Short-Form Philadelphia Naming Test: Rationale and Empirical Evaluation 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 ... Supplement Article
Supplement Article  |   May 01, 2012
Short-Form Philadelphia Naming Test: Rationale and Empirical Evaluation
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Grant M. Walker
    Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Elkins Park, PA
  • Myrna F. Schwartz
    Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Elkins Park, PA
  • Correspondence to Myrna F. Schwartz: mschwart@einstein.edu
  • Editor: Swathi Kiran
    Editor: Swathi Kiran×
  • Associate Editor: Lisa Edmonds
    Associate Editor: Lisa Edmonds×
Article Information
Research Issues, Methods & Evidence-Based Practice / Supplement: Select Papers From the 41st Clinical Aphasiology Conference
Supplement Article   |   May 01, 2012
Short-Form Philadelphia Naming Test: Rationale and Empirical Evaluation
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 2012, Vol. 21, S140-S153. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0089)
History: Received August 11, 2011 , Revised December 9, 2011 , Accepted January 19, 2012
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 2012, Vol. 21, S140-S153. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0089)
History: Received August 11, 2011; Revised December 9, 2011; Accepted January 19, 2012
Web of Science® Times Cited: 4

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.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Adelyn Brecher, Rachel Jacobson, and Jennifer Gallagher, who recruited patients and collected data, and Gary S. Dell and Daniel Mirman, who provided us with thoughtful suggestions regarding data analysis and interpretation. This research was supported by Grant DC000191-29 from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (M. Schwartz, PI).
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access