ArticlePloS one2026
Adaptation of the Quick Aphasia Battery into Urdu and establishment of its psychometric properties.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quick Aphasia Battery provides a quick yet comprehensive evaluation of language performance in individuals with aphasia. While the tool was originally developed in English, no validated Urdu version existed for use in Pakistani clinical settings. This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the Urdu version of the Quick Aphasia Battery and determine its psychometric properties, including reliability and preliminary diagnostic performance among stroke patients. The study was conducted in three phases. Phase 1 involved translation and adaptation, comprising forward-backward translation, expert review, cultural modification and pilot testing with 20 participants to assess clarity and feasibility. Phase 2 was validation including 44 participants (7 with aphasia and 37 without aphasia) to establish content validity, construct validity, and preliminary diagnostic performance. Phase 3 evaluated reliability, including internal consistency, inter-rater, test-retest and parallel forms reliability. Content validity indices were excellent (I-CVI = 0.75-1.00; S-CVI = 0.95-1.00). Mann-Whitney U test revealed significant group differences across all subtests (p < 0.001), supporting known group validity. The Preliminary Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis demonstrated an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.90-0.99), with a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 92%. Reliability testing indicated inter-rater reliability with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient value of 0.96, test-retest reliability with a value of 0.98 and internal consistency with a Cronbach's α value of 0.96; there was no significant difference across parallel forms (p = 0.526). The Urdu Quick Aphasia Battery exhibits promising preliminary validity and reliability for assessing language performance in Urdu-speaking stroke patients and shows consistency and agreement with the original version, despite the inclusion of culturally adapted modifications. However, given the limited number of aphasia cases, further validation with larger clinical samples is required before establishing its diagnostic utility.
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.