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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Geschwind N. The apraxias: neural mechanisms of disorders of learned movement. Am Sci1975; 63: 188–195.
2.
Tate R, McDonald S. What is apraxia? The clinician’s dilemma. Neuropsychol Rehabil1995; 5: 273–297.
3.
De Renzi E. Methods of limb apraxia examination and their bearing on the interpretation of the disorder. In: Roy EA ed. Neuropsychological studies of apraxia and related disorders. Oxford: North-Holland, 1985: 45–64.
4.
Miller N. Dyspraxia and its management. London: Croom Helm, 1986.
5.
Poeck K. The clinical examination of apraxia. Neuropsychologia1986; 24: 129–134.
6.
Kirshner H. The Apraxias. In: Bradley W, Daroff R, Fenichel G, Marsden C eds. Neurology in clinical practice: principles of diagnosis and management, Volume 1. London: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991: 117–122.
7.
Heilman KM, Rothi L. Apraxia. In: Heilman KM, Valenstein E eds. Clinical neuropsychology, third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
8.
Roy E. Current perspectives on disruptions to limb praxis. Phys Ther1983; 63: 1999–2003.
9.
Haaland YK, Flaherty D. The different types of limb apraxia errors made by patients with left vs.right hemisphere damage. Brain Cognition1984; 3: 370–384.
10.
Raade AS, Gonzalez Rothi LJ, Heilman KM. The relationship between buccofacial and limb apraxia. Brain Cognition1991; 16: 130–146.
11.
Mozaz MJ. Ideational and ideomotor apraxia: a qualitative analysis. Behav Neurol1992; 5: 11–17.
12.
De Renzi E, Motti M, Nichelli P. Imitating gestures. A quantitative approach to ideomotor apraxia. Arch Neurol1980; 37: 6–10.
13.
McDonald S, Tate R, Rigby J. Error types in ideomotor apraxia: a qualitative analysis. Brain Cognition1994; 25: 250–270.
14.
Rothi LJ, Raymer A, Heilman KM. Limb praxis assessment. In: Rothi L, Heilmann K. Apraxia: the neuropsychology of action. Hove: Psychology Press, 1997: 61–73.
15.
Mayer NH, Reed E, Schwartz MF, Montgomery M, Palmer C. Buttering a hot cup of coffee: An approach to the study of errors of action in patients with brain damage. In: Tupper DE, Cicerone K eds. Neuropsychology of everyday life: assessment of basic competencies. London: Kluwer Academic, 1990: 294–295.
16.
Schwartz MF, Reed ES, Montgomery M, Palmer C, Mayer NH. The quantitative description of action disorganisation after brain damage: a case study. Cogn Neuropsychol1991; 8: 381–414.
17.
Van-Heughten C, Dekker J, Deelman B, Stehmann-Saris J, Kinebanian A. Assessment of disabilities in stroke patients with apraxia: internal consistency and inter-observer reliability. Occup Ther J Res1999; 19: 55–73.
18.
Enderby PM, Wood VA, Wade DT, Langton Hewer R. The Frenchay Aphasia Screening test: a short, simple test for aphasia appropriate for nonspecialists. Int Rehabil Med1986; 8: 166–170.
19.
Wade D, Collin C. The Barthel ADL index: a standard measure of physical disability?Int Disabil Stud1988; 10: 64–67.
20.
Wade D. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
21.
De Renzi E, Lucchelli F. Ideational apraxia. Brain1988; 111: 1173–1185.
22.
De Renzi E, Faglioni P, Sorgato P. Modality speci”c and supramodal mechanisms of apraxia. Brain1982; 105: 301–312.
23.
Roy EA, Hall C. Limb apraxia: a process approach. In: Proteau L, Elliott D eds. Vision and motor control. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1992.
24.
Riddock MJ, Humphreys GW, Price C. Routes to action: evidence from apraxia. Cogn Neuropsychol1989; 6: 437–454.
25.
Alexander M, Baker E, Naeser M, Kaplan E, Palumbo C. Neuropsychological and neuroanatomical dimensions of ideomotor apraxia. Brain1992; 115: 87–107.
