Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Validation of a Cantonese Version of the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Validation of a Cantonese Version of the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test
Do you wish to request the book?
Validation of a Cantonese Version of the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Validation of a Cantonese Version of the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test
2024
Overview
The current study aimed to validate the Cantonese version of the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (CANELT), a functional communication assessment tool for Cantonese speakers with aphasia. A quantitative scoring method was adopted to examine the pragmatics and informativeness of the production of people with aphasia (PWA). CANELT was translated from its English version with cultural adaptations. The performance on the 20-item CANELT collected from 56 PWA and 100 neurologically healthy Cantonese-speaking controls aged 30 to 79 years was orthographically transcribed. Scoring was based on the completeness of the main concepts produced in the preamble and subsequent elaborations, defined as Opening (O) and New Information (NI). Measures examining the validity and reliability were conducted. An age effect was found in neurologically healthy controls, and therefore z scores were used for subsequent comparisons between neurologically healthy controls and PWA. The test showed strong evidence for known-group validity in both O [X.sup.2 (2) = 95.2, p < .001] and NI [X.sup.2 (2) = 100.4, p < .001]. A moderate to strong correlation was found between CANELT and standardized aphasia assessment tools, suggesting satisfactory concurrent validity. Reliability measures were excellent in terms of internal consistency (Cronbach's [alpha] of .95 for both 'O' and 'NI'), test-retest reliability (ICC = .96; p < .001), intra-rater reliability (ICC = 1.00; p < .001), and inter-rater reliability for O (ICC = .99; p < .001) and NI (ICC = .99; p < .001). Sensitivity and specificity for O are 97% and 76.8%, respectively, while for NI, a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 91.1% were obtained. Measures on validity and reliability yielded promising results, suggesting CANELT as a useful and reliable functional communication assessment for PWA. Its application in managing PWA and potential areas for development are discussed.
Publisher
Public Library of Science
Subject
