Clinical and prognostic properties of standardized and functional aphasia assessments.

OBJECTIVE To compare standardized and functional aphasia tests in patients after acute stroke. DESIGN Data were collected at baseline and at 6 months in 2 prospective single-centre studies: one observational study (study I, n=119) and one randomized trial of moclobemide vs placebo (study II, n=89). SUBJECTS Patients with aphasia after acute stroke. METHODS Degree of aphasia was examined using the Coefficient (Coeff) in Norsk Grunntest for Afasi (standardized) and the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT) (functional). Statistical comparisons were made using one-way analysis of variance and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS The degree of aphasia measured with Coeff and ANELT correlated closely throughout the study (r2=0.71-0.87, p<0.0001). In study I, 24 patients recovered completely within 6 months. A Coeff >or= 49 and ANELT >or= 3.5 predicted complete recovery equally well. Coeff was sensitive to differentiate between patients with low values on ANELT, whereas ANELT was sensitive to differentiate between patients with high Coeff values. CONCLUSION The 2 tests show a close and consistent correlation over time and are equally sensitive to improvement. They have a similar capacity to predict complete recovery. A standardized test appears to be more suitable for patients with aphasia in the acute stage, while a functional test is more suitable in the subacute/chronic stage.