Clinical and prognostic properties of standardized and functional aphasia assessments

Author: Laska Ann Charlotte   Bartfai Aniko   Hellblom Anders   Murray Veronica   Kahan Thomas  

Publisher: Medical Journals Limited

ISSN: 1650-1977

Source: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, Vol.39, Iss.5, 2007-05, pp. : 387-392

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

Objective: To compare standardized and functional aphasia tests in patients after acute stroke.Design: Data were collected at baseline and at 6 months in 2 prospective single-centre studies: one observational study (study I, n = 119) and one randomized trial of moclobemide vs placebo (study II, n = 89).Subjects: Patients with aphasia after acute stroke.Methods: Degree of aphasia was examined using the Coefficient (Coeff) in Norsk Grunntest for Afasi (standardized) and the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT) (functional). Statistical comparisons were made using one-way analysis of variance and multivariate regression analyses.Results: The degree of aphasia measured with Coeff and ANELT correlated closely throughout the study (r2 = 0.71–0.87, p < 0.0001). In study I, 24 patients recovered completely within 6 months. A Coeff ≥ 49 and ANELT ≥ 3.5 predicted complete recovery equally well. Coeff was sensitive to differentiate between patients with low values on ANELT, whereas ANELT was sensitive to differentiate between patients with high Coeff values.Conclusion: The 2 tests show a close and consistent correlation over time and are equally sensitive to improvement. They have a similar capacity to predict complete recovery. A standardized test appears to be more suitable for patients with aphasia in the acute stage, while a functional test is more suitable in the subacute/chronic stage.