Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:24:01.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Factor Structure of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination, Third Edition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2019

Mandy W.M. Fong ,
Ryan Van Patten  and
Robert P. Fucetola
Mandy W.M. Fong*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
Ryan Van Patten
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA
Robert P. Fucetola
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to: Mandy W.M Fong, Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, 4444 Forest Park Ave, Campus Box 8518, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective: The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) is one of the most commonly used aphasia batteries. The newest edition has undergone significant revisions since its original publication in 1972, but existing evidence for its validity is lacking. We examined the construct validity of BDAE-3 and identified the factor structure of this battery. Method: A total of 355 people with aphasia of various types and severity completed neuropsychological evaluations to assess their patterns of language impairment. A principal component analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to examine the components of BDAE-3 subtests. Results: Five components accounting for over 70% of the BDAE-3 total variance were found. The five language factors identified were auditory comprehension/ideomotor praxis, naming and reading, articulation-repetition, grammatical comprehension, and phonological processing. Conclusions: Our results show that the BDAE-3 demonstrates good construct validity, and certain language functions remain primary, distinct language domains (i.e., receptive vs. expressive language) across severities of aphasia. Overall, our findings inform clinical practice by outlining the inherent structure of language abilities in people with aphasia. Clinicians can utilize the findings to select core BDAE-3 tests that are most representative of their respective functions, thereby reducing the total testing time while preserving diagnostic sensitivity. (JINS, 2019, 25, 772–776)

Keywords

AphasiaLanguageBoston Diagnostic Aphasia ExaminationFactor analysisPrincipal component analysisLanguage disorders
Type
Brief Communication
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 25 , Issue 7 , August 2019 , pp. 772 - 776
Copyright
Copyright © INS. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2019. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beavers, A.S., Lounsbury, J.W., Richards, J.K., Huck, S.W., Skolits, G.J., & Esquivel, S.L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(6), 1–13. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=18&n=6Google Scholar
Davis, A.G. (1993). A survey of adult aphasia (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goodglass, H. & Kaplan, E. (1972a). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Goodglass, H. & Kaplan, E. (1972b). Boston diagnostic aphasia examination. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Goodglass, H. & Kaplan, E. (1983a). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Goodglass, H. & Kaplan, E. (1983b). Boston diagnostic aphasia examination (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barresi, B. (2001a). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders (3rded.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barresi, B. (2001b). Boston diagnostic aphasia examination (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Helms-Estabrooks, N. & Ramsberger, G. (1986). Treatment of agramatism in long-term Broca’s aphasia. British Journal Disorders of Communication, 21, 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). Boston naming test (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Katz, R.C., Hallowell, B., Code, C., Armstrong, E., Roberts, P., Pound, C., & Katz, L. (2000). A multinational comparison of aphasia management practices. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 35(2), 303–314. doi: 10.1080/136828200247205Google ScholarPubMed
Newman, D.A. (2003). Longitudinal modeling with randomly and systematically missing data: a simulation of ad hoc, maximum likelihood, and multiple imputation techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 6(3), 328–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ning, Y., McAvay, G., Chaudhry, S.I., Arnold, A.M., & Allore, H.G. (2013). Results differ by applying distinctive multiple imputation approaches on the longitudinal cardiovascular health study data. Experimental Aging Research, 39(1), 27–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pineda, D.A., Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Mejia, S.E., Romero, M.G., & Perez, C. (2000). The Boston diagnostic aphasia examination–Spanish version: the influence of demographic variables. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6(7), 802–814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schafer, J.L. & Graham, J.W. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights: Allyn&Bacon.Google Scholar
Tsapkini, K., Vlahou, C.H., & Potagas, C. (2010). Adaptation and validation of standardized aphasia tests in different languages: lessons from the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination–Short Form in Greek. Behavioural Neurology, 22(3–4), 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velicer, W.F. & Jackson, D.N. (1990). Component analysis versus common factor analysis: some further observations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, L. & Goodglass, H. (1992). Pantomime, praxis, and aphasia. Brain and Language, 42(4), 402–418. doi: 10.1016/0093-934X(92)90076-QCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, P.H., Ubben, S.D., Kaesberg, S., Kalbe, E., Kessler, J., Liebig, T., & Fink, G.R. (2016). Where language meets meaningful action: a combined behavior and lesion analysis of aphasia and apraxia. Brain Structure and Function, 221(1), 563–576. doi: 10.1007/s00429-014-0925-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed