4.0 Article

Validation of the language component of the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination - Revised (ACE-R) as a screening tool for aphasia in stroke patients

Journal

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL ON AGEING
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 156-158

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-6612.2010.00466.x

Keywords

Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination; aphasia screening; stroke

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: Several tests are available for aphasia screening following stroke. However, some of them have shortcomings such as need of specialist knowledge, low sensitivity and/or specificity and lengthy administration time. Our study aims to evaluate the language component of the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination - Revised (ACE-R) as a screening tool for aphasia in stroke patients. Methods: The language component of ACE-R was administered to consecutive patients admitted to a post-acute stroke unit. Patients who were medically unstable or had a significant history of sensory impairment or mental health issues were excluded. The test was administered by two junior doctors with basic training in ACE-R administration. Patients recruited were also assessed by an experienced speech and language therapist (SLT). The results of the two assessments were documented by a different member of the team and the SLT results were used as the benchmark to calculate the ACE-R language component sensitivity and specificity. Results: Fifty-nine participants were recruited and 27 of them were women. The mean age was 72 (SD 11.9). Thirty-four participants had left and 11 right hemisphere stroke. Fourteen had bilateral affection. Six participants were left handed. A cut-off value of 22/26 of ACE-R language component showed 100% specificity and 83.1% sensitivity, while a cut-off value of 16/26 had 88.2% specificity and 100% sensitivity. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the language component of ACE-R has a satisfactory sensitivity and specificity compared with other screening tests used in strokes. It is easy to administer and free to use.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available