Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T16:25:24.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Aphasia Quotient: The Taxonomic Approach to Measurement of Aphasic Disability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Andrew Kertesz  and
Elizabeth Poole
Andrew Kertesz*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurological Sciences, University of Western Ontario, St. Joseph’s Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada
Elizabeth Poole
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurological Sciences, University of Western Ontario, St. Joseph’s Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada
*
St. Joseph’s Hospital, London, Ontario N6A 4V2
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

150 aphasiacs and 59 controls were examined with a scorable, comprehensive battery, designed to be used by the clinician and the research worker. The subtests of Fluency, Information, Comprehension, Repetition and Naming were added and compared to a hypothetical normal of 100 obtaining the “aphasia Quotient.” This is a measurement of the severity of language impairment. On the basis of their performance on the subtests, the patients were classified according to taxonomic principles into Global, Motor (Broca’s), Isolation, Sensory (Wernicke’s), Transcortical Motor, Transcortical Sensory, Conduction and Anomic groups (in order of severity). This classification is considered a clinically valid baseline for research, diagnosis and prognosis.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , February 1974 , pp. 7 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation 1974

References

Benson, D.F. (1967) Fluency in aphasia: correlation with radioactive scan localization. Cortex, 3, 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, A.L. (1967) Problems of test construction in the field of aphasia. Cortex, 3, 32–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRenzi, E.andVignolo, L.A.(1962) The token test: a sensitive test to detect receptive disturbances in aphasics. Brain, 85, 665–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenson, J. (1954) Examining for Aphasia. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Gèschwind, N. (1965) Disconnexion syndromes in animals and man. Brain, 88, 237–294 and 585-644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geschwind, N., Quadfasel, F. and Segarra, J. (1968) Isolation of the speech area. Neuropsychologia, 6, 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodglass, H., Quadfasel, F. and Timberlake, W. (1964) Phrase length and the type and severity of aphasia. Cortex 1, 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodglass, H., Gleason, J. and Hyde, M. (1970) Some dimensions of auditory language comprehension in aphasia. Speech J. and Hearing Res., 13, 595–606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E. (1972) The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.Google Scholar
Head, H. (1926) Aphasia and kindred disorders of speech. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Howes, D. and Geschwind, N. (1964) Quantitative studies of aphasic language. Ass. Res. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 42, 229–244.Google ScholarPubMed
Kerschensteiner, M., Poeck, K. and Brunner, E. (1972) The fluency-nonfluency dimension in the classification of aphasic speech. Cortex 8, 233–247.Google Scholar
Kertesz, A. and Benson, D.F. (1970) Neologistic jargon: a clinicopathological study. Cortex 6, 362–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertesz, A. (1973) Intelligence and aphasia. Trans. Am. Neurol. Ass. In press.Google ScholarPubMed
Lecour, A.R. and Hermitte, F. (1969) Phonemic paraphasias: linguistic structures and tentative hypothesis. Cortex, 5, 193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porch, B. (1971) Porch Index of Communicative Ability. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Sarno, M.T. (1969) The functional communication profile. Manual of directions. Rehabilitation Monograph 42. New York: Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine.Google Scholar
Shuell, H., Jenkins, J.J. and Jimenez-Pabon, E. (1964) Aphasia in Adults. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. and Sneath, P.H.A. (1963) Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Son.Google Scholar
Weisenburg, T. and Mcbride, K.E. (1935) Aphasia. New York: The Commonwealth Fund.Google Scholar
Wepman, J.M. and Jones, L.V. (1961) The language modalities test for aphasia. Chicago: Education-Industry Service.Google Scholar