Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background/Objectives: This study developed a Polish adaptation of the Hungarian Aphasia Screening Test (HAST-PL) and evaluated its internal structure, internal consistency, and screening accuracy. Methods: Following translation and expert-led adaptation, 173 stroke survivors (130 with clinically confirmed aphasia and 43 without aphasia) were analysed. Clinical status was established before HAST-PL through neurological and speech-language assessment supplemented by medical records. Analyses included ordinal confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), internal consistency, group comparisons, ROC analysis, and 20,000 stratified bootstrap resamples with repeated cut-off selection. CFA was also performed in the aphasia group. Results: The one-factor model yielded CFI = 0.991, TLI = 0.981, RMSEA = 0.086, and SRMR = 0.051; the aphasia-only analysis showed a similar pattern. Internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.805; ω = 0.834). All five tasks differentiated the groups (p ≤ 0.028). AUC was 0.88 (95% CI [0.83, 0.93]). Screen-positive scores ≤16 yielded 66.2% sensitivity and 97.7% specificity; ≤17 yielded 77.7% and 86.0%, respectively. The apparent maximum Youden index of 0.6383 decreased to 0.6141 after bootstrap correction. The ≤16 and ≤17 rules were selected in 51.265% and 47.950% of resamples, respectively. Conclusions: HAST-PL shows initial promise for aphasia screening. Internal validation supports evaluating both neighbouring thresholds rather than adopting either as a definitive clinical rule. Negative results cannot exclude clinically suspected aphasia, and independent external validation remains necessary.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pawlukowska et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: