Dutch Diagnostic Instrument for Mild Aphasia (DIMA): standardisation and a first clinical application in two brain tumour patients

Brain tumour patients with mild language disturbances are typically underdiagnosed due to lack of sensitive tests leading to negative effects in daily communicative and social life. We aim to develop a Dutch standardised test-battery, the Diagnostic Instrument for Mild Aphasia (DIMA) to detect characteristics of mild aphasia at the main linguistic levels phonology, semantics and (morpho-)syntax in production and comprehension. We designed 4 DIMA subtests: 1) repetition (words, non-words, compounds and sentences), 2) semantic odd-picture-out (objects and actions), 3) sentence completion and 4) sentence judgment (accuracy and reaction time). A normative study was carried out in a healthy Dutch-speaking population (N = 211) divided into groups of gender, age and education. Clinical application of DIMA was demonstrated in two brain tumour patients (glioma and meningioma). Standard language tests were also administered: object naming, verbal fluency (category and letter), and Token Test. Performance was at ceiling on all sub-tests, except semantic odd-picture-out actions, with an effect of age and education on most subtests. Clinical application DIMA: repetition was impaired in both cases. Reaction time in the sentence judgment test (phonology and syntax) was impaired (not accuracy) in one patient. Standard language tests: category fluency was impaired in both cases and object naming in one patient. The Token Test was not able to detect language disturbances in both cases. DIMA seems to be sensitive to capture mild aphasic deficits. DIMA is expected to be of great potential for standard assessment of language functions in patients with also other neurological diseases than brain tumours.

Introduction: Applying Clinical Psychological Science to Practice

Mental illness is a prevalent and extraordinarily complex phenomenon. Psychologists have developed distinct approaches toward understanding and treating mental illness, rooted in divergent epistemology. This introduction to the Special Issue on Clinical Psychological Science and Practice provides a brief overview of the scientist-practitioner gap, and explores one step (of many) toward bridging this divide. Seven compelling case illustrations featured in this Special Issue apply empirical findings to case formulation, treatment selection, and assessment across complex and varied clinical presentations. This issue thereby demonstrates the feasibility of integrating research and clinical expertise in mental healthcare.