Document Type: Original Articles


1 Faculty member/speech therapy department, Faculty of rehabilitation sciences, Zahedan university of medical sciences, Zahedan, Iran,

2 Department of speech therapy, Mashhad university of medical sciences, Mashhad, Iran

3 Department of speech therapy, University of Rehabilitation Sciences and Social Welfare, Tehran, Iran


Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the results obtained from phonemic fluency test using “F”1, “A”2, “S”3 and “L”4, “T”5,”M”6 among Persian Speakers aged between 20 and 30 years.Methods: In this applied study, 76 subjects were randomly chosen. The data was analyzed separately for each subject according to the three letters: “F”, “A”, and “S” by using the routine phonemic fluency subtest of verbal fluency test and then phonemic fluency performance was gathered by using the three letters: “L”, “T” and “M” and after scoring according to Troyer method, the resultant numbers were reported after statistical analyses. For statistical analysis using SPSS 19, the distribution of data was firstly evaluated. Due to the fact that the data distribution was normal, Bonferroni test was used to compare the scores of the letters.Results: No significant gender and educational level effects were found and therefore, all further analyses were conducted without taking gender and educational level into account. Also, when the results of the three letters: “F”, “A” and “S” as a group for phonemic fluency performance and “L”, “T” and “M” letters as a different group, were integrated, a significant difference was found between the mean cluster size and switching between these two groups, while there was no significant difference between the average cluster size and cluster number.Conclusion: Based on the findings of this research, it can be concluded that the results of phonemic fluency test in each of the six letters are significantly different. Therefore, when using the special letters in the Persian language, it is necessary to examine all the letters for phonological sub-tests and use the simplest letters to study this function.


  1. Beatty W. Fluency in multiple sclerosis: which measure is best? Multiple Sclerosis Journal. 2002;8(3):261-4.
  2. Brain injury glossary. Northeast center for especial care web site. 200-2005. Available at:
  3. Chapey R. Language Intervention Strategies in Aphasia and Related Neurogenic Communication Disorders: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001.
  4. Tallberg I-M, Ivachova E, Jones Tinghag K, Östberg P. Swedish norms for word fluency tests: FAS, animals and verbs. Scandinavian journal of psychology. 2008;49(5):479-85.
  5. Harrison JE, Buxton P, Husain M, Wise R. Short test of semantic and phonological fluency: Normal performance, validity and test‐retest reliability. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2000;39(2):181-91.
  6. Sauzeon H, Lestage P, Raboutet C, N’Kaoua B, Claverie B. Verbal fluency output in children aged 7–16 as a function of the production criterion: Qualitative analysis of clustering, switching processes, and semantic network exploitation. Brain and Language. 2004;89(1):192-202.
  7. Ebrahimipour M, Hatefi Ardakani,H. Speech Therapy In MS: Setayesh Hasti Publication; 1388.(In Persian)
  8. Abrahams S, Leigh P, Harvey A, Vythelingum G, Grise D, Goldstein L. Verbal fluency and executive dysfunction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(6):734-47.
  9. Donovan K, Siegert R, McDowall J, Abernethy D. Clustering and switching in verbal fluency in Parkinson's disease. New Zealand Journal of Psychology. 1999;28(1):61.
  10. Troyer AK, Moscovitch M, Winocur G. Clustering and switching as two components of verbal fluency: evidence from younger and older healthy adults. neuropsychology. 1997;11(1):138.
  11. Abrahams S, Goldstein L, Simmons A, Brammer M, Williams S, Giampietro V, et al. Word retrieval in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Brain. 2004;127(7):1507-17.
  12. Mathuranath P, George A, Cherian P, Alexander Al, Sarma S, Sarma P. Effects of age, education and gender on verbal fluency. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2003;25(8):1057-64.
  13. Ebrahimipour M, . Shahbeigi, S., Jenabi, M., Amiri, Y., &Kamali, M. Verbal fluency performance in patients with multiple sclerosis. Iranian Journal of Neurology. 2008;7:138-42.
  14. Mardani N, Ebrahimipour M, Kamali M. The Validity and Reliability of Verbal Fluency Test in 20 to 40 Years Old Persian Speakers(Poster). 11th Iranian Congress On Speech Therapy; Tehran1391.(In Persian)
  15. Abrahams S, Leigh P, Goldstein L. Cognitive change in ALS A prospective study. Neurology. 2005;64(7):1222-6.
  16. Van Der Elst W, Van Boxtel MP, Van Breukelen GJ, Jolles J. Normative data for the Animal, Profession and Letter M Naming verbal fluency tests for Dutch speaking participants and the effects of age, education, and sex. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. 2006;12(01):80-9.
  17. Senhorini MC, Amaro Júnior E, de Mello Ayres A, De Simone A, Busatto GF. Phonemic fluency in Portuguese-speaking subjects in Brazil: ranking of letters. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology. 2006;28(7):1191-200.
  18. Steiner V, al e. Phonemic verbal fluency & age. Dementia&neouropsycologia. 2008;2(4):328-32.