment for aphasia using computer adaptive testing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (06) 1724-1738
• 39 Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Flaugher R, Green BF, Mislevy RJ. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. New York: Routledge; 2000
• 40 Dollard M. Occupational stress in the service professions. In: Dollard M, Winefield AH, Winefield HR. eds. Occupational Stress in the Service Professions. London: Taylor & Francis; 2003: 1-42
• 41 Chapey R, Duchan JF, Elman RJ. et al. Life participation approach to aphasia: a statement of values for the future. ASHA Lead 2000; ; (epub ahead of print)
• 42 Pedraza O, Sachs BC, Ferman TJ, Rush BK, Lucas JA. Difficulty and discrimination parameters of Boston naming test items in a consecutive clinical series. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2011; 26 (05) 434-444
• 43 Hula WD, Kellough S, Fergadiotis G. Development and simulation testing of a computerized adaptive version of the Philadelphia naming test. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2015; 58: 880
• 44 Makransky G, Dale PS, Havmose P, Bleses D. An item response theory-based, computerized adaptive testing version of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory: Words & Sentences (CDI:WS). J Speech Lang Hear Res 2016; 59 (02) 281-289
• 45 Ware Jr JE, Gandek B, Sinclair SJ, Bjorner JB. Item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: implications for outcomes measurement in rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychol 2005; 50 (01) 71-78
• 46 Hula WD, Fergadiotis G, Swiderski AM, Silkes JP, Kellough S. Empirical evaluation of computer-adaptive alternate short forms for the assessment of anomia severity. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 63 (01) 163-172
• 47 Lee W-C, Lee G. IRT linking and equating. In: Irwing P, Hughes DJ, Booth T. The Wiley Handbook of Psychometric Testing. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2018: 639-673
• 48 Guo J, Drasgow F. Identifying cheating on unproctored internet tests: the Z-test and the likelihood ratio test. Int J Sel Assess 2010; 18 (04) 351-364