Background: This paper presents a review of the use of the PALPA (Kay, Lesser, & Coltheart, 1992) in published research studies in which it is cited. Aims: In an examination of annual citation counts from 1991 to 2001, the review aims to discover the journals in which the PALPA has been most frequently cited, the frequency of citation, and the country of origin of the cited article. It also
... [Show full abstract] explores the design of studies (e.g., single case, case series, group), the nature of the aetiology of the patients tested, and the topic areas investigated (e.g., investigations of theory, rehabilitation or neuroimaging studies). In particular, the review explores the frequency with which particular tests have been used and suggests reasons why some are used more than others. Main Contribution: The review considers reasons why some tests in the PALPA have proved to be more popular than others. These lead to conclusions about its experimental use over the past decade and, in particular, to how development of the battery should proceed in any future revision. Conclusions: The review reveals that PALPA has a consistent and continued high citation rate, suggesting that it has been sufficiently well received by researchers across related fields within aphasiology for it to be used as an assessment and research tool, and that it is still found to be useful even 10 years after its introduction. It is observed that some tests are cited more widely than others, leading to conclusions about their effectiveness in research studies. While use of PALPA in a clinical setting is not considered, thereby limiting conclusions about applicability, the paper also provides information of value to clinicians, especially with regard to the detailed analysis of why certain tests have been used more often than others.