Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022:185:175-193.
doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-823384-9.00009-8.

Assessment of language impairment and function

Jessica D Richardson  1 , Sarah Grace Dalton  2
Affiliations
Review

Assessment of language impairment and function

Jessica D Richardson et al. Handb Clin Neurol. 2022.

Abstract

This chapter is written for the qualified neurologist or related professional working with persons who have had a stroke or other sudden brain injury. It is critical that the presence of aphasia is detected, no matter how mild the presentation, and to support that assertion, this chapter highlights the plight of persons with latent aphasia. At the individual level, the impact of aphasia is devastating, with overwhelming evidence that aphasia negatively impacts psychosocial outcomes. At the global level, sensitive detection and accurate diagnosis of aphasia are critical for accurate characterization and quantification of the global burden of aphasia. The word "LANGUAGE" is leveraged as an acronym to create a useful and memorable checklist to guide navigation of aphasia screening and assessment: it begins with the definition of language (L), followed by the definition and diagnostic criteria for aphasia (A). Then language abilities and characteristics to be considered in assessment are presented: naming (N); grammar and syntax (G); unintelligible words, jargon, and paraphasias (U); auditory comprehension and repetition (A); graphemic abilities-reading and writing (G); and everyday communication and discourse (E). Recommendations for improving procedural adherence are provided, and a list of potential brief assessment measures are introduced.

Keywords: Aphasia; Assessment; Discourse; Fidelity; Language; Latent aphasia; Not aphasic by WAB; Screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Scores for commonly administered aphasia tests and discourse measures. Blue boxplots and points indicate healthy, non-brain-injured control performance. Orange and purple points indicate performance of two individuals not aphasic by WAB (NABW) on each test and measure. Maximum scores for each test and measure are displayed at the top of the figure. (WAB-R AQ - Western Aphasia Battery - Revised Aphasia Quotient; BNT - Boston Naming Test: VNT - Verb Naming Test: SCT - Sentence Comprehension Test; DCT - Discourse Comprehension Test; MC Comp - Main Concept Composite score; Seq - MSSG Sequencing Score; Episodic Comp - MSSG Total Episodic Components Score)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Akinina Y, Buivolova O, Soloukhina O, et al. (2020, ahead-of-print). Prevalence of verb and sentence impairment in aphasia as demonstrated by cluster analysis. Aphasiology: 1–29.
    1. Ardila A. (2010). A proposed reinterpretation and reclassification of aphasic syndromes. Aphasiology 24(3): 363–394.
    1. Armes E, Richardson J, Arenas R, et al. (2020). The relationship between narrative informativeness and psychosocial outcomes in chronic stroke-induced aphasia. Masters Level Thesis, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
    1. Azuar C, Leger A, Arbizu C, et al. (2013). The Aphasia Rapid Test: an NIHSS-like aphasia test. J Neurol 260(8): 2110–2117. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Babbitt EM, Heinemann AW, Semik P, et al. (2011). Psychometric properties of the communication confidence rating scale for aphasia (CCRSA): phase 2. Aphasiology 25(6-7): 727–735. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources