English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Naming tests represent an essential tool in gauging the severity of aphasiaand monitoring the trajectory of recovery for individuals afflicted with thisdebilitating condition. In these assessments, patients are presented withimages corresponding to common nouns, and their responses are evaluated foraccuracy. The Philadelphia Naming Test (PNT) stands as a paragon in thisdomain, offering nuanced insights into the type of errors made in responses. Ina groundbreaking advancement, Walker et al. (2018) introduced a model rooted inItem Response Theory and multinomial processing trees (MPT-IRT). Thisinnovative approach seeks to unravel the intricate mechanisms underlying thevarious errors patients make when responding to an item, aiming to pinpoint thespecific stage of word production where a patient's capability falters.However, given the sophisticated nature of the IRT-MPT model proposed by Walkeret al. (2018), it is imperative to scrutinize both its conceptual as well asits statistical validity. Our endeavor here is to closely examine the model'sformulation to ensure its parameters are identifiable as a first step inevaluating its validity.

Identifiability of the Multinomial Processing Tree-IRT model for the Philadelphia Naming Test