Printer Friendly

Should the Western Aphasia Battery be translated into Turkish?/Western Afazi Bataryasi Turkce'ye cevrilmeli mi?

Introduction

Language consists of many functions including speech, comprehension, reading, writing, naming and repeating, and is a product of special cerebral areas and their connections (1). Language disorders resulting from cerebral disorders are named aphasias. Some authors use the term aphasia for acquired language disorders or severe effects, and dysphasia for developmental language disorders or minor effects (2). However, the general tendency is all language disorders to be referred to as aphasia.

Neuropsychological diagnostic tests and laboratory methods are the most commonly used methods for the diagnosis of aphasia, because bedside examination can be influenced by inter-observer variability and is non-standard. The most commonly used aphasia tests worldwide are the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination, Porch Index of Communicative Ability, Western Aphasia Battery, and the Aachener Aphasia Test.

Used commonly in our country for evaluation of aphasia, the Gulhane Aphasia Test (GAT) developed by Tanridag in 1986, is the first standardized Turkish test. It is used by many centers in its current or modified version (3). There are several subtests under the general test structure, where each language function is tested. A GAT correction curve is created using all the values obtained from the total test and this correction curve is useful for long-term monitoring of aphasia (4). However, aphasia classification is limited to the approach, and the aphasia information of the administrator, as numerical values, cannot specify the type or degree of aphasia. Another test that has been translated into and standardized in Turkish is the Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test (FAST) (5). It can be administered easily and can measure the degree of the language disorder. It is especially recommended to physicians and nurses untrained on speech disorders, in addition to speech therapists. It does not specify the type of aphasia and only defines whether aphasia is present or not (6). An objective Turkish aphasia test is required for evaluation of tests performed by different administrators at different centers together, and for comparing the results. Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) has the features to be the correct tool for overcoming this deficit as it is easy to administer and defines the type of aphasia with numerical results (7,8). We investigated the feasibility of WAB, translated and adapted into Turkish, and evaluated the relationship between its results and the results from other tests with Turkish standardization and lesion localization. Comparison of aphasia tests was not the aim of this study. The aim of this study was to compare the correlation between the results of WAB and other tests (GAT and FAST), and to show that the Turkish version of WAB was feasible.

Methods

The study consisted of two stages. WAB was translated into Turkish in the first stage while all three tests (FAST, GAT, WAB) were administered to the patients, and the results were evaluated together with findings of the imaging in the second stage.

WAB was first translated from English into Turkish by three professional translators independently. The three versions were compared following the translation and a common text was prepared. This text was then translated from Turkish into English. A final text was then agreed upon. Adaptation was carried out taking into account the cultural fabric, suitability of the words in the original text and the sound characteristics. The translation process was completed when it was decided that a test close to the English version of WAB and suitable for the Turkish cultural values had been created.

The patients included in the study were selected from patients presenting to the Celal Bayar University Medical Faculty, Neurology Clinic, and Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Research Hospital, Neurology Clinic. Patients with altered state of consciousness, visual loss, and hearing loss that would impair the administration of the aphasia test and those who were illiterate were excluded from the study. A total of 31 aphasic patients receiving inpatient treatment for stroke and with continuing clinical speech disorders were included in the study.

All patients were examined by the same neurologist. Demographic features, examination findings, cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or cerebral computed tomography (CT) findings were recorded. FAST, GAT and WAB were administered to the patients consecutively and the test administration was completed within two days for all patients. The tests were applied to all patients by a doctor trained in aphasia. The GAT subtest results were compared with the known aphasia types to determine the patients' aphasia type, while aphasia types were determined numerically using the Kertesz classification criteria with WAB. A calculator was used for score calculations of all tests.

The imaging findings of the patients were evaluated by a radiologist and the localization was determined.

Data were installed and analyzed using the SPSS 16.0 for Windows. Minimum, maximum, mean, standard deviation and range were calculated using descriptive statistics. The bivariate correlation coefficient (Pearson's r) was used to assess the correlation between tests.

Results

Thirty patients included in the study were right-handed and one patient was left-handed. One patient could speak four languages, four patients could speak two languages, and the remaining 26 patients could speak only one language. Aphasia had developed due to cerebral hemorrhage in four patients and due to ischemic stroke in 27 patients. The disease duration ranged from 15 days to 41 months, with a mean value of 16 months. The patients' age, gender and educational status are presented in Table 1.

A CT examination was performed in 22 and cranial MRI in nine patients. Patient 12 had widespread ischemic changes on her MRI and she had normal examination finding, except aphasia.

CT of patient 20 was performed during the acute stage and left hemispherical oedema was observed. Her neuroimaging test was not repeated and she was included in the study 15 days after the stroke. Hence, both these patients were excluded from evaluations of lesion localization and lesion volume. A subcortical lesion was present in 8 and a cortical lesion in 21 of the 29 patients. Patient 14 was left-handed and she had right thalamocapsular lesion on her CT. The imaging methods and findings of the patients are summarized in Table 2.

Table 3 presents the results of FAST administration together with the subtests. The FAST total score ranged from 0 to 29 out of 30, with a mean value of 11.87 [+ or -] 9.53. The scores of two patients were higher than the cut-off value specified for the test (no 7 and 16) (6.5%). According to FAST, patients having values below the cut-off value were considered aphasic and the two patients with higher results were considered normal. Table 3 presents the FAST scores.

GAT numerical values ranged from 1 to 74 with a mean of 44.45 [+ or -] 25.15. According to GAT, all patients had aphasia. Table 4 presents the test results and aphasia types obtained by comparing the language level functions that were affected with known aphasia types.

Table 5 presents the WAB administration results and types of aphasia.

The two patients interpreted as normal by FAST were also found to be aphasic following application of WAB and GAT.

When we compared the results of the three tests, we observed that the tests' scores were close, but there were differences regarding the definition of the type of aphasia. At times, FAST did not define the type, as it is a screening test. Twelve patients (38%) (No. 5,7,11,12,13,14, 15,16,19,23,26 and 31) had different aphasia types with GAT and WAB. Table 6 presents a comparison of the aphasia types.

We found a high degree of correlation between the three tests during the correlation evaluation of numerical values obtained during GAT application (listening comprehension, reading comprehension, repeating, naming and calculation), FAST total score (comprehension, expression, reading and writing) and WAB aphasia section score (speech, comprehension, naming and repeating).

The speech fluency, reading and writing functions for which numerical values were not obtained, were not evaluated for correlation between the language function scores. A high degree of correlation was present between the WAB spontaneous speech score and the FAST expression score (p<0.01). There was a significant correlation between section scores of GAT listening comprehension, WAB comprehension and FAST comprehension. There was a high degree of correlation between the WAB repeating score and the GAT repeating score (p<0.01). When the sections evaluating the reading comprehension were compared, a high degree of correlation was found between the FAST and WAB scores (p<0.01), and the correlation for the writing scores was found to be significant (p<0.01).

Discussion

Aphasia tests are quite useful in planning treatment for aphasia patients and their follow-up (9). Language has rules that change from country to country and it is a group of functions that are affected by the level of education. Aphasia diagnostic tests, therefore, need to be prepared by taking special conditions into account. Tanridag, who has developed and performed the standardization study of GAT, which is used commonly in our country, states that an approach which is too strict in classifying aphasia can lead to overlooked lesions and errors regarding lesion estimation, prognosis monitoring and rehabilitation (3,4). However, many authors believe that aphasias should be classified for use in scientific studies in order to enable a practical approach (8,10). Some centers use batteries that provide numerical assessments, such as WAB and the Lisbon Aphasia Examination Battery (LAEB), and determine the type of aphasia according to the language function scores (11). Aphasia classification by the numerical method is a more objective and reliable method, which also enables the comparison of the results of different investigators (12).

The gender distribution for the 31 patients in our study was 19 males and 12 females. Seen more commonly in men, the most common reason for aphasia is stroke, and we believe that our group reflects the actual population regarding gender (13). The mean age of the male and female patients was similar (61.66 for females and 62.05 for males). Kertesz et al. evaluated 65 aphasia patients during the acute stage and reported a mean age of 55.1 for Broca's aphasia, 65.5 for Wernicke's aphasia, and 64.6 for global aphasia (14). Eslinger and Damasio investigated various aphasia types and found that Broca's and conduction aphasia appeared at a younger age than Wernicke's and global aphasia(6). The ages for the aphasia types from our data are not consistent with those of previous reports. However, the WAB and GAT results are consistent within themselves. This inconsistency with other reports, regarding aphasia types, may be due to our low number of subjects or the inclusion of aphasia patients in the chronic stage.

Lesion localization using CT in aphasia started with Mohr's studies, which greatly contributed to the knowledge regarding the lesions causing aphasia (15,16). A lot of studies demonstrating that lesions detected by neuroimaging are not always consistent with the expected lesion localization for the type of aphasia (16,17,18,19,20). Cranial MRI is superior to CT in demonstrating neuroanatomical structures (21,22). A cranial MRI was performed in 9 patients and CT in 22 patients in our study. When we compared the types of aphasia and the lesion localization, we found a lesion in an unexpected localization in five cases according to the aphasia classification by WAB, and in six cases according to the aphasia classification by GAT. Taking into account that there are many intermediate aphasia types, these numbers may be considered small (2).

Although aphasia was not detected by application of FAST in two cases clinically diagnosed as having aphasia, other tests demonstrated aphasia in these cases. A Turkish standardization test is present for FAST, but the cut-off values of the Turkish version have not been studied and the false negative results may be due to our use of the cut-off value of the original test. The assessment of correlation between the total scores from all three tests showed a high degree of correlation between the GAT total score (the total score of the sections providing a numerical value was used) and the FAST total score. We found a highly significant (p<0.01) correlation between the FAST total score and the WAB Aphasia Quotient (AQ) score, and between the GAT total score and the WAB AQ score (p<0.01). We similarly found a statistically high and significant correlation when we compared the subscales with numerical results in the GAT test with the relevant sections of the other tests. We also found a significant high statistical correlation between GAT listening comprehension and WAB comprehension (p<0.01), GAT listening comprehension and FAST comprehension (p<0.01), and between WAB comprehension and FAST comprehension (p<0.01). The high correlation values between these two tests that have been standardized, in addition to WAB, indicate that WAB can be used in Turkish-speaking patients. Despite the high degree of correlation between WAB and GAT, the 38% difference rate in aphasia typing may be due to the effect of administrators' information on aphasia typing during GAT administration and the lack of a Turkish standardization study for WAB. It is possible to achieve standardization in aphasia classification and to compare the results of different investigators with WAB. Future studies on aphasia tests to be used in our country may focus on WAB standardization, WAB cut-off value determination and FAST cut-off value determination.

References

(1.) Albert ML, Helm-Estabrooks N. Diagnosis and treatment of aphasia. JAMA. 1988 259:1043-7. [Abstract] / [PDF]

(2.) Howard S. Kirshner. Aphasia. In: Walter G. Bradley, Robert B.Daroff, Gerald M.Fenichel, C. David Marsden, Neurology in Clinical Practice. (pp.141-59). 2000. USA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

(3.) Tanridag O. (1995). Afazi (Aphasia). Istanbul, Turkey: Nobel Tip Kitapevleri (Book in Turkish).

(4.) Mavis I, Colay K, Topbas S et al. Standardization, Validity and Reability Study of Gulhane Aphasia Test-2 (GAT-2). Turkish Journal of Neurology. 2007; 13;89-98 (Abstract in English). [Abstract] / [PDF]

(5.) Gocer E. Screening for Aphasia: A Standardization Study For Turkish Neurological Patients. Istanbul, 1994 Turkey: Bogazici University.

(6.) Eslinger PJ, Damasio AR. Age and type of aphasia in patients with stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1981; 44:377-81. [Abstract] / [PDF]

(7.) Enderby P, Crow E. Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test: validity and comparability. Disabil Rehabil 1996; 18:238-40. [Abstract] / [PDF]

(8.) Kertesz A. Aphasia in: Frederiks JAM. Handbook of Clinical Neurology. (pp. 287-331). 1985 Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

(9.) Shewan CM, Kertesz A. Reliability and validity characteristics of the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB). J Speech Hear Disord 1980; 45:308-24. [Abstract] / [PDF]

(10.) Ozeren A. Afaziyoloji (Aphasiology). 2000 Adana, Turkey: Cukurova University (Book in Turkish).

(11.) Horner J, Dawson DV, Heyman A et al. The usefulness of the Western Aphasia battery for differential diagnosis of Alzheimer Dementia and Focal Stroke Syndromes: Preliminary Evidence. Brain and Language 1992; 42:77-88. [Abstract]

(12.) Ferro MJ, Kertesz A. Comparative Classification of Aphasia Disorder. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsycholoy 1987; 9:365-75. [Abstract] / [PDF]

(13.) Salter K, Jutai J, Foley N et al. Identification of aphasia post stroke: a review of screening assessment tools. Brain Inj 2006; 20:559-68. [Abstract] / [PDF]

(14.) Kertesz A, Lesk D, McCabe P. Isotope localization of infarcts in aphasia. Arch Neurol 1997; 34:590-601. [Abstract] / [PDF]

(15.) Mohr JP, Pessin MS, Finkelstein S et al. Broca aphasia: pathologic and clinical. Neurology 1978; 28:311-24. [Abstract] / [PDF]

(16.) Vignolo LA. Aphasiasassociated with computed tomography scan lesions outside Broca's and Wernicke's areas. Adv Neurol 1984; 42:91-8. [Abstract]

(17.) Ozeren A, Sarica Y, Mavi H. et al. Bromocriptine is ineffective in the treatment of chronic nonfluent aphasia. Acta Neurol Belg 1995; 95:235-8. [Abstract]

(18.) Yang ZH, Zhao XQ, Wang CX et al. Neuroanatomic correlation of the post-stroke aphasias studied with imaging. Neurol Res 2008; 30:356-60. [Abstract]

(19.) Tanridag O, Kirshner HS. Aphasia and agraphia in lesions of the posterior internal capsule and putamen. Neurology 1985; 35:1797-801. [Abstract] / [PDF]

(20.) Specht K, Zahn R, Willmes K et al. Joint independent component analysis of structural and functional images reveals complex patterns of functional reorganisation in stroke aphasia. Neuroimage 2009; 47:2057-63. Epub 2009 Jun 11. [Abstract] /[PDF]

(21.) Vikingstad EM, George KP, Johnson AF et al. Cortical language lateralization in right handed normal subjects using functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurol Sci 2000; 175:17-27. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF]

(22.) DeWitt LD, Grek AJ, Buonanno FS et al. MRI and the study of aphasia. Neurology 1985; 35:861-5. [Abstract] / [PDF]

Hava DONMEZ KEKLIKOGLU, Deniz SELCUKI *, Selda KESKIN

Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Egitim ve Arastirma Hastanesi, Noroloji Klinigi, Ankara, Turkiye

* Celal Bayar Universitesi Tip Fakultesi, Noroloji Anabilim Dali, Manisa, Turkiye

Address for Correspondence/Yazisma Adresi: Dr. Hava Donmez Keklikoglu, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Egitim ve Arastirma Hastanesi, Noroloji Klinigi, Ankara, Turkiye E-mail: havadonmez@hotmail.com Received/Gelis tarihi: 04.10.2009 Accepted/Kabul tarihi: 30.11.2009
Table 1. Age, gender and education characteristics of the
patients included in the study

                                         Gender       Total

                                   Famele     Male

               Number of patient     12        19      31
                    Minimum          30        31      31
                    Maximum          85        80      85
Age (year)           Range           55        49      55
                     Mean           61.66    62.05    61.90
                Std. deviation      15.32     3.73    3.30

                    Minimum           1        1        1
Years of            Maximum           5        15      15
  education          Range            4        14      14
                     Mean             4       6.57    5.58
                Std. deviation      1.59      3.73    3.30

Table 2. Imaging mehods and characteristics of detected lesions.
(F: Female, M: Male. Patients number 12 and 20 and 28 were not
included in the lesion size evaluation)

          Age
Patient   and    Imaging  Lesion size
no       gender  method   ([cm.sup.3])  Lesion localization

1         56-M     MRI        7.5       Left capsulostriatal
2         47-F     CT         15        Left temporoparietal
3         49-M     CT         40        Left temporoparietal
4         31-M     MRI       87.6       Left temporooccipital
5         60-M     CT         7.8       Left temporoparietal
6         60-M     CT         7.2       Left thalamus and
                                          internal capsule
7         63-M     MRI        2.2       Left capsula interna
8         62-M     MRG       12.2       Left temporoparietal
9         68-M     CT         225       Left temporoparietal
10        58-M     CT        135.3      Left temporoparietal
11        72-M     MRI       38.43      Left thalamocapsular
12        62-F     MRI        --        Widespread ischemic
                                          changes
13        72-M     MRI         4        Left parietal
14        63-F     CT         1.5       Right thalamocapsular
15        69-F     CT         40        Left temporoparietal
16        70-M     CT         1.5       Left deep temporal
17        53-M     CT         105       Left frontotemporal
18        70-F     CT         183       Left temporoparietal
19        60-F     CT         50        Left parietooccipital
20        58-M     CT         --        Left hemisfherical edema
21        80M      CT         81        Left frontotemporal
22        65M      CT         125       Left temporoparietooccipital
23        80F      CT         82        Left parietal
24        30F      CT          9        Left frontotemporal
25        85F      CT         140       Left temporoparietal
26        59F      CT          5        Left temporoparietal
27        70F      MRI        85        Left temporoparietal
28        45F      CT         3,5       Left talamocapsuler
29        71M      CT         65        Left temporoparietal
30        74M      MRI       37.5       Left frontotemporal
31        57M      CT         7.5       Left capsulostriatal

Table 3. FAST language function scores and evaluation results.
(Ms: Maximum score, Compr.: Comprehension)

Patient   Compr.    Expression    Reading
no        (Ms:10)    (Ms:10)       (Ms:5)

1            8          8            4
2            4          0            0
3            5          7            0
4            7          6            3
5            6          7            3
6            6          6            5
7            9          10           5
8            6          8            5
9            8          4            0
10           6          5            1
11           2          2            1
12           9          6            0
13           8          9            5
14           7          7            1
15           3          2            1
16           9          9            5
17           6          1            2
18           0          0            0
19           2          0            0
20           0          0            0
21           0          0            1
22           4          0            1
23           0          0            0
24           9          5            4
25           0          0            0
26           7          7            4
27           0          0            0
28           7          3            5
29           0          0            0
30           2          4            0
31           8          6            3

Patient   Writing   Total score   Aphasia
no        (Ms:5)     (Ms:30)       status

1            5          25        aphasic
2            0          4         aphasic
3            1          13        aphasic
4            3          19        aphasic
5            0          14        aphasic
6            2          19        aphasic
7            5          29       nonaphasic
8            4          23        aphasic
9            0          12        aphasic
10           2          14        aphasic
11           0          5         aphasic
12           4          19        aphasic
13           5          27        aphasic
14           0          15        aphasic
15           0          4         aphasic
16           5          28       nonaphasic
17           1          10        aphasic
18           0          0         aphasic
19           0          2         aphasic
20           0          0         aphasic
21           0          1         aphasic
22           1          6         aphasic
23           0          0         aphasic
24           2          20        aphasic
25           0          0         aphasic
26           0          18        aphasic
27           0          0         aphasic
28           2          0         aphasic
29           0          0         aphasic
30           0          6         aphasic
31           1          18        aphasic

Table 4. GAT language function results and aphasia types.
(pr: paraphasic, Trc: Transcortical, Ms: Maximum score,
Comp: Comprehension)

                                Listening
Patient  Speech                   comp.
no       fluency                 (Ms:20)

1        Non-fluent                20
2        A few sounds              11
           or words
3        Fluent prf.                7
4        Non-fluent                12
5        Non-fluent                20
6        Non-fluent                17
7        Non-fluent                19
8        Non-fluent                20
9        Non-fluent                16
10       Non-fluent                 4
11       Non-fluent                11
12       Non-fluent                20
13       Fluent pr.                18
14       Non-fluent                13
15       Non-fluent                15
16       Fluent,                   18
           dysarthric
17       Non-fluent                19
18       Mutism                     0
19       Non-fluent                 9
20       Mutism                     4
21       Non-fluent                10
22       Fluent prf.                8
23       Fluent prf.                2
24       Non-fluent                17
25       Mutism                     7
26       Fluent prf.               18
27       A few sounds               2
           and words
28       Non-fluent                19
29       A few sounds               2
           and words
30       Non-fluent                12
31       Fluent,                   17
           dysarthric

                               Reading
Patient                         comp.    Repeating   Naming
no       Reading               (Ms:15)    (Ms:19)    (/Ms:13)

1        Normal                  15          19        13
2        No reading               2          0          0
3        A few letters            3          2          6
4        A few words              3          11         4
5        Non-fluent              13          17        12
           comprehensible
6        Non-fluent              11          19         9
           comprehensible
7        Normal content          15          16        12
           dysarthria
8        Non-fluent              14          19        13
           comprehensible
9        Non-fluent               5          13         7
           comprehensible
10       A few words              0          10         7
11       Normal content          11          12         7
           dysarthria
12       A few words             15          16        13
13       Normal *                15          19        12
14       Non-fluent               7          16        10
           comprehensible
15       A few letters            2          4          7
16       Normal content          14          14        13
           dysarthria
17       A few words              7          18         4
18       No reading               0          1          0
19       No reading               0          15         1
20       No reading               0          0          0
21       Non-fluent prf.          0          8          3
22       Non-fluent prf.          6          10         7
23       Fluent                   0          15         2
           non-comprehendible
24       Normal content          11          9         11
           dystarthria
25       No reading               0          0          0
26       Non-fluent              15          18        12
           comprehensible
27       No reading               0          0          0
28       Non-fluent              15          16        13
           comprehensible
29       No reading               0          0          0
30       Non-fluent               2          4          5
           dysarhtria
31       Fluent dysarthria       13          16        13

                                              Total   According
Patient                         Calculation   score   to GAT
no       Writing                 (Ms:7)      (Ms:74)  aphasia type

1        Legible                    7           74    Anomic
2        Incomprehensible           0           13    Broca
3        Letters discernible        0           18    Wernicke
4        Legible                    4           34    Anomic
5        Cannot write at all        4           66    Broca
6        Incompre-hensible          4           60    Trc. motor
7        Legible                    2           68    Trc. Mixed
8        Letters discernible        6           73    Trc. motor
9        Incomprehensible           5           46    Broca
10       Cannot write at all        0           23    Broca
11       Letters and                2           41    Broca
           consonants
           discernible
12       Letters discernible        5           69    Broca
13       Legible                    7           71    Wernicke
14       Incomprehensible           0           46    Broca
15       Incomprehensible           0           28    Broca
16       Incomprehensible           7           66    Broca
17       Incomprehensible           6           54    Trc. motor
18       Cannot write at all        0           1     Global
19       Cannot write at all        0           25    Trc. motor
20       Cannot write at all        0           4     Global
21       Cannot write at all        1           22    Global
22       Legible                    7           38    Wernicke
23       Letters discernible        0           19    Anomic
24       Incomprehensible           4           57    Broca
25       Cannot write at all        0           8     Global
26       Letters discernible        2           66    Trc. motor
27       Cannot write at all        0           2     Global
28       Letters discernible        3           71    Broca
29       Cannot write at all        0           2     Global
30       Incomprehensible           1           25    Broca
31       Legible                    3           64    Broca

Table 5. Language function scores and aphasia type according to WAB
administration results. (Ms:Maximum score, Compr: Comprehension)

Patient   Speech    Compr.    Repeating       Naming
no        (Ms:20)   (Ms:10)    (Ms:10)        (Ms:10)

1           18       8.95        9.8            8.8
2            0        7.1        0.1             0
3           12       6.25        2.1            3.7
4           18        7.7        8.2             5
5           18         8         8.8            8.2
6            8        9.6        9.4             8
7           19        9.5        9.2            9.3
8           13        9.6        9.6            8.3
9            9       7.35        5.8            5.6
10           9       5.05        5.4            3.3
11           2       3.85        3.7            3.3
12          18        9.4        9.6            7.5
13          18        8.5        9.4            8.1
14          16        8.1         9             7.1
15          10       7.05        4.2            5.9
16          19        10         9.6            9.3
17           8       6.75        9.4            2.3
18           0         0         1.1             0
19           7       5.05        5.6            2.1
20           0        1.5        0.2             0
21           8       3.85        2.4             2
22          13       4.85        3.8            4.6
23           2         0          8             1.1
24           9       7.65        3.4            4.5
25           0        1.1         0              0
26          11       8.45         6             8.5
27           0         0          0              0
28           6        7.9         5             5.6
29           0        0.1         0              0
30           7       4.95        1.2            4.8
31          18        9.6         8             7.8

Patient   Reading   Writing      AQ       According to WAB
no        (Ms:10)   (Ms:10)   (Ms:100)     aphasia types

1           9.4       9.5       91.1          Anomic
2            0        2.5       14.4           Broca
3           4.4       4.5       48.1         Wernicke
4           7.1      6.05       77.8          Anomic
5           6.5      0.95        86           Anomic
6           8.4      3.85        70         Trc. Motor
7           8.7       9.3        94           Anomic
8           9.6      7.65        81         Trc. Motor
9           3.6      1.75       55.5           Broca
10          3.9       2.8       45.5           Broca
11          4.2      2.65       25.7          Global
12          8.3      7.55        89           Anomic
13          7.7       6.9        88           Anomic
14          4.4       4.3       80.4          Anomic
15          2.6      2.15       54.3        Conduction
16          10        8.9       95.8          Anomic
17          4.5       3.3       52.9        Trc. Motor
18           0         0         2.2          Global
19          0.4       0.1       36.2         Wernicke
20           0         0         3.4          Global
21           6         5         56           Global
22          3.5        5        14.3         Wernicke
23           0         0        22.2         Isolation
24          4.4       4.9       49.1           Broca
25           0         0         2.2          Global
26          4.9       4.2       67.9        Conduction
27           0         0          0           Global
28          8.2       9.5        49            Broca
29           0         0         0.2          Global
30          1.6       2.4       35.9           Broca
31          6.5       3.5       86.8          Anomic

Table 6. Aphasia type according to GAT, WAB and FAST results

Patient     Aphasia type       Aphasia type      Aphasia status
No        according to WAB   according to GAT   according to FAST

1         Anomic             Anomic             aphasic
2         Broca              Broca              aphasic
3         Wernicke           Wernicke           aphasic
4         Anomic             Anomic             aphasic
5         Anomic             Broca              aphasic
6         Trc. Motor         Trc. motor         aphasic
7         Anomic             Trc.Mixed          non aphasic
8         Trc. Motor         Trc. motor         aphasic
9         Broca              Broca              aphasic
10        Broca              Broca              aphasic
11        Global             Broca              aphasic
12        Anomic             Broca              aphasic
13        Anomic             Wernicke           aphasic
14        Anomic             Broca              aphasic
15        Conduction type    Broca              aphasic
16        Anomic             Broca              non aphasic
17        Trc. Motor         Trc. motor         aphasic
18        Global             Global             aphasic
19        Wernicke           Trc. motor         aphasic
20        Global             Global             aphasic
21        Global             Global             aphasic
22        Wernicke           Wernicke           aphasic
23        Isolation          Anomic             aphasic
24        Broca              Broca              aphasic
25        Global             Global             aphasic
26        Conduction         Trc. motor         aphasic
27        Global             Global             aphasic
28        Broca              Broca              aphasic
29        Global             Global             aphasic
30        Broca              Broca              aphasic
31        Anomic             Broca              aphasic
COPYRIGHT 2010 Galenos Yayinevi Tic. Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Research Article/Arastirma Makalesi
Author:Keklikoglu, Hava Donmez; Selcuki, Deniz; Keskin, Selda
Publication:Archives of Neuropsychiatry
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:7TURK
Date:Mar 1, 2010
Words:4625
Previous Article:The effects of residual symptoms and memory functions on relapse in patients with major depressive disorder: a controlled follow-up study/Major...
Next Article:Evaluation the cognitive functions in Parkinson's disease patients with neuropsychometric tests and to identify its clinical correlates/Parkinson...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |