ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2023
Emerging Validation for the Adapted Chinese Version of Quick Aphasia Battery.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptation of the Quick Aphasia Battery into Urdu and establishment of its psychometric properties.PloS one · 2026Article
- Quality of Assessment Tools for Aphasia: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The quick aphasia battery (QAB) was designed to evaluate language disorder from multi-dimension efficiently, which had been translated into several languages but lacked in Chinese. This study conducted cross-cultural adaption for the Chinese version and verified its psychometric properties. Material and Methods: First, the Chinese Version of quick aphasia battery (CQAB) was adapted following WHO literature guidelines with steps of forward translation, expert panel, back-translation, pre-test, and interview, then develop the final version. Second, the psychometric properties tests were conducted in 128 post-stroke patients to identify if aphasia happens and verify the validity and reliability of CQAB. Results: The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the CQAB is 0.962, test-retest reliability 0.849, and inter-rater reliability 0.998. Content validity 0.917, KMO 0.861, exploratory factor analysis extracted 2 factors named "language understanding" and "language program", cumulative variance contribution rate is 91.588% >50%. Calibration association validity 0.977. Sensitivity 0.977, specificity 0.932, with the optimal cutoff point is 8.86. Conclusion: The study supported CQAB, which adapted following standardized guidelines, is reliable and effective to assess language impairment in post-stroke patients.
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.