The value of the Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test in screening for dysphasia: better than the clinician?

O'Neill, PA; Cheadle, Barbara; Wyatt, Rosemary; McGuffog, J.; Fullerton, Ken

doi:10.1177/026921559000400205

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was validated both in its originating department and elsewhere [6]. The SST was similarly described as a simple and relatively short test to screen patients with high-level language problems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bedside screening for aphasia: a comparison of two methods

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A prospective study was carried out in 50 consecutive patients referred with suspected aphasia in order to compare the Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test (FAST) with the Sheffield Screening Test for Acquired Language Disorders (SST). The study included 32 men and 18 women with a mean (SEM) age 53.9 (2) years. The comprehension scores on the FAST were correlated with receptive skills on the SST r = 0.74 (P < 0.001). For expression, the correlation coefficient was r = 0.92 (P < 0.001) and the total scores of the two tests correlated closely r = 0.89 (P < 0.001). There was a positive correlation between total score on the FAST and the Short Orientation, Memory and Concentration test (SOMC) r = 0.86 (P < 0.001), and the total scores on the SST and SOMC r = 0.91 (P < 0.001). The Barthel index also correlated positively with the FAST r = 0.59 (P < 0.001) and SST r = 0.63 (P < 0.001). The study demonstrated that the two tests are simple, short and similar in their predictive value for the screening and diagnosis of aphasia. The SST was found to have additional advantages, as it does not require any special equipment or stimulus cards, and it was not affected by visual neglect.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bedside screening for aphasia: a comparison of two methods

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Performance differed according to age stratifications, with proposed cut-offs of >27/30 for participants 20 to 60 years and >25/30 for participants ≥61 years (Enderby et al, 1987). The second study evaluated 51 older healthy native speakers ranging from 69 to 90 years (O'Neill et al, 1990). It provided evidence for a new cut-off of >23/30 (O'Neill et al, 1990), which was in keeping with the performance-derived cut-offs from the initial validation in stroke patients (Enderby et al, 1987).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…The second study evaluated 51 older healthy native speakers ranging from 69 to 90 years (O'Neill et al, 1990). It provided evidence for a new cut-off of >23/30 (O'Neill et al, 1990), which was in keeping with the performance-derived cut-offs from the initial validation in stroke patients (Enderby et al, 1987). Neither study documented education levels of participants; therefore, the potential confound of education level remains undetermined.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

See 1 more Smart Citation

English adaptation, international harmonisation, and normative validation of the Language Screening Test (LAST)

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Language Screening Test (LAST) is a unique bedside tool, designed to rapidly and reliably evaluate aphasia during the acute and chronic phases of stroke. Two equivalent reliable and validated versions of the LAST exist in French. Aims: Our objective was to conduct a linguistic adaptation for English (LASTen) through a process of translation, international harmonisation, and normalisation in multiple English-speaking countries. Methods & Procedures: There were four progressive stages in the adaptation of the LASTen including a series of sequential evaluations to identify problematic items, with selection of alternatives by consensus and in collaboration with the original LAST developers. First, three Canadian translators independently adapted the 29 items of the original LAST into English, resolving discrepancies by consensus to produce adaptation I. Evaluations of adaptation I involved ratings of translation difficulty and multidisciplinary expert panel review to produce adaptation II. Evaluations of adaptation II included ratings of translation quality by three different translators followed by healthy native speaker testing in Canada to produce adaptation III. Evaluations of adaptation III included expert review in Australia, Canada, England, and the USA for cultural acceptability and naturalness, followed by healthy native speaker testing in all the four countries to produce adaptation IV. Adaptation IV constituted a linguistically valid LASTen for four English dialects. We documented consensus decisions to modify or retain problematic items. We evaluated group differences using the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and chi-squared analyses for frequency variables with statistical significance of alpha ≤.05. Outcomes & Results: During the translation and the evaluations, we reconsidered 22 of the 29 items, revising 20 to produce adaptation IV of the LASTen. Normative testing in the four English-speaking countries involved 109 participants (mean age 60 years, SD ±16.1). Fifty-five percent were women, and 32% lacked postsecondary education. Fourteen participants made errors across nine items. There were no significant differences in errors for age, sex, or country. However, participants with postsecondary education made fewer errors than those without (p = .04). Conclusions: We achieved a linguistically compatible adaptation of the French LAST for English, confirming naturalness and cultural appropriateness in healthy native speakers of four English dialects. Our systematic multistep approach delineates

show abstract

“…7 It is suitable for use by general practitioners, junior medical staff, and other nonspecialists. 8,9 The FAST is made up of four subscales: comprehension, verbal expression, reading, and writing. To reduce administration time, the shortened version of FAST, with only the comprehension and expression sections, can be administered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%