Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Mandy W.M. Fong (a1), Ryan Van Patten (a2) and Robert P. Fucetola (a1)

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)

Copyright

Corresponding author

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: wfong@wustl.edu

References

Hide All
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=6
Davis, A.G. (1993). A survey of adult aphasia (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goodglass, H. & Kaplan, E. (1972a). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Lea & Febiger.
Goodglass, H. & Kaplan, E. (1972b). Boston diagnostic aphasia examination. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Goodglass, H. & Kaplan, E. (1983a). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Goodglass, H. & Kaplan, E. (1983b). Boston diagnostic aphasia examination (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barresi, B. (2001a). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders (3rded.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barresi, B. (2001b). Boston diagnostic aphasia examination (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Helms-Estabrooks, N. & Ramsberger, G. (1986). Treatment of agramatism in long-term Broca’s aphasia. British Journal Disorders of Communication, 21, 3945.
Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). Boston naming test (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
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), 303314. doi: 10.1080/136828200247205
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), 328362.
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), 2743.
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), 802814.
Schafer, J.L. & Graham, J.W. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147177.
Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights: Allyn&Bacon.
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), 111119.
Velicer, W.F. & Jackson, D.N. (1990). Component analysis versus common factor analysis: some further observations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 97114.
Wang, L. & Goodglass, H. (1992). Pantomime, praxis, and aphasia. Brain and Language, 42(4), 402418. doi: 10.1016/0093-934X(92)90076-Q
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), 563576. doi: 10.1007/s00429-014-0925-3

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

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

  • Mandy W.M. Fong (a1), Ryan Van Patten (a2) and Robert P. Fucetola (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.