File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Classification of aphasic Chinese speakers: cluster and discriminant function analyses

TitleClassification of aphasic Chinese speakers: cluster and discriminant function analyses
Authors
Issue Date1998
PublisherPsychology Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/02687038.asp
Citation
Aphasiology, 1998, v. 12 n. 1, p. 37-48 How to Cite?
AbstractThe Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) is a standardized aphasia test which classifies aphasias into eight syndromes based on the Wernicke-Lichtheim model, commonly known as the Bostonian model. Although the syndrome approach has its limitations it is a widely used procedure in clinical aphasiology as it allows users to classify patients into discrete syndromes and to make some inference about lesion sites (Kertesz 1983). It has been shown that the Wernicke-Lichtheim framework is also applicable in classifying aphasia in Chinese, although Chinese and English linguistic structures are very different (e.g. Naeser and Chan 1980, Packard 1986, Gao and Benson 1990, Yiu 1992). The use of a common framework to classify aphasia in different languages is a useful concept, as it allows aphasia to be compared across languages. Unfortunately, aphasia classification is not always a clear-cut procedure, and use of the WAB is often queried regarding the validity of the quantitative classification. Previous reports have shown that the agreement on classification using the criterion scores proposed by the WAB and that of statistical procedures varied from 30% to 74%. Such variability could either be attributed to the differences in the sample size and statistical methods employed, or the inherent problems with the classification criteria. This study re-examined the adequacy of the classification criterion scores proposed by Kertesz (1979, 1982) by comparing the results of the classification using the criterion scores (clinical classification) and two statistical procedures (statistical classification). The agreement between the clinical classification and the statistical classification varied between 60% and 88%. The results were interpreted to support the use of the criterion scores proposed by the WAB.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/175267
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.139
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.730
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorYiu, Een_US
dc.contributor.authorWorrall, Len_US
dc.contributor.authorBaglioni, Ten_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-11-26T08:57:53Z-
dc.date.available2012-11-26T08:57:53Z-
dc.date.issued1998en_US
dc.identifier.citationAphasiology, 1998, v. 12 n. 1, p. 37-48en_US
dc.identifier.issn0268-7038en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/175267-
dc.description.abstractThe Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) is a standardized aphasia test which classifies aphasias into eight syndromes based on the Wernicke-Lichtheim model, commonly known as the Bostonian model. Although the syndrome approach has its limitations it is a widely used procedure in clinical aphasiology as it allows users to classify patients into discrete syndromes and to make some inference about lesion sites (Kertesz 1983). It has been shown that the Wernicke-Lichtheim framework is also applicable in classifying aphasia in Chinese, although Chinese and English linguistic structures are very different (e.g. Naeser and Chan 1980, Packard 1986, Gao and Benson 1990, Yiu 1992). The use of a common framework to classify aphasia in different languages is a useful concept, as it allows aphasia to be compared across languages. Unfortunately, aphasia classification is not always a clear-cut procedure, and use of the WAB is often queried regarding the validity of the quantitative classification. Previous reports have shown that the agreement on classification using the criterion scores proposed by the WAB and that of statistical procedures varied from 30% to 74%. Such variability could either be attributed to the differences in the sample size and statistical methods employed, or the inherent problems with the classification criteria. This study re-examined the adequacy of the classification criterion scores proposed by Kertesz (1979, 1982) by comparing the results of the classification using the criterion scores (clinical classification) and two statistical procedures (statistical classification). The agreement between the clinical classification and the statistical classification varied between 60% and 88%. The results were interpreted to support the use of the criterion scores proposed by the WAB.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherPsychology Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/02687038.aspen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAphasiologyen_US
dc.titleClassification of aphasic Chinese speakers: cluster and discriminant function analysesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailYiu, E: eyiu@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityYiu, E=rp00981en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0031964599en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-0031964599&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume12en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.spage37en_US
dc.identifier.epage48en_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridYiu, E=7003337895en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWorrall, L=7003861894en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBaglioni, T=6701701947en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats