Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2021; 42(03): 180-191
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1727252
Review Article

Computer Adaptive Testing for the Assessment of Anomia Severity

Gerasimos Fergadiotis 
1   Speech and Hearing Sciences, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon
,
Marianne Casilio
2   Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
,
William D. Hula
3   VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
,
Alexander Swiderski
4   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
› Author Affiliations Funding Statement The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of NIH/NIDCD awards R03DC014556 (PI: G.F.) and R01DC018813 (PIs: W.D.H. and G.F.).
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

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


Publication History

Article published online:
14 July 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Simmons-Mackie N. Aphasia in North America: A Comprehensive Report on Incidence, Causes and Impact. Moorestown, NJ: Aphasia Access; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Goodglass H, Kaplan E, Barresi B. Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination. 3rd ed.. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Kertesz A. Western Aphasia Battery – R. New York: Grune & Stratton; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Swinburn K, Porter G, Howard D. Comprehensive Aphasia Test. United Kingdom: Psychology Press; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kaplan E, Goodlgass H, Weintraub S. Boston Naming Test. 2nd ed.. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Roach A, Schwartz MF, Martin N, Grewal RS, Brecher A. The Philadelphia naming test: scoring and rationale. Clin Aphasiol 1996; 24: 121-133
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Druks DJ, Masterson J. An Object and Action Naming Battery. Psychology Press; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 12 German DJ. Test of Adolescent/Adult Word Finding. Dallas, TX: DLM; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Nozari N, Dell GS. How damaged brains repeat words: a computational approach. Brain Lang 2013; 126 (03) 327-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Fridriksson J, Richardson JD, Fillmore P, Cai B. Left hemisphere plasticity and aphasia recovery. Neuroimage 2012; 60 (02) 854-863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Dell GS. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychol Rev 1986; 93 (03) 283-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schuell H, Jenkins JJ, Jimenez-Pabon E. Aphasia in Adults. New York: Harper & Row; 1964
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Walker GM, Schwartz MF. Short-form Philadelphia naming test: rationale and empirical evaluation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2012; S140-S153
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dell GS, O'Seaghdha PG. Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition 1992; 42 (1-3): 287-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Traub RE. Classical test theory in historical perspective. Educ Meas 1997; 16 (04) 8-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Willse JT. Classical test theory. In: Salkind NJ. ed. Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2010: 150-153
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Spearman C. Correlations of sums or differences. Br J Psychol 1913; 5 (04) 417-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Spearman C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol 1904; 15 (01) 72-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Spearman C. Demonstration of formulae for true measurement of correlation. Am J Psychol 1907; 18 (02) 161-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Embretson SE. The new rules of measurement. Psychol Assess 1996; 8 (04) 341-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 de Ayala RJ. Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory. New York: Guilford Press; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Flaugher R, Green BF, Mislevy RJ. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. New York: Routledge; 2000
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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) DOI: 10.1044/leader.FTR.05032000.4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar