Comments on "comparison of alternatives to multidimensional scoring in the assessment of language comprehension in aphasia" by odekar and hallowell (2005).

Purpose: These comments are written in response to an article by A. Odekar and B. Hallowell (2005) which argues that the use of plus-minus scoring may be faster and more efficient than "traditional multidimensional scoring" in current clinical contexts.

The assessment of reading readiness using multidimensionally scored time-compressed speech.

Normal-hearing children (39 M, 36 F) from a monolingual environment, aged 5 yrs 10 mo to 7 yrs 2 mo, of average or better intelligence, were selected as being at high, average, or low risk of reading readiness according to scores on the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization (LAC) test. Ss were also given the Stephens Oral Language Screening Test (SOLST), emphasizing syntactical development. Ss were then tested for verbal respeating of taped 5-word sentences and 5-word 1st-order sentential approximations at 32 db SL re SRT.

Children's performance on multidimensionally scored time-compressed sentential stimuli.

Normative data were obtained for 96 children with normal auditory and language abilities in grades 2, 4, and 6 when presented monaurally with time-compressed (TC) sentences and 1st- and 2nd-order sentential approximations at 32 db re SRT. Oral responses were taped and multidimensionally scored in order to sensitize the test. Consistent with previous reports of normative data at other age levels, performance became poorer for 0 to either 40 or 60% TC (there was a negligible difference between the latter), was better for normal sentences than for sentential approximations, and improved slightly in the higher grades.

Veterans Administration cooperative study on aphasia: a comparison of individual and group treatment.

Five Veterans Administration Medical Centers participated in an investigation designed to compare individual with group treatment for aphasic patients who had suffered a left hemisphere cerebral vascular accident. Patients who met selection criteria were assigned randomly to either traditional, individual, stimulus-response type treatment of specific language deficits or group therapy designed to improve communication through group interaction and discussion with no direct treatment of specific language deficits. All patients received eight hours of therapy each week beginning at four weeks postonset and continuing until 48 weeks postonset or until they dropped out of the study.