Classical Tests for Speech and Language Disorders 439
Classical Tests for Speech and Language Disorders
J Macoir, Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada
A Sylvestre, Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada
Y Turgeon, Campbellton Regional Hospital,
Campbellton, NB, Canada
ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
The evaluation of speech and language is one of the
most important tasks of speech-language pathologists
and professionals from a variety of disciplines and
backgrounds (neuropsychologists, physicians, nurses,
etc.). The assessment session is often the first contact
with clients and also constitutes the starting point of
all clinical interventions. Because of the absence of
biological markers or simple assessment methods, the
early detection or diagnosis of speech and language
problems remains dependent on various indirect assess-
ments (i.e., speech or language functioning must be
inferred from the client performance in various tasks
devised to explore the different areas of this function-
ing) performed to identify specific impairments and
eliminate other possible causes.
There are various purposes to conduct speech-
language assessments. The main goal of screening
is to determine whether a client has a problem or not.
The output of this type of assessment is a ‘pass’ or ‘fail’
result, based on an established criterion that could
lead to a more extensive or a follow-up assessment.
Diagnosis and differential diagnosis assessments are
usually performed to label the communication problem
and/or to differentiate it from other disorders in which
similar characteristics are usually reported.
Another important purpose to evaluation is to pro-
vide clinicians with a detailed description of the cli-
ent’s baseline level of functioning in all areas of
communication in order to identify affected and pre-
served components, to plan for treatment, to establish
treatment effectiveness, or to track progress over time
through periodic re-evaluations. These types of assess-
ment require the clinician to consider all aspects
of communication, including the different areas of
speech (e.g., articulation, voice, resonance) and lan-
guage (e.g., lexical access, comprehension, written
spelling), but also important related abilities and com-
ponents such as pragmatics, cognitive functions (e.g.,
attention, memory, visual perception), emotions,
awareness of deficits, etc. The selection of evaluation
tools is also conditioned by the specific objectives of
assessments. Screening for a speech or language disor-
der is usually performed with standardized screening
measures whereas standardized norm-referenced tests
are used for diagnosis and differential diagnosis
assessments as well as for clinical treatment purposes
(baseline, effectiveness, progress).
Reference Models for the Assessment
of Speech and Language Impairment
The choice of a particular method of assessment, the
selection of evaluation tools as well as the inter-
pretation of results, is highly dependent not only
on the clinician’s own conception of speech and
language functioning but also on the reference to a
clinicopathological or cognitive model of assessment.
In the clinicopathological model, speech and lan-
guage problems are considered as essential character-
istics of clinical syndromes. These clinical syndromes
are organized and classified according to neurologi-
cal-neuropathological characteristics (e.g., deteriora-
tion of cortical tissue in a specific brain area) and
according to semiology (e.g., sensitive and motor def-
icits, visuospatial deficits, language deficits, etc.). For
the purpose of assessment, the emphasis is put on the
precise identification of the diagnostic label that best
corresponds to the observed deficits as well as to the
identification of the possible etiology. For example,
within this model, the general assessment process of
an aphasic person essentially consists of (1) gathering
case history data (e.g., cerebrovascular accident in
the left frontal area), (2) administrating a specific
test battery (e.g., the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia
Examination [BDAE]; Goodglass et al., 2000), (3)
confronting the results and description of behavior
(e.g., impaired fluency, impaired articulatory agility,
relatively good auditory comprehension, agramma-
tism) with the classification of neurogenic acquired
deficits of language, and (4) specifying the precise
aphasic label (Broca’s aphasia) that best fits these
characteristics. If screening or labeling is the
main goal of the assessment, the clinicopathological
model is probably the best option. It is, however,
certainly not so if the purpose of the evaluation is to
localize the functional origin of deficits or to guide
clinical practice. Knowing that a person presents with
a Broca’s aphasia may not be much help in identifying
the specific components of language that are totally
or partially affected or preserved. It also does not tell
the clinician what intervention goals are appropriate,
what treatment approaches will succeed best.
Instead of resorting to a medical assessment model,
clinicians may use cognitive neuropsychological
models, directly derived from information-processing
theories, to evaluate language. In these models, cog-
nitive functions, including language, are sustained by
specialized interconnected processing components,
440 Classical Tests for Speech and Language Disorders
represented in functional architecture models. For
example, as shown on Figure 1, the ability to orally
produce a word in picture naming is conceived as a
staged process in which the activation flow is initiated
in a conceptual-semantic component and ends with
the execution of articulation mechanisms.
An assessment process based on cognitive neuro-
psychological models consists in the localization of
the impaired and preserved processing components
for each language modality. This localization is per-
formed through the administration of specific tasks or
test batteries (e.g., Psycholinguistic Assessments of
Language Processing in Aphasia [PALPA]; Kay et al.,
1992) aiming at the evaluation of each component
and route of the model. For example, the evaluation
of naming abilities in an aphasic person could
be performed by the administration of tasks exploring
the conceptual-semantic (e.g., semantic questionnaire),
phonological output lexicon (e.g., picture-naming task
controlled for frequency, familiarity, etc), and phono-
logical output buffer (e.g., repetition of words and
nonwords controlled for length) components. Impor-
tant information regarding the level of impairments
also arises from error analysis. With the same example,
an anomic behavior could arise from distinct under-
lying deficits (e.g., in the activation of conceptual-
semantic representations or in retrieving phonological
forms of words in the output lexicon), leading to dis-
tinct types of errors (e.g., semantic substitutions, pho-
nemic errors). The complete cognitive assessment
process should allow the clinician to understand the
client’s deficits (i.e., surface manifestations, underlying
origins, affected components) as well as to identify
the strengths and weaknesses in his communication
Figure 1 Schematic depiction of the cognitive neuropsychologi-
cal model of spoken picture naming.
abilities. When recommended, the treatment may
focus on the impaired levels of processing (i.e., function
restoration) or on alternative processing routes (i.e.,
function reorganization) that will allow the client to
communicate successfully.
Classical Tests for the Assessment
of Aphasia
Aphasia is the most common disorder of communi-
cation resulting from brain damage (i.e., stroke,
brain tumor, head trauma, infections). This affection
mainly involves language problems of production and
comprehension as well as disturbances in reading and
spelling.
Bedside and Screening Tests
The patient’s symptoms change rapidly during the
first days and weeks following the brain damage.
Moreover, patients are often too ill to complete an
exhaustive aphasia examination and bedside or
screening instruments may be useful to advise rela-
tives and health care professionals about the global
communication profile and the best means to com-
municate in functional situations. These instruments
are also useful to help clinicians to determine the
necessity of performing a more thorough and exten-
sive assessment of language or to establish the priority
of patients on a waiting list. In addition to actual
screening tests (e.g., Aphasia Screening Test; Reitan,
1991; for an extensive list see Murray and Chapey,
2001 and Spreen and Risser, 2003), clinicians also
may administer shortened versions of comprehensive
tests of aphasia (e.g., short form of the Token Test;
Spellacy and Spreen, 1969; for an extensive list see
Murray and Chapey, 2001). As pointed out by Spreen
and Risser (2003), although bedside and screening
tests may be used to identify language impairments
in moderate and severe aphasics (language is obvious-
ly affected, even in simple and natural communica-
tion situations), they are inappropriate or of little use
to distinguish the responses of individuals with mild
deficits from those with normal language skills.
Comprehensive Examinations and
Aphasia Batteries
As compared to bedside and screening tests, the main
purpose of comprehensive examinations of aphasia is
to provide an extensive description of language skills
through the administration of tests designed to ex-
plore the different areas of language (i.e., spontaneous
speech, naming, oral expression, auditory and written
comprehension, repetition, reading, and writing).
According to the reference model of assessment, the

output of a comprehensive examination may consist
in the identification of a particular diagnostic of apha-
sia with the description of severity of deficits in each
language area (clinicopathological approach), or in
the localization of specific impairments affecting
functional processing components of language skills
(cognitive neuropsychological approach).
There are several classical comprehensive examina-
tions and aphasia batteries. The most widely used in
clinical and research settings in English are BDAE
(Goodglass et al., 2000), the Western Aphasia Battery
(Kertesz, 1982), and the Aphasia Diagnostic Profiles
(Helm-Estabrooks, 1992). All these standardized test
batteries comprise different subtests (e.g., BDAE has 27
subtests) that assess all the dimensions of language in
order to diagnose and classify aphasic syndromes
according to clinical localization-based classifications
(i.e., Broca’s, Wernicke’s aphasia, etc.). For a complete
description and a critical review of these instruments,
and others not reported here, see Spreen and Strauss
(1998), Murray and Chapey (2001), and Spreen and
Risser (2003). PALPA (Kay et al., 1992) is a compre-
hensive test battery directly derived from the cognitive
neuropsychology approach of assessment. This aphasia
battery, commonly used in the United Kingdom, con-
sists in a set of resource materials comprising 60 rigor-
ously controlled tests that enable the user to select tasks
‘‘that can be tailored to the investigation of an individ-
ual patient’s impaired and intact abilities.’’ The scoring
and analysis of errors give the clinician a detailed pro-
file of language abilities, including reading and written
spelling, which can be interpreted within current cog-
nitive models of language. As compared to classical
batteries of aphasia, the versatile and flexible nature
of PALPA is, however, lessened by the lack of standar-
dization and validity/reliability measures.
Tests for the Assessment of Specific
Aspects of Language
Specific aspects of language behavior can also be
assessed through the administration of several tests.
These are often used to complete aphasia batteries but
some of them also are used as screening tests. Clin-
icians may select these tests according to the different
aspects of language they want to explore in depth, but
also according to the underlying theoretical model of
assessment. For example, comprehension may be test-
ed through the administration of specific tests aiming
at the discrimination of phonemic sounds (Phoneme
Discrimination Test; Benton et al., 1994), seman-
tics (Pyramids and Palm Trees Test; Howard and
Patterson, 1992), sentence length and syntactic com-
plexity (Auditory Comprehension Test for Sentences;
Shewan, 1979), commands (Token Test; De Renzi
and Vignolo, 1962), or narrative discourse (Discourse
Classical Tests for Speech and Language Disorders 441
Comprehension Test; Brookshire and Nichols, 1993).
Other tests are available for measuring verbal expres-
sion, spoken and written naming, verbal fluency,
reading, writing, gestural abilities, etc. An extensive
list of specific language function tests can be found in
Spreen and Strauss (1998), Murray and Chapey
(2001), and Spreen and Risser (2003).
The Assessment of Functional Communication
Traditional tests provide useful information on lin-
guistic abilities and language impairments in aphasia.
However, performance on these tests does not neces-
sarily predict how a person will communicate in more
naturalistic settings and everyday life. Instead of
focusing on the importance and the nature of deficits,
the functional communication approach of ass-
essment aims at the impact of these deficits on the
person’s activities and participation in society. Func-
tional communication skills may be assessed with
specific structured tests or by rating scales and inven-
tories of communication profiles. Structured tests
such as Communication Activities of Daily Living 2
(Holland et al., 1999) and the Amsterdam–Nijmegen
Everyday Language Test (Blomert et al., 1994) have
been devised to explore functional communication
skills using role-play in daily life activities (shopping,
dealing with a receptionist, etc.) and have shown
themselves to be useful to track progress over time.
However, while they are certainly more ecological
than comprehensive examinations and tests for specific
aspects of language, structured tests of functional com-
munication do not necessarily give reliable views of the
communication skills of a person in real-life situations.
In this respect, rating scales and inventories of commu-
nication profiles are closer to functional situations. For
example, the Functional Assessment of Communica-
tion Skills for Adults (Frattali et al., 1995) is a rating
protocol of 43 items, on a seven-point scale, based on
the observations made by the speech-language pathol-
ogist or other significant person in the following four
domains: social communication (e.g., ‘refers to familiar
people by name’); communication of basic needs (e.g.,
‘makes needs to eat’; reading, writing, and number
concepts (e.g., ‘writes messages’); and daily planning
(e.g., ‘tells time’). For a more extensive description of
these functional communication tools, and others not
described here, see Murray and Chapey (2001) and
Spreen and Risser (2003).
Classical Tests for the Assessment
of Speech and Language Impairment
in Children
The assessment of language and communication
in children can take place from infancy through
442 Classical Tests for Speech and Language Disorders
adolescence, when cognitive abilities are developing.
Therefore, the language assessment process must not
only inform on current specific abilities, but has also
to capture changes over time in the level, sequence,
and rate of acquisition. The interrelationship between
language and other cognitive and social skills is also
of primary importance. As a part of a larger process,
usually performed by different professionals, the eval-
uation of language in children should be completed
by an assessment of nonverbal communication, play
and social skills, perception, attention and memory,
behavior, etc. Moreover, because of the major influ-
ence it has on child development, the evaluation also
has to consider the familial and social environment,
especially with respect to adult–child interaction. The
different components (e.g., sensitivity, promptness) as
well as the context (e.g., physical settings, types of
play, activities) in which this interaction takes place
should be analyzed through specific assessment tools
or through direct observation.
The assessment of preschool children (children
aged 2 to 5 years) and school-age children (5 to 10
or 12 years) is usually based upon a combination
of parent interviews, standardized tests, criterion-
referenced instruments, developmental scales, and
observations. All these tools and methods aim to
explore both receptive and expressive language abil-
ities in semantics, morphology, syntax, phonology,
and pragmatics. Collecting a communication sample
is also a frequently used method to analyze commu-
nication in terms of sentence length, intelligibility of
speech, vocabulary, and conversational strengths and
weaknesses. Similarly to tests for aphasia, preschool
and school-age tests can be divided into two major
categories: screening and diagnostic tests. The pur-
pose of screening tests is to determine if the child’s
communication should be explored more extensively
for the presence of a possible impairment. On the
other hand, the main purposes of diagnostic tests is
to establish the presence or absence of a deficit in one
or more areas of language, to identify a possible
difference in language development, to determine
the child’s eligibility for clinical services, and to iden-
tify the targets for intervention. These instruments are
devised to assess language development by reference
to the parameters of the normal range.
Screening Tests
Screening tests are usually inexpensive and require
minimal time for administration and interpretation of
results. Many norm-referenced standardized instru-
ments may be used to establish the child’s general
level of expressive and receptive language functioning
as well as other areas of functioning. For example, the
Denver Developmental Screening Test II (Frankenburg
et al., 1990), a standardized screening battery for
children from birth to age 6, is designed to test the
child’s abilities in the following four sectors: person-
al-social, fine motor, gross motor, and language (in-
cluding expressive-receptive vocabulary). Screening
tests may also consist in large batteries exploring
language and cognitive functions through tasks of
general verbal and nonverbal intellectual abilities.
For example, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Chil-
dren IV (Wechsler, 2004) is the most widely used
measure of verbal and nonverbal intelligence in indi-
viduals from age 6 years 0 months to 16 years 11
months. As a screening tool, this battery consists in
16 subtests of verbal comprehension, perceptual
reasoning, working memory, and processing speed
skills.
For school-age children, some large screening bat-
teries specifically concern academic achievement.
That is, for example, the case with the Peabody Indi-
vidual Achievement Test – Revised (PIAT-R; Mark-
wardt, 1998), which provides a screening measure of
achievement in the areas of mathematics, reading
recognition and comprehension, spelling, and general
information. However, most of the tasks of these
large screening batteries are multifactorial and are
therefore not appropriate to assess specific language
or cognitive processes. For this purpose, clinicians
may select among various specific screening tests for
preschool and school-age children that focus only on
language. Most of these instruments are designed to
explore the different language components. That is
the case, for example, with the Fluharty Preschool
Speech and Language Screening Test II (Fluharty,
2001), which explores articulation, expressive and
receptive vocabulary, and composite language in
children from 2 to 6 years old. An exhaustive list
of norm-referenced standardized screening tests of
language can be found in Paul (2001).
Comprehensive Examinations and Batteries
As for screening, some diagnostic tools are designed
to explore language skills as well as other aspects of
development. That is the case, for example, with the
Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Devel-
opmental Profile (Wetherby and Prizant, 1998),
which includes tasks exploring expressive and recep-
tive language, symbolic play, and nonverbal commu-
nication in children from 6 to 24 months old. Another
example is the Rossetti Infant-Toddler Language
Scale (Rossetti, 1990), which is used to assess attach-
ment, play, gestures, and pragmatics, as well as lan-
guage comprehension and expression in children
from birth to 3 years old. There are also several

standardized comprehensive batteries of language
processing that comprise tests exploring exclusively
some or all of the language areas. That is the case,
for example, with the Preschool Language Scale 4
(Zimmerman et al., 2002), which is used to identify
specific strengths and weaknesses in receptive and
expressive language skills in children from birth to
6 years 11 months. The Clinical Evaluation of
Language Fundamentals 4 (Semel et al., 2003) is a
multidimensional battery that can be used in indivi-
duals between the ages of 5 and 21 years to explore
semantics, expressive and receptive language, and
syntax, as well as working memory. The Compre-
hensive Assessment of Spoken Language (Carrow-
Woolfolk, 1999), designed for children from age 3
to 21, is another comprehensive battery of language
skills, comprising 15 tests that provide an assessment
of expressive and receptive skills in four language
categories: lexical/semantic, syntactic, supralinguis-
tic, and pragmatics. An extensive list of avail-
able comprehensive examinations and batteries of
language for children can be found in McCauley
(2001), Paul (2001), Mattis and Luck (2002), and
Haynes and Pindzola (2003).
Tests for Specific Aspects of Language
Different components of language can be affected
with more or less intensity in children according to
the origin of developmental disorders. Therefore, the
in-depth assessment of language and communication
disorders in children is a critical component in the
clinical process. Core tests can be used to evaluate
each of the language areas in order to identify specific
impairments, establish baselines, and identify precise
therapeutic and intervention goals. For example,
there are several core tests and instruments for the
evaluation of word retrieval (e.g., naming and verbal
fluency tests), phonology (e.g., word and nonword
repetition tests), receptive and expressive vocabulary
(e.g., word definition tests), receptive and expressive
syntax and morphology (e.g., sentence-to-picture
matching tests), and pragmatic skills (e.g., narrative
production, story comprehension tests).
A combination of different tests, each focusing on
specific language components, may also be used to
establish such a language and communication profile.
For example, to assess vocabulary, clinicians may
select the following standardized norm-referenced
specific tests: the Expressive One-Word Picture
Vocabulary Test Revised (Gardner, 2000), to exclu-
sively explore expressive vocabulary in individuals
ages 2 years 0 months through 18 years 11 months;
or the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Dunn
and Dunn, 1997), to exclusively explore receptive
Classical Tests for Speech and Language Disorders 443
vocabulary in individuals from age 2 years 6 months
to adult. A more complete description of available
diagnostic tests adapted to preschool and school-age
children can be found in McCauley (2001), Paul
(2001), Mattis and Luck (2002), and Haynes and
Pindzola (2003).
The Assessment of Reading and Writing
The relationship between language acquisition and
academic achievement is well established. Develop-
mental disorders of language in preschool children
are frequently associated with later difficulties in
learning to read and write. The most common referral
for a speech-language pathology assessment concerns
school-age children who encounter problems in pro-
gressing beyond the developing language phase and
present with difficulties in learning and acquiring
communicative and academic skills. As for other
populations, but especially at this stage of develop-
ment, a significant difficulty in assessing school-age
children arises because of important comorbidity
between language and learning disorders and other
cognitive and clinical pathological profiles, such as
attention deficit/hyperactivity or executive function
disorders. Therefore, the assessment process should
include specific tests of language and communication
but also instruments designed for exploring other
cognitive functions, such as attention, working mem-
ory, and executive functions. In addition to formal
tests, another important source of information also
comes from structured interviews of the child himself,
his parents and his teacher. With respect to language,
phonological processing deficits are considered as an
underlying cause of dyslexia and also play a role in
developmental disorders of spelling. For example,
dyslexic children often show problems with word
and nonword repetition tasks, phonological aware-
ness tasks (e.g., word and nonword segmentation
tasks, phoneme manipulation, etc.), and working
memory tasks for verbal material (i.e., word or digit
span tasks). The semantic processing is another cog-
nitive area highly related to reading and writing.
School-age children usually learn new words through
reading and writing. Those who encounter problems
in reading and writing often present with poor
vocabulary as well as with difficulty in word associa-
tion and comprehension. Therefore, the assessment
procedure for written language problems should be
part of a more exhaustive evaluation of language and
cognition. It should also include a close control of
psycholinguistic parameters (e.g., orthographic regu-
larity, lexical frequency) that are known to play an
important role in written and spoken word recogni-
tion, reading comprehension, phoneme–grapheme
444 Classical Tests for Speech and Language Disorders
conversion, decoding, etc. However, very few stan-
dardized assessment tools fulfill these conditions. As
an exception, French-speaking clinicians may use the
Batterie d’Évaluation du Langage Écrit et de Ses
Troubles (Mousty et al., 1994), a written-language-
testing battery based on current models of reading
and writing, to assess children between the ages of 7
and 12 years. In addition to experimental tasks, one
can resort to standardized achievement or specific
tests of reading and writing skills. Among the most
used of achievement tests are PIAT-R (Markwardt,
1998), which comprises subtests of reading compre-
hension, reading recognition, and spelling, and the
Wide Range Achievement Test (Wilkinson, 1993), a
brief test measuring reading recognition, spelling, and
arithmetic computation. For a description of specific
clinical tests of reading and writing, see Spreen and
Strauss (1998) and Bailet (2001).
Classical Tests for the Assessment
of Speech and Language Impairment
in Special Populations
Referral for speech-language assessment not only
concerns aphasia and developmental deficits of lan-
guage but also involves individuals of different age
groups presenting with various language and commu-
nication problems. In children and adolescents, these
references include language deficits in pervasive de-
velopmental disorders (e.g., autism, Asperger’s disor-
der), mental retardation, attention deficit/hyperactivity
disorder, specific language impairment, sensory deficits
(hearing loss, blindness), acquired disorders (e.g.,
traumatic brain injury), stuttering, etc. In adults, refer-
ral for a speech-language evaluation may be required
for language and communication deficits following
right hemisphere damage, traumatic brain injury,
Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia (e.g.,
primary progressive aphasia, semantic dementia),
stuttering and other fluency problems, etc.
In children, adolescents, and adults, clinical assess-
ments may also concern such speech problems as dys-
arthria, following a stroke and neurodegenerative
illnesses or accompanying cerebral palsy, acquired or
developmental apraxia of speech, etc. In addition
to the conventional evaluation of basic language (or
speech) skills, the assessment procedure in all these
special populations involves specific aspects and par-
ticularities of speech and language. For example, be-
cause of the absence of biological markers or simple
diagnosis methods, the early detection of dementia
often depends on various assessment tools, including
language and cognitive tests performed to exclude
other possible disease processes or identify specific
forms of a given disease. In that particular domain,
the assessment of speech and language usually includes
tests allowing for differential diagnosis. For example,
tests that specifically tap either semantic processing
or written spelling can contribute to differentiating
common disease processes in the elderly population.
Semantic deficits are prominent characteristics of indi-
viduals diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and these
individuals usually differ from patients diagnosed with
vascular dementia or frontotemporal dementia because
of the presence of surface dysgraphia, a specific spelling
disorder.
It is obviously not possible to exhaustively describe
here the various tests adapted to special populations.
The reader will find a more complete description of
such tests in McCauley (2001), Paul (2001), Haynes
and Pindzola (2003), and Spreen and Risser (2003).
Conclusion
Language production and comprehension are com-
plex cognitive skills that should not be considered in
isolation in assessment procedures. The interrelation
between language and other cognitive functions has
to be captured, particularly with respect to the possi-
ble influence of attention, working memory, and
executive functions on linguistic abilities. If possible,
clinicians should always select valid and reliable
norm-referenced tests to assess language and commu-
nication. Resorting to theoretical models of language
functioning also appears of primary importance and
may sometimes condition the utilization of experi-
mental, well-controlled, assessment tasks. A compre-
hensive assessment of language and communication is
more than just an evaluation of specific skills in terms
of preservation or impairment of processing compo-
nents and surface structures. The scope of assessment
should be widened in order to provide informa-
tion about physical, social, and emotional contexts
of communication, cultural differences, and econo-
mic factors. The combination of these data, obtained
through assessment tools and direct observations,
should then allow the clinician to establish a complete
portrait of functional communication abilities.
See also: Dementia and Language; Impairments of Proper
and Common Names; Phonological Impairments, Sublexi-
cal; Phonological, Lexical, Syntactic, and Semantic Dis-
orders in Children; Primary Progressive Aphasia in
Nondementing Adults; Speech Impairments in Neuro-
degenerative Diseases/Psychiatric Illnesses.

Bibliography
Bailet L L (2001). ‘Written language test reviews.’ In Bain
A M, Bailet L L & Moats L C (eds.) Written language
disorders. Austin: Pro-Ed. 221–248.
Benton A L, Hamsher K, Varney N R & Spreen O (1994).
Contributions to neuropsychological assessment (2nd
edn.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Blomert L, Kean M L, Koster C & Schokker J (1994).
‘Amsterdam–Nijmegen Everyday Language Test:
construction, reliability, and validity.’ Aphasiology 8,
381–407.
Brookshire R & Nichols L E (1993). The Discourse Com-
prehension Test. Minneapolis: BRK.
Carrow-Woolfolk E (1999). Comprehensive Assessment of
Spoken Language. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.
DeRenzi E & Vignolo L (1962). ‘The token test: a sensitive
test to detect receptive disturbances in aphasics.’ Brain
85, 665–678.
Dunn L M & Dunn L M (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabu-
lary Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Fluharty N B (2001). Fluharty Preschool Speech and Lan-
guage Screening Test II. Austin: Pro-Ed.
Frankenburg W, Dodds J, Archer P, Bresnick B, Maschka P,
Edelman N & Shapiro H (1990). Denver II: screening
manual. Denver: Denver Developmental Materials.
Frattali C M, Thompson C K, Holland A L, Wohl C B &
Ferketic M M (1995). Functional Assessment of Commu-
nication Skills for Adults. Rockville, MD: American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
Gardner M F (2000). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocab-
ulary Test – Revised. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy.
Goodglass H, Kaplan E & Barresi B (2000). Boston Diag-
nostic Aphasia Examination (3rd edn.). Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Haynes W O & Pindzola H R (2003). Diagnosis and evalu-
ation in speech pathology (6th edn.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Helm-Estabrooks N (1992). Aphasia Diagnostic Profiles.
Chicago: Riverside Publishing.
Holland A L, Frattali C M & Fromm D (1999). Communi-
cation Activities of Daily Living (2nd edn.). Austin:
Pro-Ed.
Howard D & Patterson K E (1992). The Pyramids and
Palm Trees Test. Oxford: Harcourt Assessment.
Kay J, Lesser R & Coltheart M (1992). Psycholinguistic
Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia
(PALPA). Hove, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kertesz A (1982). Western Aphasia Battery. New York:
Grune & Stratton.
Classical Tests for Speech and Language Disorders 445
Markwardt F C (1998). Peabody Individual Achievement
Test Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.
Mattis S & Luck D Z (2002). ‘Neuropsychological as-
sessment of school-aged children.’ In Segalowitz S J &
Rapin I (eds.) Handbook of neuropsychology: child
neuropsychology 1. New York: Elsevier Science.
McCauley R J (2001). Assessment of language disorders in
children. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mousty P, Leybaert J, Alégria J, Content A & Morais J
(1994). Batterie d’Évaluation du Langage Écrit et de ses
Troubles. Brussels: Laboratoire de Psychologie Expéri-
mentale, Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Murray L L & Chapey R (2001). ‘Assessment of language
disorders in adults.’ In Chapey R (ed.) Language inter-
vention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic com-
munication disorders (4th edn.). Philadelphia: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins. 55–126.
Paul R (2001). Language disorders from infancy through
adolescence: Assessment and intervention (2nd edn.).
Toronto: Mosby.
Reitan R M (1991). Aphasia Screening Test. Tucson: Reitan
Neuropsychology Laboratory.
Rossetti L (1990). Rossetti Infant-Toddler Language Scale.
East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems.
Semel E, Wiig E H & Secord W A (2003). Clinical Evalua-
tion of Language Fundamentals (4th edn.). Toronto:
Psychological Corporation.
Shewan C M (1979). Auditory Comprehension Test
for Sentences (ACTS). Chicago: Biolinguistics Clinical
Institutes.
Spellacy F & Spreen O (1969). ‘A short form of the Token
Test.’ Cortex 5, 390–397.
Spreen O & Risser A H (2003). Assessment of aphasia.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Spreen O & Strauss E (1998). A compendium of neuropsy-
chological tests (2nd edn.). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Wechsler D (2004). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children: Fourth edition integrated. San Antonio, TX:
Harcourt Assessment.
Wetherby A M & Prizant B M (1998). Communication and
Symbolic Behavior Scales-Developmental Profile. Chi-
cago: Applied Symbolix.
Wilkinson G S (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test 3.
San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Zimmerman I L, Steiner V G & Pond R E (2002). Preschool
Language Scale (4th edn.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt
Assessment.