Language is a unique communication facility that has a hand in interpersonal relationships (Cissewski & Boesch, 2016). Aphasia is an extensive term that can be signified as an inability in language comprehension and production due to brain damage produced deficit (Pinel & Barnes, 2017). Gazzaniga, Ivry and Mangun (2013) stated that aphasia may also go along speech problems arising from uncontrolled articulatory muscles and motor planning of articulations impairment. Aphasia can be categorised into two main types which are Broca’s aphasia and Wernicke’s aphasia and more than eight subtypes such as global aphasia, conduction aphasia, anomic aphasia, etc (Barnett & Parmar, 2018). 

Broca’s aphasia, aka expressive aphasia or non-fluent aphasia, is a disorder that creates difficulty for speech production, abnormal prosody and impaired syntactic comprehension (Goodglass, 1993). For example, a patient with Broca’s aphasia says “walk, dog”, which means “I will walk the dog.” (Barnett & Parmar, 2018). Wernicke’s aphasia, aka receptive aphasia or fluent aphasia, is a disorder has difficulty understanding input or the reception of language (Whitaker & Kahn, 1994). For example, a patient with Wernicke’s aphasia names a fork a “glee” (Barnett & Parmar, 2018). To get a better understanding of aphasia, the methods used to explore the language deficits experienced by aphasia patients will be discussed in this essay. There are many methods to test for aphasia. However, in this essay, only Quick Aphasia Battery and the Comprehensive Aphasia Test will be discussed. 

The first method used to explore the language deficits experienced by aphasia patients to be discussed is Quick Aphasia Battery (QAB). QAB contains eight subtests, which are level of consciousness, connected speech, word comprehension, sentence comprehension, picture naming, repetition, reading aloud and motor speech and groups of elements are included in every subtest to explore diverse language areas (Wilson, Eriksson, Schneck & Lucanie, 2018). Every subtest differs in difficulty and the appropriate data is collected by using the ranked system (Wilson, Eriksson, Schneck & Lucanie, 2018). After finishing QAB, the data of eight summary evaluation is obtained that forms a multidimensional profile of spared and damaged language areas (Wilson, Eriksson, Schneck & Lucanie, 2018). 

There are four bunches of participants who are acute stroke patients with aphasia, acute stroke patients without aphasia, chronic stroke patients with aphasia and healthy controls joined the study of QAB (Wilson, Eriksson, Schneck & Lucanie, 2018). For acute stroke patients, there are 58 of them participated in the study of QAB who meet inclusion criteria of acute stroke confirmed on CT or diffusion-weighted MRI, stroke localised on left hemisphere supratentorial areas, stroke extent at least 500m3, aged 18 to 90, well-learnt English, adequately stable to complete QAB in seven days of stroke and they do not have dementia, serious psychiatric disorders and serious substance misuse or withdrawal (Wilson, Eriksson, Schneck & Lucanie, 2018). For chronic stroke patients, there are 16 of them participated in the study of QAB who meet inclusion criteria of consistent and stable aphasia of any aetiology, aged 18 to 90 and well-learnt English and they do not have exclusion criteria that are the same as the acute stroke patients (Wilson, Eriksson, Schneck & Lucanie, 2018). For healthy controls, there are 14 of participants who do not have neurological or psychiatric history.  

There are a few strengths of QAB can be discussed. Firstly, QAB is time-efficient and simply administered at the bedside, thus, patients such as acute stroke patients and post-surgical patients who do not tolerate time-consuming testing are applicable to (Marshall & Wright, 2007). Then, QAB has psychometrically sound that has good inter-rater reliability and good test-retest reproducibility that can differentiate changes due to recovery and measurement error (Skenes & McCauley,1985). QAB produces a multidimensional characterisation of damaged and spared fields of language function (Wilson, Eriksson, Schneck & Lucanie, 2018). 

There are a few weaknesses of QAB can be discussed. Firstly, the test for written language is limited, which shows that the impairment of written language is not caught (Wilson, Eriksson, Schneck & Lucanie, 2018). Then, to reduce management time, countless trade-offs were constructed and this may language abilities of the patients to be overlooked. (Wilson, Eriksson, Schneck & Lucanie, 2018). According to Kay, Lesser and Coltheart (1996), it will be time-consuming to explore language abilities thoroughly due to extensive testing is required. Pedersen, Jorgensen, Nakayama, Raaschou and Olsen (1995) found that QAB tends to be applicable at the acute stage but QAB becomes impractical to manage the battery on other days in building test-retest reliability. 

Next, the second method used to explore the language deficits experienced by aphasia patients to be discussed is the Comprehensive Aphasia Test (CAT). The CAT is a test for the people who have acquired aphasia and CAT can be finished between one or two evaluation (Swinburn, Porter & Howard, 2004). The CAT can be categorised into three main tests, which are cognitive screen, language battery and disability questionnaire (Springer & Mantey, 2009). The CAT covers universal language functions which consist auditory comprehension, repetition, automatic speech, naming, spontaneous speech, reading and writing (Clark & Murray, 2006). To form the leading body of the CAT, a figure of presentation is supplied by language battery throughout the entire modalities of language production and comprehension (Swinburn, Porter & Howard, 2004). 

Springer and Mantey (2010) showed that the CAT battery gives a general view of the linguistic abilities and deficits of a patient of aphasia fast but comprehensive and standardised profile of language presentation. The participants of the study of the CAT are a female who has a left temporal parietal infarct and four females who act as control groups that do not have temporal parietal infarct (Green et al., 2011). As a result. As a result of the CAT, the female who has a left temporal parietal infarct to be aphasic with relatively unimpaired cognitive function (Green et al., 2011). 

There are a few strengths of the CAT can be discussed. Firstly, CAT is comprehensive, there is extensive language functions is assessed in five receptive subtests (three auditory comprehension and two visual comprehension) and sixteen expressive subtests (five repetition, three naming, four reading and four writing) to test for aphasia (Springer & Mantey, 2009). Then, CAT can give advice about the most possible outcome of post-s09oke aphasia (Howard, Swinburn & Porter, 2009). 

There are a few weaknesses of the CAT can be discussed. Firstly, the CAT may subject to error predictions that doesn’t explain the reason for making the error (Howard, Swinburn & Porter, 2009). Then, there is a decreased number of items for clinical application.  

To conclude, both QAB and the CAT are valid and reliable tests for testing aphasic patients. Based on the study, both QAB and the CAT have their owns strengths and limitations. It is not only QAB and CAT can be used to explore the language deficits experienced by aphasia patients, but also many other assessment methods such as Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test, Western Aphasia Battery, Aachen Aphasia Bedside Test, etc. Each test has its own pros and cons to be discovered.  

 

References 

Barnett, N., & Parmar, P. (2018). How to support people with aphasia with medicines  

optimisation. The Pharmaceutical Journal.  

Cissewski, J., & Boesch, C. (2016). Communication without language. Gesture, 15(2), 224- 

249.  

Clark, G., & Murray, T. (2006). Decay characteristics of the eastern Lapita design  

system. Archaeology in Oceania, 41(3), 107-117. 

Gazzaniga, M., Ivry, R., & Mangun, G. (2013). Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the  

Mind: Fourth International Student Edition. W.W.Norton. 

Goodglass, H. (1993). Understanding aphasia. San Diego (CA): Academic press. 

Green, D. W., Ruffle, L., Grogan, A., Ali, N., Ramsden, S., Schofield, T., … Price, C. J.  

(2011). Parallel recovery in a trilingual speaker: the use of the Bilingual Aphasia Test  

as a diagnostic complement to the Comprehensive Aphasia Test. Clinical Linguistics  

& Phonetics, 25(6-7), 499-512. 

Howard, D., Swinburn, K., & Porter, G. (2009). Putting the CAT out: What the Comprehensive Aphasia Test has to offer. Aphasiology, 24(1), 56-74.  

Kay, J., Lesser, R., & Coltheart, M. (1996). Psycholinguistic assessments of language  

processing in aphasia (PALPA): An introduction. Aphasiology, 10(2), 159-180.  

Marshall, R. C., & Wright, H. H. (2007). Developing a Clinician-Friendly Aphasia  

Test. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(4), 295-315.  

Pedersen, P. M., Stig Jørgensen, H., Nakayama, H., Raaschou, H. O., & Olsen, T. S. (1995).  

Aphasia in acute stroke: Incidence, determinants, and recovery. Annals of  

Neurology, 38(4), 659-666. 

Pinel, J. P., & Barnes, S. (2017). Biopsychology, Global Edition. 

Skenes, L. L., & McCauley, R. J. (1985). Psychometric review of nine aphasia tests. Journal  

of Communication Disorders, 18(6), 461-474.  

Springer, L., & Mantey, S. (2009). The Comprehensive Aphasia Test: A review. Commentary  

on Howard, Swinburn, and Porter, “Putting the CAT out: What the Comprehensive  

Aphasia Test has to offer”. Aphasiology, 24(1), 75-78.  

Swinburn, K., Porter, G., & Howard, D. (2004). Comprehensive Aphasia Test. PsycTESTS Dataset.  

Whitaker, H. A., & Kahn, H. J. (1994). Brain and Language. Neuropsychology, 125-137.  

Wilson, S. M., Eriksson, D. K., Schneck, S. M., & Lucanie, J. M. (2018). A quick aphasia  

battery for efficient, reliable, and multidimensional assessment of language  

function. PLOS ONE, 13(2), e0192773.