ACQ Vol 13 no 2 2011

23 / 52

ACQ Volume 13, Number 2 2011 77
(2011). Classification of primary progressive aphasia and its
variants. Neurology, 76, 1–9.
Howard, D., & Hatfield, F.M. (1987). Aphasia therapy:
Historical and contemporary issues. London: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Howard, D., Best, W., & Nickels, L. (2011). Optimising
the design of intervention studies: critiques and ways
forward. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation. Article under
revision, 7 December 2010.
Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). The
Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Kay, J., Lesser, R., & Coltheart, M. (1992).
Psycholinguistic assessments of language processing in
aphasia . London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kertesz, A. (2006). Western Aphasia Battery-Revised.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
McNeil, M. R., & Duffy, J. R. (2001). Primary progressive
aphasia. In R. Chapey (Ed.), Language intervention
strategies in adult aphasia (4th ed., pp. 472–486).
Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
Mesulam, M., Wieneke, C., Rogalski, E., Cobia, D.,
Thompson, C., & Weintraub, S. (2009). Quantitative
template for subtyping primary progressive aphasia.
Archives of Neurology , 66 , 1545–1551.
Nickels, L. A. (2002). Therapy for naming disorders:
Revisiting, revising and reviewing. Aphasiology, 16,
935–980.
Nickels, L. A. (2005). Tried, tested and trusted?
Language assessment for rehabilitation. In P. W. Halligan
& D. T. Wade (Eds), The effectiveness of rehabilitation for
cognitive deficits. (pp. 169–184). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Nickels, L. (2008). The hypothesis testing approach
to the assessment of language. In B. Stemmer and H.
A. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of the neuroscience of
language . (pp. 13 – 22). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd.
Nickels, L. A., & Croot, K. (Eds.). (2009). Progressive
language impairment: Intervention and management . Hove,
UK: Psychology Press.
Perdices, M., & Tate, R. (2009). Single-subject designs
as a tool for evidence-based clinical practice: Are they
unrecognised and undervalued? Neuropsychological
Rehabilitation, 19, 904–927.
Rapp, B., & Glucroft, B. (2009). The benefits and
protective effects of behavioural treatment for dysgraphia
in a case of primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology, 23,
236–265.
Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.
(2005a). Clinical guidelines. Oxford, UK: Speechmark.
Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.
(2005b). Speech and language therapy provision for people
with dementia. Retrieved 25 January 2007, from www.rcslt.
org/resources/publications/dementia_paper.pdf
Sacchett, C., & Marshall, J. (1992). Functional
assessment of communication: Implications for the
rehabilitation of aphasic people: Reply to Carol Frattali.
Aphasiology, 6, 95–100.
Sapolsky, D., Bakkour, A., Negreira, A., Nalipinski, P.,
Weintraub, S., Mesulam, M.-M., Caplan D.,... & Dickerson,
B. C. (2010). Cortical neuroanatomic correlates of symptom
severity in primary progressive aphasia. Neurology, 75,
358–366.
2. establish the nature, extent, and rate of change in
language skills over time.
The choice of assessments to use in progressive aphasia
is driven by many of the same considerations as in non-
progressive aphasia: assessments need to be sensitive to
change and reliable enough that differences in performance
will reflect real underlying changes in functioning. However,
we also noted that there are additional considerations
in the assessment of progressive aphasia. The first
assessment may need to be more comprehensive than for
non-progressive, post-stroke aphasia, in order to facilitate
tracking of change and plan for the future. In addition, when
interpreting the results of treatment, a successful outcome
may not be restricted to improvement in treated stimuli or
skills, but instead may be reflected in stability or slowed
decline. Hence, assessment of the effects of treatment
must include design factors to enable detection of such
outcomes.
In sum, appropriate assessment of progressive aphasia
is vital. It is only through this assessment that we can
identify with confidence the person’s current strengths
and weaknesses in language function. Identification of
these patterns will enable the individual with progressive
aphasia to make informed choices for the future, and with
careful tracking of changes in language function over time,
enable revision of these choices and strategies as required
to facilitate optimal outcomes. Finally, the importance of
regular in-depth interviews with the person with progressive
aphasia and their communication partners cannot be
overemphasised. Only by taking the time to listen can
we ensure truly collaborative goal-setting and tracking
of change across all facets of life that are affected by
progressive aphasia.
References
Baines, S., Saxby, K., & Ehlert, K. (1987). Reality orientation
and reminiscence therapy. A controlled cross-over study of
elderly confused people. British Journal of Psychiatry , 151,
222–231.
Byng, S., Kay, J., Edmundson, A., & Scott, C. (1990).
Aphasia tests reconsidered. Aphasiology, 4, 67–91.
Croot, K. (2009). Progressive language impairments:
Definitions, diagnoses and prognoses. Aphasiology, 23,
302–326.
Croot, K., Taylor, C., & Nickels, L. (2011). What’s the
evidence? Treatment of progressive aphasia. ACQuiring
Knowledge in Speech, Language and Hearing, 13(1),
37–40.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn , D. M. (2006). Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test (4th ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Pearson
Canada Assessment.
Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barresi, B. (2001). Boston
Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (3rd ed). Austin, TX: Pro-
Ed.
Gorno-Tempini, M. L., Brambati, S. M., Ginex, V., Ogar,
J., Dronkers, N. F., Marcone, A., & Miller, B. L. (2008). The
logopenic/ phonological variant of primary progressive
aphasia. Neurology, 71, 1227–1234.
Gorno-Tempini, M. L., Dronkers, N. F., Rankin, K. P.,
Ogar, J. M., Phrengrasamy, L., Rosen, H. J., & Miller, B. L.
(2004). Cognition and anatomy in three variants of primary
progressive aphasia. Annals of Neurology, 55, 335–346.
Gorno-Tempini, M. L., Hillis, A. E., Weintraub, S.,
Kertesz, A., Mendez, M. Cappa, S. F., & Grossman, M.