ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluation of reliability and validity of the Serbian Aphasia Screening Test.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Development and Psychometric Validation of the Cyprus Aphasia Screening Test (CAST).Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Language disorders in understudied languages: Opening editorial.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2025Article
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
purposeA rise in strokes worldwide means that the number of people affected by aphasia is increasing. Early and accurate diagnosis of aphasia is crucial for recovery. Presently, there are no dedicated screening tests tailored for evaluating aphasia in Serbian-speaking individuals. This paper presents and describes the psychometric properties of the Serbian Aphasia Screening Test (SAST), a novel aphasia screening tool designed specifically for Serbian speakers. This initiative fills the gap in aphasia assessment tools for the Serbian population, providing a comprehensive and culturally sensitive approach to the evaluation of language disorders.
methodData using the SAST were collected from 240 participants: 120 Serbian speakers with aphasia after stroke compared to 120 neurotypical individuals. The assessment included the following subtests: conversation, verbal automatized sequences, auditory comprehension, visual confrontation naming, responsive naming, repetition of words, repetition of sentences, oral word reading, oral sentence reading, reading comprehension, and writing. The main objectives were to ascertain the psychometric qualities of the SAST, including inter-rater reliability of scoring, test-retest reliability, reliability of the individual subtests, overall test reliability, and inter-correlations among subtests. Additionally, the study evaluated the discriminatory capability of the SAST in distinguishing between individuals with aphasia and neurotypical controls, as well as between individuals with different types of aphasia.
resultsThe findings revealed that the SAST has excellent inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency. There were statistically significant differences between individuals with aphasia and neurotypical controls on all SAST subtests. Furthermore, the study identified significant differences in language profiles among participants with different types of aphasia. The significant correlations between scores on the SAST and on the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) suggest good convergent validity of the SAST.
conclusionsThe results underscore the robust psychometric properties of this novel screening assessment (SAST) and its ability to effectively discriminate between diverse linguistic abilities within different aphasia syndromes in Serbian speaking individuals.
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.