Validity and reliability of oral picture-naming test in aphasic adults
Background and Aim: One of the common problems in many types of aphasia syndromes is word retrieval and/or production difficulty. So, designing a valid test that can examine this problem based on related processes and influencing factors is important. Picture confrontation naming is a typical method for assessing and treatment of word retrieval impairments. The aim of this study was determining the validity and reliability of oral picture-naming test in assessing word retrieval ability of aphasic adults.
Methods: Content and face validity of the test, that contains the line drawings of 115 Persian nouns, were assessed by speech therapists, graphists and painters. Then, the test was administered on 10 aphasics and 30 age-, gender- and education-matched normal subjects in two steps. Construct validity and internal consistency of test were investigated. External consistency was analyzed by test-retest method.
Results: The content and face validity of all items were more than 90 and 85 percents, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of patients and normal subjects (p<0.001). The internal consistency of 0.98 was determined for the test. The intra-class correlation coefficient of this test was 0.98.
Conclusions: The oral picture-naming test had good content, face and construct validity. Also, internal and external consistencies were high. So, this test is a valid instrument for assessing naming ability of aphasic patients by a variety and big set of picture.
2. Bormann T, Blanken G, Wallesch CW. Mechanisms of lexical selection and the anomias. In: Ball MJ, Damico JS, editors. Clinical aphasiology: future directions. New York: Psychology press; 2007. p. 156-67.
3. Schwartz M, Dell GS, Martin N, Gahl S, Sobel P. A case-series test of the interactive two-step model of lexical access: evidence from picture naming. J Mem Lang. 2006;54(2):228-64.
4. Kohn SE, Goodglass H. Picture-naming in aphasia. Brain Lang. 1985;24(2):266-83.
5. Kavé G. Standardization and norms for a Hebrew naming test. Brain Lang. 2005;92(2):204-11.
6. Bormann T, Kulke F, Wallesch CW, Blanken G. Omissions and semantic errors in aphasic naming: is there a link?. Brain Lang. 2008;104(1):24-32.
7. Williams KT. Expressive Vocabulary Test. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments; 2007.
8. Spreen O, Risser AH. Assessment of aphasia. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
9. Ansari NN, Naghdi S, Hasson S, Valizadeh L, Jalaie S. Validation of a mini mental state examination (MMSE) for the Persian population: A pilot study. Appl Neuropsychol. 2010;17(3):190-5.
10. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity Appraisal and recommendations? Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(4):459-67.
11. Groth-Marnat, G. Handbook of psychological assessment. 5th edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.