American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Vol.21 S140-S153 May 2012. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0089)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Walker, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Schwartz, M. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Walker, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Schwartz, M. F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Select Papers From the 41st Clinical Aphasiology Conference

Short-Form Philadelphia Naming Test: Rationale and Empirical Evaluation

Grant M. Walkera
Myrna F. Schwartza
a Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Elkins Park, PA

Correspondence to Myrna F. Schwartz: mschwart{at}einstein.edu

Purpose: To create two matched short forms of the Philadelphia Naming Test (PNT; Roach, Schwartz, Martin, Grewal, & Brecher, 1996) that yield similar results to the PNT for measuring anomia.

Method: In Study 1, archived naming data from 94 individuals with aphasia were used to identify which PNT items should be included in the short forms. The 2 constructed sets of 30 items, PNT30-A and PNT30-B, were validated using archived data from a separate group of 56 individuals with aphasia. In Study 2, the reliability of the PNT, PNT30-A, and PNT30-B across independent test administrations was evaluated with a new group of 25 individuals with aphasia who were selected to represent the full range of naming impairment.

Results: In Study 1, PNT30-A and PNT30-B were found to be internally consistent, and accuracy scores on these subsets of items were highly correlated with the full PNT. In Study 2, PNT accuracy was extremely reliable over the span of 1 week, and independent administrations of PNT30-A and PNT30-B produced similar results to the PNT and to each other.

Conclusion: The short forms of the PNT can be used to reliably estimate PNT performance, and the results can be compared to the provided norms. The 2 matched tests allow for the measurement of change in an individual's naming ability.

Key Words: aphasia, assessment, speech production, stroke


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?