ArticleIranian journal of neurology2015
Development, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Persian Mississippi Aphasia Screening Test in patients with post-stroke aphasia.
Article in Iranian journal of neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Psychometric Validation of the Cyprus Aphasia Screening Test (CAST).Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Quality of Assessment Tools for Aphasia: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Adaption and validation of the Mississippi Aphasia Screening Test to Estonian speakers with aphasia.Brain and behavior · 2019Article
- Comparison of the Effects of Video Modeling and Clinician Modeling on Naming Deficiency in Aphasic Patients.Galen medical journal · 2019Article
- Effects of multimodal communication program on patients with chronic aphasia: a single-subject A-B-A design study.Electronic physician · 2018Article
- Developing Azeri aphasia screening test and preliminary validity and reliability.Iranian journal of neurology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Mississippi Aphasia Screening Test (MAST) is a brief screening test for assessing the expressive and receptive language abilities in patients with aphasia. The objective of the study was to develop and validate the Persian version of the MAST (MASTp) as a screening test for language disorders in patients with post-stroke aphasia.
methodsThis study used a cross-sectional design to cross-culturally adapt the MASTp following the guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of measures. A total of 40 subjects (20 patients with post-stroke aphasia and 20 healthy subjects) were included. The MASTp was tested for floor or ceiling effects, internal consistency reliability, intra-rater reliability, discriminative validity, and factor structure.
resultsThere were no floor or ceiling effects for MASTp total score. The MASTp yielded values for internal consistency reliability that were not adequate (Cronbach's alpha 0.64 and 0.66 for test and retest, respectively. The intra-rater reliability of the MASTp within a 7 day-interval was excellent for total score (ICC agreement = 0.96) and both expressive index (ICC = 0.95) and receptive index (ICC agreement = 0.98). here were statistically significant differences in MASTp total scores and both indexes between patients and healthy subjects suggesting the discriminative validity of the MASTp (P < 0.001). Factor analysis revealed a 3-factor solution, which jointly accounted for 72.06% of the total variance. Additional factor analysis suggested 6-item MASTp as a unidimensional measure.
conclusionThe MASTp is useful as a valid and reliable screening tool for evaluation of language abilities in Persian speaking patients with aphasia after stroke.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26056555PMC4449390What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.