Let’s call it “aphasia”: rationales for eliminating the term “dysphasia”

L. Worrall, N. Simmons-Mackie, S.J. Wallace, T. Rose, M.C. Brady, A.P.H. Kong, L. Murray, B. Hallowell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Citations (Scopus)


Health professionals, researchers, and policy makers often consider the two terms aphasia and dysphasia to be synonymous. The aim of this article is to argue the merits of the exclusive use of the term aphasia and present a
strategy for creating change through institutions such as the WHO-ICD. Our contention is that one term avoids confusion, speech-language pathologists prefer aphasia, scholarly publications indicate a preference for the term aphasia,
stroke clinical guidelines indicate a preference for the term aphasia, consumer organizations use the title aphasia in their name and on their websites, and languages other than English use a term similar to aphasia. The use of the term dysphasia in the broader medical community may stem from the two terms being used interchangeably in the ICD10. Aphasia United http://www.shrs.uq.edu.au/aphasiaunited, an international movement for uniting the voice of all stakeholders in aphasia within an international context, will seek to eliminate the use of the term dysphasia.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)848-851
Number of pages4
JournalInternational Journal of Stroke
Issue number8
Early online date6 Jul 2016
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2016


  • aphasia
  • dysphasia


Dive into the research topics of 'Let’s call it “aphasia”: rationales for eliminating the term “dysphasia”'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this