Background/Objectives: Aphasia is a neurological condition affecting the ability to understand and/or express language fluently and accurately, and can occur following stroke, traumatic injuries, or other brain pathologies. The aim of the following study was to provide clinicians and researchers information regarding the existing assessment tools to assess aphasia. Methods: For this Systematic Review, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for articles published up to August 2024. Authors independently identified eligible studies based on predefined inclusion criteria and extracted data. The study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Results: Of the 1278 publications identified and screened, 238 studies fell within the inclusion criteria and were critically reviewed, and 164 assessment tools were found and divided into 8 main domains; the most used tools were the Language Screening Test (LAST), the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39), the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS), and the Token test. Conclusions: This review has emphasized the need for agreement among researchers as to which tool must be studied or adapted to other national contexts to develop universal norms and standards.

Quality of Assessment Tools for Aphasia: A Systematic Review / Panuccio, Francescaroberta; Rossi, Giulia; Di Nuzzo, Anita; Ruotolo, Ilaria; Cianfriglia, Giada; Simeon, Rachele; Sellitto, Giovanni; Berardi, Anna; Galeoto, Giovanni. - In: BRAIN SCIENCES. - ISSN 2076-3425. - 15:3(2025), pp. 1-51. [10.3390/brainsci15030271]

Quality of Assessment Tools for Aphasia: A Systematic Review

Panuccio, Francescaroberta;Rossi, Giulia;Di Nuzzo, Anita;Ruotolo, Ilaria;Simeon, Rachele;Sellitto, Giovanni;Berardi, Anna;Galeoto, Giovanni
2025

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Aphasia is a neurological condition affecting the ability to understand and/or express language fluently and accurately, and can occur following stroke, traumatic injuries, or other brain pathologies. The aim of the following study was to provide clinicians and researchers information regarding the existing assessment tools to assess aphasia. Methods: For this Systematic Review, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for articles published up to August 2024. Authors independently identified eligible studies based on predefined inclusion criteria and extracted data. The study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Results: Of the 1278 publications identified and screened, 238 studies fell within the inclusion criteria and were critically reviewed, and 164 assessment tools were found and divided into 8 main domains; the most used tools were the Language Screening Test (LAST), the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39), the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS), and the Token test. Conclusions: This review has emphasized the need for agreement among researchers as to which tool must be studied or adapted to other national contexts to develop universal norms and standards.
2025
aphasia; psychometric properties; questionnaire; reliability; systematic review; tools; validation
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01g Articolo di rassegna (Review)
Quality of Assessment Tools for Aphasia: A Systematic Review / Panuccio, Francescaroberta; Rossi, Giulia; Di Nuzzo, Anita; Ruotolo, Ilaria; Cianfriglia, Giada; Simeon, Rachele; Sellitto, Giovanni; Berardi, Anna; Galeoto, Giovanni. - In: BRAIN SCIENCES. - ISSN 2076-3425. - 15:3(2025), pp. 1-51. [10.3390/brainsci15030271]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
brainsci-15-00271.pdf

accesso aperto

Note: Panuccio_Quality_2025
Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 838.4 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
838.4 kB Adobe PDF

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1741233
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact