The relationship of language and attention in elders with nonfluent aphasia

Figures & data

Table 1. Subtest measures

	Measure of language	Measure of sustained attention	Measure of divided attention	Language dependent	Language independent
WAB-R	+			+
TEA map search		+		+
TEA telephone search while counting		+	+	+
CLQT symbol trails		+		+
CLQT mazes		+		+
Leiter-R sustained		+			+

Table 2. Characteristics of participants

Participant	Age	Gender	Education	Time post onset
A	57	Male	Associate’s degree	21 mos
B	79	Female	High school diploma	27 mos
C	67	Male	High school diploma	7 mos
D	74	Male	Some college	220 mos
E	71	Female	High school diploma	26 mos
F	64	Male	Bachelor’s degree	54 mos
G	57	Male	High school graduation equivalency diploma	90 mos
H (Refusal)
I	67	Female	High school diploma	24 mos

Table 3. Participants ranked by severity of nonfluent aphasia, based on WAB-R AQ

Participant	Age	Gender	Time post onset	Quotient (criterion of 100)	Aphasia severity	Content (criterion of 10)	Fluency (criterion of 10)	Verbal comprehension (criterion of 10)	Sequential commands (criterion of 10)	Repetition (criterion of 10)	Naming (criterion of 10)
I	67	Female	24 mos	82.5	Mild	7	5	10	10	9	8.5
G	57	Male	90 mos	67.5	Moderate	6	5	8	4	8	9.5
F	64	Male	54 mos	50	Severe	5	4	8	2	7	4
D	74	Male	220 mos	50	Severe	5	4	7	4	3	7
A	57	Male	21 mos	40	Severe	1	4	9	2	3	5
E	71	Female	26 mos	30	Severe	1	1	9	6	1	0
B	79	Female	27 mos	28.3	Severe	1	4	7	1	2	2
C	67	Male	7 mos	13.33	Very severe	0	0	8	0	0	0

Figure 1. WAB-R AQs.

Table 4. Participants’ scores on all measures of attention

Participant	Aphasia severity	MS raw score (criterion of 52)	MS percent of criterion	MS raw score in one minute	MS raw score in two minutes	TS raw score (criterion of 20)	TS percent of criterion	TD raw score (criterion of 20)	TD percent of criterion	ST raw score (criterion of 10)	ST percent of criterion	Mazes raw score (criterion of 8)	Mazes percent of criterion	L-S raw score (criterion of 145)	L-S percent of criterion
I	Mild	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	9	45	9	45	3	30	4	50	52	36
G	Moderate	29	56	11	18	15	75	10	50	5	50	8	100	25	17
F	Severe	13	25	7	6	0	0	0	0	4	40	8	100	29	2
D	Severe	0	0	0	0	17	85	14	7	4	40	5.5	69	32	22
A	Severe	26	50	19	7	20	100	19	95	10	100	8	100	59	41
E	Severe	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	19	13
B	Severe	30	58	16	14	17	85	12	60	5	50	4	50	47	32
C	very severe	2	4	0	2	4	2	1	5	0	0	0	0	24	17

Notes: TEA map search (MS), TEA telephone search while counting—Sustained attention (TS), TEA telephone search while counting—divided attention (TD), CLQT symbol trails (ST), CLQT Mazes, Leiter-R sustained (L-S).

Participant I was unable to complete MS due to inability to see the symbols. Bold type indicates a score of 60% or greater.

Table 5. Participants’ relative strengths and weaknesses

Participant	Language skills	Attention skills
I	+	−
G	+	−
F	−	−
D	−	+
A	−	+
E	−	−
B	−	+
C	−	−

Notes: A + sign indicated a strength. A – sign indicates a weakness.

Table 6. Correlations between the WAB-R AQ and attention subtest scores

	MS	TS	TD	ST	Mazes	L-S
WAB-R	0.36	0.24	0.24	0.25	0.54	0.21

Notes: TEA map search (MS), TEA telephone search while counting—sustained attention (TS); TEA telephone search while counting—divided attention (TD), CLQT symbol trails (ST), CLQT Mazes, Leiter-R sustained (L-S).