ArticleBrain and behavior2024
Turkish validity and reliability study on the quick aphasia battery.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2024. 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.
- Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI-TR) in Post-Stroke Aphasia.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Development, validity, and reliability of the Parkinson's voice and speech handicap index (PaVSHI).Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- 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
- Turkish validity and reliability study on the quick aphasia battery.Brain and behavior · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe quick aphasia battery (QAB), which assesses all areas of language in detail and quickly, was developed in English. It has been shown to be suitable for bedside patients. There is a need for a Turkish bedside test that allows for a comprehensive yet rapid assessment of stroke patients in terms of aphasia. The aim of this study was to create a Turkish version of QAB (QAB-TR) and to determine its validity and reliability in Turkish-speaking patients after a stroke. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was conducted with 188 people aged 41-88 years. Of these, 37 (19.7%) had aphasia (12 chronic, 25 acute), 53 (28.2%) were acute stroke patients without aphasia, and 98 (52.1%) were healthy controls. Internal consistency and criterion validity, test-retest reliability, and inter-rater reliability of the QAB-TR were performed. The language assessment test for aphasia was used for criterion validity. For the inter-rater reliability of the test, two different speech language therapists (SLP) administered the QAB-TR. For test-retest reliability, 2 weeks later, the same SLP who filled out the QAB-TR the first time was administered the test again. To test the validity of the test, correlations between the items and subsections were determined. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to examine the sensitivity and selectivity of the QAB-TR score, and a cut-off value was determined to distinguish patients with aphasia.
resultsThe inter-rater Krippendorff's alpha value of the QAB-TR total was 0.6754. There was no statistically significant difference (p > .05) between the first and second QAB-TR total scores. The correlation analysis between the QAB-TR subsection scores and the total QAB-TR score (0.244-0.897) revealed statistically significant relationships. The area under the ROC curve was statistically significant and was found to be 0.853 (95% confidence interval: 0.799-0.906). The cut-off point for the QAB score to discriminate between patients with aphasia and those without aphasia was found to be 8.825, with 0.767 sensitivity and 0.765 selectivity (1-0.235).
conclusionAll the study results show that QAB-TR has internal consistency, criterion validity, test-retest reliability, and inter-rater reliability. It can be administered in as little as 15 min and provides information about the multidimensional linguistic profiles of individuals. QAB-TR can be used for both clinical and study purposes as a language battery that allows for the measurement of the strengths and weaknesses of Turkish-speaking individuals who have suffered a stroke in basic language areas in acute and chronic periods. It can be easily administered at the bedside for individuals who have just suffered an acute stroke and can facilitate early assessment of individuals in terms of aphasia and early initiation of therapy, if necessary.
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.