PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a short form of the Boston Naming Test (BNT; Kaplan, Goodglass, & Weintraub, 2001) for individuals with aphasia and compare it with 2 existing short forms originally analyzed with responses from people with dementia and neurologically healthy adults. METHOD: Development of the new BNT-Aphasia Short Form and analysis of the other 2 forms were completed with archival data from 100 individuals with aphasia. The authors developed the BNT-Aphasia Short Form using items from the original 60-item instrument based on item response theory. Rasch analysis was computed on the short forms developed by Graves, Bezeau, Fogarty, and Blair (2004) and by Mack, Freed, Williams, and Henderson (1992). RESULTS: Analysis of the Graves et al. (2004) short form resulted in the smallest range of item difficulty and the largest floor effect compared with the Mack et al. (1992) short form and the BNT-Aphasia short form. The BNT-Aphasia Short Form showed an increase in information in the middle of the scale relative to both the Graves et al. and the Mack et al. forms. CONCLUSIONS: The new short form demonstrates good psychometric properties when used with individuals with aphasia. However, the Mack et al. form proved to be as psychometrically sound as the BNT-Aphasia Short Form and is also appropriate for individuals with aphasia.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a short form of the Boston Naming Test (BNT; Kaplan, Goodglass, & Weintraub, 2001) for individuals with aphasia and compare it with 2 existing short forms originally analyzed with responses from people with dementia and neurologically healthy adults. METHOD: Development of the new BNT-Aphasia Short Form and analysis of the other 2 forms were completed with archival data from 100 individuals with aphasia. The authors developed the BNT-Aphasia Short Form using items from the original 60-item instrument based on item response theory. Rasch analysis was computed on the short forms developed by Graves, Bezeau, Fogarty, and Blair (2004) and by Mack, Freed, Williams, and Henderson (1992). RESULTS: Analysis of the Graves et al. (2004) short form resulted in the smallest range of item difficulty and the largest floor effect compared with the Mack et al. (1992) short form and the BNT-Aphasia short form. The BNT-Aphasia Short Form showed an increase in information in the middle of the scale relative to both the Graves et al. and the Mack et al. forms. CONCLUSIONS: The new short form demonstrates good psychometric properties when used with individuals with aphasia. However, the Mack et al. form proved to be as psychometrically sound as the BNT-Aphasia Short Form and is also appropriate for individuals with aphasia.
Authors: Gerasimos Fergadiotis; William D Hula; Alexander M Swiderski; Chia-Ming Lei; Stacey Kellough Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2019-06-03 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Fay J Hlubocky; Greg A Sachs; Eric R Larson; Halla S Nimeiri; David Cella; Kristen E Wroblewski; Mark J Ratain; Jeffery M Peppercorn; Christopher K Daugherty Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Meredith R Wicklund; Joseph R Duffy; Edythe A Strand; Jennifer L Whitwell; Mary M Machulda; Keith A Josephs Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2013-07-11 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Chih-Ying Li; Sergio Romero; Kit N Simpson; Heather S Bonilha; Annie N Simpson; Ickpyo Hong; Craig A Velozo Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jessica D Richardson; Sarah Grace Dalton; Davida Fromm; Margaret Forbes; Audrey Holland; Brian MacWhinney Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 2.408