Table 2.
Relationship, Assessment, Inclusion, Support, Evolve evaluation outcomes of tools typically used to assess primary progressive aphasia.
| Assessment | Total | Relationship |
Assessment |
Inclusion |
Support |
Evolve |
||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | R2 | Sum | A1 | A2 | Sum | I1 | I2 | Sum | S1 | S2 | Sum | E1 | E2 | Sum | ||
| Boston Diagnostic Examination of Aphasia–Third Edition (BDAE-3), Responsive Naming (Goodglass et al., 2001) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Timed categorical (animals; Tombaugh et al., 1999) or letter fluency (F, A, S; Monsch et al., 1992; Rees et al., 1998) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cognitive Linguistic Quick Test-Plus (CLQT+), Generative Naming (Helm-Estabrooks, 2017) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Psycholinguistic Assessment of Language Processing in Aphasia (PALPA), Spoken Word–Naming (Kay et al., 1996) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cambridge Semantic Battery (CSB), Category Comprehension Adlam et al., 2010) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PALPA, Spoken Word–Picture Matching (Kay et al., 1996) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Western Aphasia Battery–Revised (WAB-R), Auditory Verbal Comprehension: Sequential Commands (Kertesz, 2007) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Comprehensive Aphasia Test–Second Edition (CAT-2), Language Comprehension: Comprehension of Spoken Sentences (Swinburn et al., 2019) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| WAB-R, Repetition (Kertesz, 2007) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CAT-2, Repetition subtests (Swinburn et al., 2019) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| WAB-R, Reading (Kertesz, 2007) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CAT-2, Reading Out Loud (Swinburn et al., 2019) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CAT-2, Language Comprehension: Comprehension of Written Sentences (Swinburn et al., 2019) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Peanut butter and jelly sandwich (Stark, 2019) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CLQT+, Story Retelling (Helm-Estabrooks, 2017) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Boston Naming Test (BNT; Kaplan et al., 2001) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| CLQT+, Confrontation Naming (Helm-Estabrooks, 2017) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| WAB-R, Word Fluency subtest (Kertesz, 2007) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Northwestern Anagram Test (NAT; Weintraub et al. 2009) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Make A Sentence Test (MAST; Billette et al., 2015) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and Sentences (NAVS; Cho-Reyes & Thompson, 2012) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| CLQT+, Semantic Comprehension (Helm-Estabrooks, 2017) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Pyramids and Palm Trees (PPT; Howard & Patterson, 1992) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| WAB-R, Constructional, Visuospatial, and Calculation: Calculation (Kertesz, 2007) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| CAT-2, Written Picture Description (Swinburn et al., 2019) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| The Arizona Battery of Reading and Spelling (ABRS), Reading/Spelling List (Beeson & Rising, 2010) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Communication Activities of Daily Living–Third Edition (CADL-3; Holland et al., 2018) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Curtin University Discourse Protocol (CUDP; Whitworth et al., 2015) | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| WAB-R, Picnic Scene (Kertesz, 2020) | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| CLQT+, Personal Facts (Helm-Estabrooks, 2017) | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Aphasia Needs Assessment (ANA; Garrett & Beukelman, 2006) | 7 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Aphasia Severity Rating (ASR; Simmons-Mackie et al., 2018) | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| The Progressive Aphasia Language Scale (PALS), Spontaneous Speech (Leyton et al., 2011) | 9 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia (CCRSA; Babbitt et al., 2011; Cherney et al., 2011) | 9 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Measure of Participation in Conversation (MPC; Kagan et al., 2004) | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Case history (e.g., “Tell me what brings you here”) | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Personal narratives elicited by a prompt (e.g., “Tell me what you do for work” or “Tell me about a typical Sunday”) | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| WAB-R, Conversational Questions (Kertesz, 2020) | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| A conversation between the client, clinician and/or familiar conversational partner (Gallée et al., 2023; Henry & Grasso, 2018) | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI; Lomas et al., 1989) | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Clinical Dementia Rating (Knopman et al., 2011) | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Progressive Aphasia Severity Scale (PASS; Sapolsky et al., 2014) | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Measure of Skill in Conversation (MSC; Kagan et al., 2004) | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Assessment for Living with Aphasia (ALA; Simmons-Mackie et al., 2014) | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| CAT-2, The Aphasia Impact Questionnaire | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Note. The individual scores and summative scores for each R.A.I.S.E. principle, as well as the total score, are indicated. For a single criterion, an assessment could score either a 0 (criterion unfulfilled) or 1 (criterion fulfilled). As such, the range of possible scores for an R.A.I.S.E. principle was 0–2. Finally, the total score reflects the sum of all scores, with a possible range of 0–10. The criterion for each of the R.A.I.S.E. principles was as follows:
R1: Does the assessment contain questions that allow the clinician to better understand the client as a person?
R2: Do the instructions of the assessment allow for the clinician to meaningfully respond to what the client is communicating?
A1: Does the administration allow the clinician to tailor scripts or instructions to the client?
A2: Does the administration allow the clinician to provide cues or prompts in order to identify strengths and support needs?
I1: Does the assessment allow for the clinician to provide feedback to the client?
I2: Can the client provide feedback to the clinician for the clinician to adjust their prompts or explain their purpose?
S1: Does the assessment promote advocacy for the client by asking questions that determine the client's personal strengths, challenges, or needs?
S2: Will the assessment results provide the clinician with information that helps advocate for services and supports for the client and family?
E1: Can the instructions of the assessment be modified for a client's needs?
E2: Does the assessment remain valid if the client's response modality changes?