ArticleCortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior2023
Defining aphasia: Content analysis of six aphasia diagnostic batteries.
Article in Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Psychometric Validation of the Cyprus Aphasia Screening Test (CAST).Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Advances in Neuromodulation Techniques for Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Comprehensive Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Review
- Embracing digital innovation in neuroscience: 2023 in review at NEUROCCINO.Brain structure & function · 2024Review
- Challenges in Assessing Aphasia in Congenital Blind Patients: A Case Report.Reports (MDPI) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Clear operational definitions of constructs are necessary to ensure that research findings are meaningful and interpretable. In the field of aphasiology, aphasia is often defined to the effect of "aphasia is an acquired language disorder often due to brain injury that affects expressive and receptive language." To contribute to our understanding of the construct of aphasia, we conducted a content analysis of six diagnostic aphasia tests: the Minnesota Test for the Differential Diagnosis of Aphasia, the Porch Index of Communicative Ability, the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination, the Western Aphasia Battery, the Comprehensive Aphasia Test, and the Quick Aphasia Battery. These chosen tests have historical prominence, with several in regular clinical and research use today. We hypothesized that the content of the aphasia tests should be very similar since they all purport to identify and characterize (if present) aphasia, with recognition that there may be some subtle differences in test content stemming in large part to epistemological differences in the test makers' views of aphasia. Instead, we found predominantly weak Jaccard indices, a similarity correlation coefficient, between test targets. Only five test targets were found in all six aphasia tests: auditory comprehension of words and sentences, repetition of words, confrontation naming of nouns, and reading comprehension of words. The qualitative and quantitative results suggest that the content across aphasia tests may be more disparate than expected. We conclude by discussing the implication of our results for the field, including the importance of updating, if necessary, the operational definition of aphasia through conversation with a broad audience of interested and affected people.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.