This study develops a single elicitation method to test the acquisition of third-person pronominal objects in 5-year-olds for 16 languages. This methodology allows us to compare the acquisition of pronominals in languages that lack object clitics (“pronoun languages”) with languages that employ clitics in the relevant context (“clitic languages”), thus establishing a robust cross-linguistic baseline in the domain of clitic and pronoun production for 5-year-olds. High rates of pronominal production are found in our results, indicating that children have the relevant pragmatic knowledge required to select a pronominal in the discourse setting involved in the experiment as well as the relevant morphosyntactic knowledge involved in the production of pronominals. It is legitimate to conclude from our data that a child who at age 5 is not able to produce any or few pronominals is a child at risk for language impairment. In this way, pronominal production can be taken as a developmental marker, provided that one takes into account certain cross-linguistic differences discussed in the article.

Comparative research on aphasia and aphasia rehabilitation is challenged by the lack of comparable assessment tools across different languages. In English, a large array of tools is available, while in most other languages, the selection is more limited. Importantly, assessment tools are often simple translations and do not take into consideration specific linguistic and psycholinguistic parameters of the target languages. As a first step in meeting the needs for comparable assessment tools, the Comprehensive Aphasia Test is currently being adapted into a number of languages spoken in Europe. In this article, some key challenges encountered in the adaptation process and the solutions to ensure that the resulting assessment tools are linguistically and culturally equivalent, are proposed. Specifically, we focus on challenges and solutions related to the use of imageability, frequency, word length, spelling-to-sound regularity and sentence length and complexity as underlying properties in the selection of the testing material.

Coordination of international aphasia research would minimise duplication of effort, support synergistic international activities across languages and multidisciplinary perspectives, and promote high-quality conduct and reporting of aphasia research, thereby increasing the relevance, transparency, and implementation of findings. The Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists (CATs) sought to develop an aphasia research agenda to direct future research activities, based on priorities shared by people with aphasia, family members, and healthcare professionals. Our established international research network spanning 33 countries contributed to this activity. Research literature reporting the priorities of stakeholders was reviewed and synthesized (phase 1). Representatives from Working Groups on Aphasia Assessment & Outcomes, Prognosis & Predictors of Recovery, Effectiveness of Interventions, and Societal Impact & Reintegration participated in a two-day research agenda-setting meeting. The CATs expert panel refined research objectives and identified constituent components of research and methodological developments required to address these research components. The objectives and research components were grouped into overarching themes (phase 2). The resultant list was then circulated to more than 180 CATs members for review, revision, and approval. Consensus on the final aphasia research agenda and roadmap was reached by CATs executive committee (phase 3). The expert panel identified five overarching research themes: (i) evidence-based interventions for people with aphasia, (ii) effective interventions to support those communicating with people with aphasia, (iii) cross-linguistic assessment and core outcomes for aphasia research, (iv) predictors of language recovery, and (v) clinical implementation of research findings. Within these broad themes, 30 research objectives and 91 individual aphasia research components were identified and sequentially ordered. This agenda builds on research priorities identified by people with aphasia and their families, and includes priorities of healthcare professionals and researchers, and will support the rehabilitation and recovery of people with aphasia. Our internationally relevant research agenda promotes rigor in methodology, considers international applicability, synergistic activities, and sharing of resources and expertise.

Background: The detection and description of language impairments in neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's Disease (AD) play an important role in research, clinical diagnosis and intervention. Various methodological protocols have been implemented for the assessment of morphosyntactic abilities in AD; narrative discourse elicitation tasks and structured experimental tasks for production, offline and online structured experimental tasks for comprehension. Very few studies implement and compare different methodological protocols; thus, little is known about the advantages and disadvantages of each methodology.Aims: To discuss and compare the main behavioral methodological approaches and tasks that have been used in psycholinguistic research to assess different aspects of morphosyntactic production and comprehension in individuals with AD at the word and sentence levels.Methods: A narrative review was conducted through searches in the scientific databases Google Scholar, Scopus, Science Direct, MITCogNet, PubMed. Only studies written in English, that reported quantitative data and were published in peer‐reviewed journals were considered with respect to their methodological protocol. Moreover, we considered studies that reported research on all stages of the disease and we included only studies that also reported results of a healthy control group. Studies that implemented standardized assessment tools were not considered in this review.Outcomes & Results: The main narrative discourse elicitation tasks implemented for the assessment of morphosyntactic production include interviews, picture‐description and story narration, whereas the main structured experimental tasks include sentence completion, constrained sentence production, sentence repetition and naming. Morphosyntactic comprehension in AD has been assessed with the use of structured experimental tasks, both offline (sentence‐picture matching, grammaticality judgment) and online (cross‐modal naming,speeded sentence acceptability judgment, auditory moving window, word detection, reading). For each task we considered studies that reported results from different morphosyntactic structures and phenomena in as many different languages as possible.Conclusions & Implications: Our review revealed strengths and weaknesses of these methods but also directions for future research. Narrative discourse elicitation tasks as well as structured experimental tasks have been used in a variety of languages, and have uncovered preserved morphosyntactic production but also deficits in people with AD. A combination of narrative discourse elicitation and structured production tasks for the assessment of the same morphosyntactic structure has been rarely used. Regarding comprehension, offline tasks have been implemented in various languages, whereas online tasks have been mainly used in English. Offline and online experimental paradigms have often produced contradictory results even within the same study. The discrepancy between the two paradigms has been attributed to the different working memory demands they impose to the comprehender or to the different parsing processes they tap. Strengths and shortcomings of each methodology are summarized in the paper, and comparisons between different tasks are attempted when this is possible. Thus, the paper may serve as a methodological guide for the study of morphosyntax in AD and possibly in other neurodegenerative diseases.WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: For the assessment of morphosyntactic abilities in AD, various methodological paradigms have been implemented: narrative discourse elicitation tasks and structured experimental tasks for production, and offline and online structured experimental tasks for comprehension. Very few studies implement and compare different methodological protocols; thus, little is known about the advantages and disadvantages of each methodology. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: The paper presents an overview of methodologies that have been used to assess morphosyntactic production and comprehension of people with AD at the word and sentence levels. The paper summarizes the strengths and shortcomings of each methodology, providing both the researcher and the clinician with some directions in their endeavour of investigating language in AD. Also, the paper highlights the need for further research that will implement carefully scrutinized tasks from various experimental paradigms and will explore distinct aspects of the AD patients’ morphosyntactic abilities in typologically different languages. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: The paper may serve as a reference point for (psycho‐)linguists who wish to study morphosyntactic abilities in AD, and for speech and language therapists who might need to apply morphosyntactic protocols to their patients in order to assess them or design appropriate therapeutic interventions for production and comprehension deficits.