Term
| Minnesota test for differential diagnosis of aphasia(MTDA) |
|
Definition
| Oriented toward assessment of patient strength/weaknesses in all language modalities as guide to planning treatment. Also aids in differential diagnosis and prediction of recovery. Takes about 2-3 hours to administer and consists of 46 subtests divided into 5 sections(auditory disturbances, visual and reading disturbances, speech and language disturbances, visuomotor and writing disturbances and disturbances of numerical relations and arithmetic processes. Overall 537 items are tested. Method of scoring varies somewhat among subtests. However, most subtests involve +/- scoring. test is based on the unidimensional view of aphasia, that is, language function is a single process underlying varied forms of language behavior.. tests is intended to differentiate aphasia from normal levels of language function. Has her own profiles of aphasia. |
|
|
Term
| Porch index of Communicative Ability(PICA, Porch) |
|
Definition
| Most completely standardized aphasia test. Provides a reliable and sensitive measurement of degree of deficit and amount of recovery. 18 subtests of the 4 language modalities identified as either gestural, verbal or graphic. Most unique feature of the PICA is its scoring system which involves a multidimensional 16 point scale based on 5 dimensions of the patients' responses:accuracy, responsiveness, completeness, promptness and efficiency. |
|
|
Term
| Porch index of communicative ability contd |
|
Definition
| Test gives you a point to begin treatment planning by displaying a performance pattern indicating which areas of language function are successful but challenging for the patient (Brookshire recommends that treatment be carried out with tasks producing 10-13 level responses according to the scoring system from the patient. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Homogeneity of test items-same 10 test items are used for each subtest. Extensive training in neeeded to administer the test. Statistical variables associated with test construction-validity of the scoring system has been investigated with respect to whether the scale truly represents a hierarchy of behavior, that is whether it is an ordinal (rather than nominal) scale also a mean score is obtained for each subtest and question has arisen as to what a mean score on the PICA represents-a mode which is the most frequently occuring score may be more descriptive for this test than a mean. Provides verylittle descriptive data. |
|
|
Term
| Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE)-III Goodglass Kaplan Barresi) |
|
Definition
| Aimed towards diagnosis of presence and type of aphasia leading to inferences concerning the location of the brain damage. Samples language behaviors which have been demonstrated to be discriminative in the identification of aphasic syndromes-pattern of deficits is important for classification. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Takes approximately 2 hours to administer. A profile of speech characteristics and severity rating are provided, the results of which are based on a sample of conversational and expository speech. Test does not provide a formalized basis for making predictions about recovery. Test also provides extended testing and supplementary testing of verbal and nonverbal functions (includes a parietal lobe battery) |
|
|
Term
| Western Aphasia Battery(WAB) (Kertesz) |
|
Definition
| Based on the Boston diagnostic Aphasia examination. Purpose is to identify the syndromes of aphasia. Provides an aphasia quotient (AQ). 1. Gives you a severity rating are provided, the results of which are not based on fluency, naming, auditory, comprehension, and reception measures. Reflects Kertesz' belief that these measures reveal the crux of the language impairment. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Also provides a cortical quotient(CQ) which is a broader measure taking into account all the language and non language tasks. Test uses scores to place patients in classification(aphasia types) based on score pattern only. |
|
|
Term
| WAB validity of classification procedure |
|
Definition
| a. Wertz et al. compared performance on WAB and BDAE and classified patients based on tests-looking at overall severity rating, tests were highly correlated(.80-.95--however, agreement was only 27% per aphasia type (best agreement was for the most severely involved patients-globals). Swindell et. al.-comparing WAB classification to clinical judgement-agreement was only 54% (percentage was better for nonfluent than fluent patients.) WAB enhanced: new additional bedside screening, objects for manipulation, modernized assessment of word reading. |
|
|
