Clinical Rehabilitation

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Butler, J A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Butler, J A
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 16, No. 4, 389-398 (2002)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215502cr493oa
© 2002 SAGE Publications

How comparable are tests of apraxia?

J A Butler

Oxford Brookes University, School of Health Care, Headington, Oxford OX3 7PE, UK; jabutler{at}brookes.ac.uk

Objective: To compare commonly used tests for the diagnosis of apraxia. Measures: People with unilateral left hemisphere lesions, diagnosed with apraxia, were compared in their scoring on commonly used tests for apraxia (n = 17).

Setting: Rivermead Rehabilitation Centre, Oxford, England, a specialist inpatient neurological unit.

Results: Production moment correlations were low, or did not reach signi"cance level between three tests for ideomotor apraxia (r = 0.46 p < 0.05 one-tailed test, r = 0.005 NS, r = –0.23 NS, df = 15). Six of the seventeen apraxic patients scored above cut-off point on one test, but below cut-off point on others, indicating that commonly used tests for apraxia may not be reliable for diagnosis if used singly. Internal consistency within tests was also variable (Cronbach’s a 0.72, 0.85, 0.85).

Conclusion: The commonly used tests for apraxia may identify different people as ‘apraxic’, possibly by eliciting different aspects of apraxia and identifying potential subtypes of the condition. The use of multiple tests is, therefore, recommended in order to identify people with apraxia. The need for repeat reliability studies for apraxia assessments, together with a search for a ‘gold standard’ test is apparent.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
J. Collicutt McGrath
Fear of falling after brain injury
Clinical Rehabilitation, July 1, 2008; 22(7): 635 - 645.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
A. Zwinkels, C. Geusgens, P. van de Sande, and C. van Heugten
Assessment of apraxia: inter-rater reliability of a new apraxia test, association between apraxia and other cognitive deficits and prevalence of apraxia in a rehabilitation setting
Clinical Rehabilitation, July 1, 2004; 18(7): 819 - 827.
[Abstract] [PDF]