Laura L Pitts1,2,3, Rosalind Hurwitz1, Jaime B Lee1, Julia Carpenter1, Leora R Cherney1,2. 1. a Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago , Chicago , IL , USA. 2. b Northwestern University , Feinberg School of Medicine , Chicago , IL , USA , and. 3. c University of Northern Iowa , Cedar Falls , IA , USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evaluation of the Naming and Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia 6-point scale (NORLA-6), a scoring system of oral reading and naming performance in aphasia. METHOD: Data were drawn from 91 participants with non-fluent aphasia secondary to left-hemisphere stroke across four treatment studies. To assess validity, Spearman's correlations were calculated between the NORLA-6 and the Gray Oral Reading Test-Fourth Edition (GORT-4) Accuracy score, GORT-4 Rate score and the Boston Naming Test (BNT). Inter-rater and test-retest reliability were evaluated using correlations. Sensitivity to change following oral reading intervention was analysed using Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests between pre- and post-treatment NORLA-6 scores. RESULT: NORLA-6 performance was significantly correlated (p < 0.001) with all reference tests (GORT-4 Accuracy, rs=0.84; GORT-4 Rate, rs= 0.61; and BNT, rs= 0.92). Inter-rater (ICC ≥0.90) and test-retest (r > 0.92) reliability were both excellent. Sensitivity following oral reading intervention was demonstrated in both oral reading accuracy and rate (p < 0.004). CONCLUSION: The NORLA-6 is a valid and reliable measure of oral reading and naming performance. It also demonstrates sensitivity to change in treatment-targeted behaviours. Therefore, the NORLA-6 scale may enhance outcome measurement in both clinical practice and aphasia research.
PURPOSE: Evaluation of the Naming and Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia 6-point scale (NORLA-6), a scoring system of oral reading and naming performance in aphasia. METHOD: Data were drawn from 91 participants with non-fluent aphasia secondary to left-hemisphere stroke across four treatment studies. To assess validity, Spearman's correlations were calculated between the NORLA-6 and the Gray Oral Reading Test-Fourth Edition (GORT-4) Accuracy score, GORT-4 Rate score and the Boston Naming Test (BNT). Inter-rater and test-retest reliability were evaluated using correlations. Sensitivity to change following oral reading intervention was analysed using Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests between pre- and post-treatment NORLA-6 scores. RESULT: NORLA-6 performance was significantly correlated (p < 0.001) with all reference tests (GORT-4 Accuracy, rs=0.84; GORT-4 Rate, rs= 0.61; and BNT, rs= 0.92). Inter-rater (ICC ≥0.90) and test-retest (r > 0.92) reliability were both excellent. Sensitivity following oral reading intervention was demonstrated in both oral reading accuracy and rate (p < 0.004). CONCLUSION: The NORLA-6 is a valid and reliable measure of oral reading and naming performance. It also demonstrates sensitivity to change in treatment-targeted behaviours. Therefore, the NORLA-6 scale may enhance outcome measurement in both clinical practice and aphasia research.
Authors: R C Katz; B Hallowell; C Code; E Armstrong; P Roberts; C Pound; L Katz Journal: Int J Lang Commun Disord Date: 2000 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Miranda Rose; Alison Ferguson; Emma Power; Leanne Togher; Linda Worrall Journal: Int J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2013-06-18 Impact factor: 2.484