Defining aphasia: Content analysis of six aphasia diagnostic batteries

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Nichol Castro , William D. Hula , Sameer A. Ashaie
{"title":"Defining aphasia: Content analysis of six aphasia diagnostic batteries","authors":"Nichol Castro ,&nbsp;William D. Hula ,&nbsp;Sameer A. Ashaie","doi":"10.1016/j.cortex.2023.05.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Clear operational definitions of constructs are necessary to ensure that research findings are meaningful and interpretable. In the field of aphasiology<span><span><span>, aphasia is often defined to the effect of “aphasia is an acquired </span>language disorder often due to brain injury that affects expressive and receptive language.” To contribute to our understanding of the construct of aphasia, we conducted a content analysis of six diagnostic aphasia tests: the Minnesota Test for the </span>Differential Diagnosis of Aphasia, the Porch Index of Communicative Ability, the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination, the Western Aphasia Battery, the Comprehensive Aphasia Test, and the Quick Aphasia Battery. These chosen tests have historical prominence, with several in regular clinical and research use today. We hypothesized that the content of the aphasia tests should be very similar since they all purport to identify and characterize (if present) aphasia, with recognition that there may be some subtle differences in test content stemming in large part to epistemological differences in the test makers’ views of aphasia. Instead, we found predominantly weak Jaccard indices, a similarity correlation coefficient, between test targets. Only five test targets were found in all six aphasia tests: auditory comprehension of words and sentences, repetition of words, confrontation naming of nouns, and reading comprehension of words. The qualitative and quantitative results suggest that the content across aphasia tests may be more disparate than expected. We conclude by discussing the implication of our results for the field, including the importance of updating, if necessary, the operational definition of aphasia through conversation with a broad audience of interested and affected people.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":10758,"journal":{"name":"Cortex","volume":"166 ","pages":"Pages 19-32"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10560591/pdf/nihms-1935296.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cortex","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945223001168","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Clear operational definitions of constructs are necessary to ensure that research findings are meaningful and interpretable. In the field of aphasiology, aphasia is often defined to the effect of “aphasia is an acquired language disorder often due to brain injury that affects expressive and receptive language.” To contribute to our understanding of the construct of aphasia, we conducted a content analysis of six diagnostic aphasia tests: the Minnesota Test for the Differential Diagnosis of Aphasia, the Porch Index of Communicative Ability, the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination, the Western Aphasia Battery, the Comprehensive Aphasia Test, and the Quick Aphasia Battery. These chosen tests have historical prominence, with several in regular clinical and research use today. We hypothesized that the content of the aphasia tests should be very similar since they all purport to identify and characterize (if present) aphasia, with recognition that there may be some subtle differences in test content stemming in large part to epistemological differences in the test makers’ views of aphasia. Instead, we found predominantly weak Jaccard indices, a similarity correlation coefficient, between test targets. Only five test targets were found in all six aphasia tests: auditory comprehension of words and sentences, repetition of words, confrontation naming of nouns, and reading comprehension of words. The qualitative and quantitative results suggest that the content across aphasia tests may be more disparate than expected. We conclude by discussing the implication of our results for the field, including the importance of updating, if necessary, the operational definition of aphasia through conversation with a broad audience of interested and affected people.

定义失语症:六个失语症诊断组的内容分析。
结构的明确操作定义是必要的,以确保研究结果是有意义和可解释的。在失语症学领域,失语症通常被定义为“失语症是一种后天性语言障碍,通常是由于大脑损伤而影响表达和接受语言。”为了帮助我们理解失语症的结构,我们对六项诊断性失语症测试进行了内容分析:失语症鉴别诊断明尼苏达测试,Porch交际能力指数、波士顿诊断性失语症检查、西方失语症成套测验、综合失语症测试和快速失语症综合测验。这些选定的测试具有历史意义,其中一些测试在今天的常规临床和研究中使用。我们假设失语症测试的内容应该非常相似,因为它们都旨在识别和表征(如果存在的话)失语症,并认识到测试内容可能存在一些细微的差异,这在很大程度上源于测试者对失语症的认识论差异。相反,我们发现测试目标之间的Jaccard指数(一种相似性相关系数)主要较弱。在所有六项失语症测试中,只有五个测试目标:单词和句子的听觉理解、单词的重复、名词的对抗命名和单词的阅读理解。定性和定量结果表明,失语症测试的内容可能比预期的更为不同。最后,我们讨论了我们的研究结果对该领域的影响,包括在必要时通过与广大感兴趣和受影响的人的对话来更新失语症的操作定义的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cortex
Cortex 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
250
审稿时长
74 days
期刊介绍: CORTEX is an international journal devoted to the study of cognition and of the relationship between the nervous system and mental processes, particularly as these are reflected in the behaviour of patients with acquired brain lesions, normal volunteers, children with typical and atypical development, and in the activation of brain regions and systems as recorded by functional neuroimaging techniques. It was founded in 1964 by Ennio De Renzi.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信