Nicholas L E, MacLennan D L, Brookshire R H
J Speech Hear Disord. 1986 Feb;51(1):82-7. doi: 10.1044/jshd.5101.82.
This study assessed the passage dependency of multiple-sentence reading test items from the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (Goodglass & Kaplan, 1983), the Minnesota Test for Differential Diagnosis of Aphasia (Schuell, 1965), Examining for Aphasia (Eisenson, 1954), the Reading Comprehension Battery for Aphasia (LaPointe & Horner, 1979), and the Western Aphasia Battery (Kertesz, 1982). More than half of the test items from these reading tests were answered correctly by a significantly greater than chance number of both aphasic and non-brain-damaged adults without reading the passages whose comprehension the items purported to test. These results suggest that published tests for assessing aphasic persons' comprehension of multiple-sentence passages do not provide valid estimates of such persons' ability to comprehend information from printed texts.
本研究评估了来自《波士顿失语症诊断检查》（古德格拉斯和卡普兰，1983年）、《明尼苏达失语症鉴别诊断测验》（舒尔，1965年）、《失语症检查》（艾森松，1954年）、《失语症阅读理解量表》（拉波因特和霍纳，1979年）以及《西方失语症量表》（克泰斯，1982年）的多句阅读测试项目的段落依赖性。这些阅读测试中超过一半的测试项目，在未阅读那些项目声称要测试其理解能力的段落的情况下，失语症患者和非脑损伤成年人中正确回答的人数显著高于随机概率。这些结果表明，已发表的用于评估失语症患者对多句段落理解能力的测试，并不能有效估计这些人从印刷文本中理解信息的能力。
