Search

Purpose: The objective of this study was to explore receptiveness of people with poststroke aphasia to receiving transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), including preferences for the treatment setting and schedule of tDCS delivery. Method: An online survey was distributed via e-mail, flyers, social media, and online newsletters to reach people with aphasia. Fisher's exact test examined the relationship of self-reported tDCS receptiveness to demographic, clinical, and other factors. Results: Fifty-seven surveys were returned, and 50 complete surveys were analyzed. Twenty-eight percent of respondents had previously heard of tDCS. Sixty-six percent reported they would receive tDCS if it could help their aphasia, and only 6% reported that they definitely would not. There were statistically significant relationships between being receptive to tDCS and (a) not currently working, (b) being receptive to speech-language therapy, and (c) greater acceptance of potential temporary risks associated with tDCS. Most individuals (73%) who would consider tDCS were equivalently open to receiving it in the clinic or at home, yet the majority (64%) were open to more frequent sessions at home than in the clinic. Most respondents indicated that they would consider having tDCS "forever if it helped" (clinic: 51%; home: 68%). Conclusions: This is the first study to query individuals with aphasia about their receptiveness to tDCS outside the context of an intervention study. Responses suggest that a large majority of people with poststroke aphasia might be open to receiving tDCS if it can ameliorate their aphasia. Limitations include the small sample size, which does not adequately represent the broader population of people with aphasia, and that the survey did not provide the level of tDCS education crucial to inform shared decision making and person-centered care. However, future work may benefit from considering the practical implications of research designs (e.g., high intensity treatment outside the home) that may not, in application, be widely acceptable to primary stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We sought to examine interrater reliability in clinical assessment of apraxia of speech (AOS) in individuals with primary progressive aphasia and to identify speech characteristics predictive of AOS diagnosis. Method: Fifty-two individuals with primary progressive aphasia were recorded performing a variety of speech tasks. These recordings were viewed by 2 experienced speechlanguage pathologists, who independently rated them on the presence and severity of AOS as well as 14 associated speech characteristics. We calculated interrater reliability (percent agreement and Cohen’s kappa) for these ratings. For each rater, we used stepwise regression to identify speech characteristics significantly predictive of AOS diagnosis. We used the overlap between raters to create a more parsimonious model, which we evaluated with multiple linear regression. Results: Results yielded high agreement on the presence (90%) and severity of AOS (weighted Cohen’s κ = .834) but lower agreement for specific speech characteristics (weighted Cohen’s κ ranging from .036 to .582). Stepwise regression identified 2 speech characteristics predictive of AOS diagnosis for both raters (articulatory groping and increased errors with increased length/complexity). These alone accounted for ≥ 50% of the variance of AOS severity in the constrained model. Conclusions: Our study adds to a growing body of research that highlights the difficulty in objective clinical characterization of AOS and perceptual characterization of speech features. It further supports the need for consensus diagnostic criteria with standardized testing tools and for the identification and validation of objective markers of AOS. Additionally, these findings underscore the need for a training protocol if diagnostic tools are to be effective when shared beyond the research teams that develop and test them and disseminated to practicing speech-language pathologists, in order to ensure consistent application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To provide preliminary evidence of the construct validity of the Communicative Effectiveness Survey (CES) for individuals with dysarthria and idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD). Method: In a prospective, quasi-experimental design, 25 participants each were assigned to 3 groups (N = 75): PD and dysarthria, non-PD and no dysarthria, and PD significant others (SOs). Mean CES ratings were used to test for significant differences between the PD and non-PD group, and PD and SO rating of PD's communicative effectiveness. Multiple linear regression tested for significant predictors of CES ratings for PD group only using sentence intelligibility and spontaneous speech intelligibility scores as predictor variables. Results: The PD group rated their CES significantly lower than did the non-PD group. The PD group rated their CES significantly higher than their SOs rated them. Neither speech intelligibility score was a significant predictor of CES ratings. In follow-up analysis, the Hoehn and Yahr PD staging accounted for 47% of the variability in CES ratings for the PD group participants. Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence of the CES's construct validity. Clinicians and researchers who assess and treat individuals with PD may consider adding an additional assessment to the traditional clinical measures (i.e., speech intelligibility) by obtaining a measure of communicative effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To present a primarily conceptual introduction to item response theory (IRT) and Rasch models for speechlanguage pathologists (SLPs). Method: This tutorial introduces SLPs to basic concepts and terminology related to IRT as well as the most common IRT models. The article then continues with an overview of how instruments are developed using IRT and some basic principles of adaptive testing. Conclusion: IRT is a set of statistical methods that are increasingly used for developing instruments in speechlanguage pathology. While IRT is not new, its application in speech-language pathology to date has been relatively limited in scope. Several new IRT-based instruments are currently emerging. IRT differs from traditional methods for test development, typically referred to as classical test theory (CTT), in several theoretical and practical ways. Administration, scoring, and interpretation of IRT instruments are different from methods used for most traditional CTT instruments. SLPs will need to understand the basic concepts of IRT instruments to use these tools in their clinical and research work. This article provides an introduction to IRT concepts drawing on examples from speech-language pathology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]