PURPOSE: This study examined discourse characteristics of individuals with aphasia who scored at or above the 93.8 cutoff on the Aphasia Quotient subtests of the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R; Kertesz, 2007). They were compared with participants without aphasia and those with anomic aphasia. METHOD: Participants were from the AphasiaBank database and included 28 participants who were not aphasic by WAB-R score (NABW), 92 participants with anomic aphasia, and 177 controls. Cinderella narratives were analyzed using the Computerized Language Analysis programs (MacWhinney, 2000). Outcome measures were words per minute, percent word errors, lexical diversity using the moving average type-token ratio (Covington, 2007b), main concept production, number of utterances, mean length of utterance, and proposition density. RESULTS: Results showed that the NABW group was significantly different from the controls on all measures except MLU and proposition density. These individuals were compared to participants without aphasia and those with anomic aphasia. CONCLUSION: Individuals with aphasia who score above the WAB-R Aphasia Quotient cutoff demonstrate discourse impairments that warrant both treatment and special attention in the research literature.
PURPOSE: This study examined discourse characteristics of individuals with aphasia who scored at or above the 93.8 cutoff on the Aphasia Quotient subtests of the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R; Kertesz, 2007). They were compared with participants without aphasia and those with anomic aphasia. METHOD: Participants were from the AphasiaBank database and included 28 participants who were not aphasic by WAB-R score (NABW), 92 participants with anomic aphasia, and 177 controls. Cinderella narratives were analyzed using the Computerized Language Analysis programs (MacWhinney, 2000). Outcome measures were words per minute, percent word errors, lexical diversity using the moving average type-token ratio (Covington, 2007b), main concept production, number of utterances, mean length of utterance, and proposition density. RESULTS: Results showed that the NABW group was significantly different from the controls on all measures except MLU and proposition density. These individuals were compared to participants without aphasia and those with anomic aphasia. CONCLUSION: Individuals with aphasia who score above the WAB-R Aphasia Quotient cutoff demonstrate discourse impairments that warrant both treatment and special attention in the research literature.
Authors: K Ryan Wilson; Heather O'Rourke; Linda A Wozniak; Ellina Kostopoulos; Yannick Marchand; Aaron J Newman Journal: Brain Lang Date: 2012-09-01 Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: Brielle C Stark; Manaswita Dutta; Laura L Murray; Davida Fromm; Lucy Bryant; Tyson G Harmon; Amy E Ramage; Angela C Roberts Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 2.674
Authors: Kathryn J Greenslade; Jade E B Stuart; Jessica D Richardson; Sarah Grace Dalton; Amy E Ramage Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Brielle C Stark; Manaswita Dutta; Laura L Murray; Lucy Bryant; Davida Fromm; Brian MacWhinney; Amy E Ramage; Angela Roberts; Dirk B den Ouden; Kris Brock; Katy McKinney-Bock; Eun Jin Paek; Tyson G Harmon; Si On Yoon; Charalambos Themistocleous; Hyunsoo Yoo; Katharine Aveni; Stephanie Gutierrez; Saryu Sharma Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: JoAnn P Silkes; Reva M Zimmerman; Wendy Greenspan; Laura Reinert; Diane Kendall; Nadine Martin Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 2.408