The National Center for Evidence-Based Practice
in Communication Disorders
Home      Aphasia-Assessment-Measures


Assessment Measures



External Scientific Evidence


Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines

Royal College of Physicians; Stroke Association; Broehringer Ingelheim; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Sanofi-Sythelapo & Bristol-Myers Squibb
National Clinical Guidelines for Stroke
Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party (2008).
London (United Kingdom): Royal College of Physicians, 3rd Edition, 187 pages
Added: May 2012
This guideline provides recommendations for the management of stroke across all populations. The audiences intended for this guideline include clinical staff, managers, commissioners involved in the purchasing of services, patients with stroke and their caregivers. Of particular interest to speech-language pathologists is a section on the management of swallowing and communication disorders. Specific recommendations were made based on the nature and strength of the evidence using a formal consensus approach by the guideline working group
Aphasia screening tools may include the Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test or Sheffield Aphasia Screening Test
Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists; Department of Health (UK); National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)
Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists Clinical Guidelines: 5.12 Aphasia
Taylor-Goh, S., ed. (2005).
RCSLT Clinical Guidelines. Bicester, Speechmark Publishing Ltd
Added: May 2012 

This guideline provides recommendations for the assessment and treatment of individuals with aphasia. These guidelines are specific to speech-language pathologists. Levels of evidence recommendations are graded A, B or C based on the following criteria: 

  • Level A: Recommendations obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCT). 
  • Level B: Recommendations obtained from well-conducted clinical studies.
  • Level C: Recommendations obtained from expert opinion.  
  • The speech and language evaluation may incorporate a range of assessment measures including assessment at the conversation level and use of formal and informal measures (Level C Evidence).
  • Conversation analysis should be considered to assess the conversation/interaction patterns of the individual with aphasia with their caregiver (Level B Evidence). 

Evidence-Based Systematic Reviews

Identification of Aphasia Post Stroke: A Review of Screening Assessment Tools
Salter, K., Jutai, J., et al. (2006).
Brain Injury, 20(6), 559-568
Added: May 2012 
This is a review of published research literature regarding the psychometric and administrative properties of six screening tools used for the identification of aphasia

For most aphasia screening tools that were evaluated, information pertaining to measurement properties and clinical utility were limited. Only two screening tools provided sensitivity and specificity data.

  • Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test (FAST) - Evidence suggests that the FAST is reliable, valid, and demonstrates sufficient diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity and specificity are 87% and 80% respectively.
  • Ullevaal Aphasia Screening Test (UAST) - Evidence suggests that the UAST has sufficient diagnostic accuracy for the identification of aphasia. Sensitivity and specificity are 75% and 90% respectively

Clinical Expertise/Expert Opinion

Consensus Guidelines  
No consensus guidelines were found. 

Client/Patient/Caregiver Perspectives

No information was found pertaining to client/patient/caregiver perspectives.
Use the image below to navigate to other sections of the Aphasia evidence map.