Patterns of linguistic and numerical performance in aphasia

Table 4 Percentage of expected (j) or more abnormal pairwise differences between scores for subtests within the normal population

	Percentage exhibiting j or more abnormal pairwise differences (regardless of sign)						No. of abnormal pairwise differences in patient sample
Criterion for abnormality	1	2	3	4	…	j	No. of abnormal pairwise differences in patient sample
Battery parts without control data ¹
1^st percentile						j = 6	82
1^st percentile	22.94	11.54	5.48	2.76	…	<1
Battery parts with control data ²
1 SD (15.78^th percentile)						j = 109	206
1 SD (15.78^th percentile)	99.84	99.67	99.50	99.30	…	<1
1.5 SD (6.6^th percentile)						j = 91
1.5 SD (6.6^th percentile)	98.39	97.22	96.06	94.88	…	<1
5^th percentile						j = 85
5^th percentile	97.36	95.56	93.86	92.19	…	<1
2 SD (2.28^th percentile)						j = 74
2 SD (2.28^th percentile)	92.82	88.82	85.41	82.32	…	<1

¹For test battery parts without control data (10 subtests) all 55 correlations were determined to be zero (due to expected ceiling effects in healthy participants) and abnormal scores were defined as below 1^st percentile. ²For battery parts with control data (19 subtests) all 190 correlations (mean correlation was r = .10) were entered into the correlation matrix; abnormal scores were defined as below 1, 1.5, and 2 SD below means and 5^th percentile. Since we defined abnormality as a score falling below the 5^th percentile, we highlighted these results (cf. [60]).

ISSN: 1744-9081