三种汉语失语症检查方法的临床相关性研究

Clinical correlative study of three examinational scales for aphasia in Chinese

目的:比较国内应用的三种失语症检查量表主要条目的相关性,为失语症患者的康复训练提供临床指导。方法:采用西方失语症检查量表(WAB)、汉语失语症检查表(CRRCAE)以及语言障碍诊治仪(ZM2.1)对25例失语症的患者进行测评,比较三种量表主要因子间的相关性。结果:在听理解、复述、命名、阅读4个因子中,WAB和CRRCAE在标准化平均积分上无显著差异,语言障碍诊治仪(ZM2.1)在复述和阅读2个因子分上明显低于WAB与CRRCAE。在计算和书写因子分中WAB与CRRCAE存在显著差异。相关分析研究显示,在听理解、复述、命名、阅读、书写5个因子中,WAB与CRRCAE有显著的相关性;语言障碍诊治仪(ZM2.1)在复述、命名、阅读3个因子分与WAB和CRRCAE呈显著相关,听理解因子分与WAB和CRRCAE无相关性,在计算因子分与WAB有显著相关。结论:WAB与CRRCAE在各主要因子之间有良好的相关性,两者均可作为国内汉语失语症的检查量表;语言障碍诊治仪(ZM2.1)系统在听理解、计算、书写因子方面存在一些缺陷,需要进一步修改和完善。

Objective:To compare the relationships among main items in domestic and foreign examination scales for aphasia to provide clinical guidance for rehabilitation training in patients with aphasia.Method:Twenty five cases with aphasia were assessed with western aphasia battery(WAB), clinical rehabilitation research center aphasia examination(CRRCAE) and diagnostic and therapeutic instrument for speech impediment(ZM2.1). Result:There were no significant differences in standardized average scores in four factors such as comprehension, repetition, naming and reading between WAB and CRRCAE. The scores of reciting naming and reading factors in ZM2.1 were significantly lower than that in WAB and CRRCAE. There were significant differences in calculation and writing between WAB and CRRCAE.There were direct correlations in comprehension,repetition, naming, reading and writing between WAB and CRRCAE. ZM2.1 were significantly correlated with WAB and CRRCAE respectively in repetition, naming and reading, and with WAB in calculation, but not correlated with WAB and CRRCAE in comprehension.Conclusion:It is suggested that both WAB and CRRCAE are fit for Chinese aphasia examination scales since there were good correlations in main items between WAB and CRRCAE. There were some shortcomes in items of comprehension, calculating and writing of ZM2.1, which needs to be modified.