Turkish validity and reliability study on the quick aphasia battery


Brain and Behavior, vol.14, no.1, 2024 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 14 Issue: 1
  • Publication Date: 2024
  • Doi Number: 10.1002/brb3.3343
  • Journal Name: Brain and Behavior
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Keywords: aphasia, language, quick, quick aphasia battery, Turkish, validity and reliability
  • Hacettepe University Affiliated: Yes


Introduction: The quick aphasia battery (QAB), which assesses all areas of language in detail and quickly, was developed in English. It has been shown to be suitable for bedside patients. There is a need for a Turkish bedside test that allows for a comprehensive yet rapid assessment of stroke patients in terms of aphasia. The aim of this study was to create a Turkish version of QAB (QAB-TR) and to determine its validity and reliability in Turkish-speaking patients after a stroke. Materials and methods: The study was conducted with 188 people aged 41–88 years. Of these, 37 (19.7%) had aphasia (12 chronic, 25 acute), 53 (28.2%) were acute stroke patients without aphasia, and 98 (52.1%) were healthy controls. Internal consistency and criterion validity, test–retest reliability, and inter-rater reliability of the QAB-TR were performed. The language assessment test for aphasia was used for criterion validity. For the inter-rater reliability of the test, two different speech language therapists (SLP) administered the QAB-TR. For test–retest reliability, 2 weeks later, the same SLP who filled out the QAB-TR the first time was administered the test again. To test the validity of the test, correlations between the items and subsections were determined. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to examine the sensitivity and selectivity of the QAB-TR score, and a cut-off value was determined to distinguish patients with aphasia. Results: The inter-rater Krippendorff's alpha value of the QAB-TR total was 0.6754. There was no statistically significant difference (p >.05) between the first and second QAB-TR total scores. The correlation analysis between the QAB-TR subsection scores and the total QAB-TR score (0.244–0.897) revealed statistically significant relationships. The area under the ROC curve was statistically significant and was found to be 0.853 (95% confidence interval: 0.799–0.906). The cut-off point for the QAB score to discriminate between patients with aphasia and those without aphasia was found to be 8.825, with 0.767 sensitivity and 0.765 selectivity (1–0.235). Conclusion: All the study results show that QAB-TR has internal consistency, criterion validity, test–retest reliability, and inter-rater reliability. It can be administered in as little as 15 min and provides information about the multidimensional linguistic profiles of individuals. QAB-TR can be used for both clinical and study purposes as a language battery that allows for the measurement of the strengths and weaknesses of Turkish-speaking individuals who have suffered a stroke in basic language areas in acute and chronic periods. It can be easily administered at the bedside for individuals who have just suffered an acute stroke and can facilitate early assessment of individuals in terms of aphasia and early initiation of therapy, if necessary.