Search

Background: Few studies have investigated conversation therapy between a person with aphasia and a clinician. Furthermore, little information exists on generalisation of impairment-based stimulation treatment to conversational outcomes. Aim: The purpose of this preliminary study was to compare the effects of stimulation therapy and conversation therapy on conversational outcome measures in two cases. Method: We employed a single-subject AB1AB2A design with randomised ordering of interventions across two participants. Primary outcomes included 6-minute conversations coded for discourse functions of an utterance. Outcomes & Results: The participant who received stimulation therapy first demonstrated improved conversational outcomes after the first phase. The participant who received conversation therapy first demonstrated improved conversational outcomes after the first phase. Although improvements were made in each type of therapy, the highest gains in conversational production were during or following conversation therapy in either treatment order for both participants. Conclusion: Both types of therapy produced gains in conversational abilities. However, the small number of participants limits the generalisability of this study. Future research is needed to determine which participants may benefit most from conversation therapy and to improve the clinical feasibility of conducting and measuring conversational therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Primary objective: To determine whether the psychometrics of the BRIEF-A are adequate for individuals diagnosed with TBI. Research design: A prospective observational study in which the BRIEF-A was collected as part of a larger study. Methods and procedures: Informant ratings of the 75-item BRIEF-A on 89 individuals diagnosed with TBI were examined to determine items level psychometrics for each of the two BRIEF-A indexes: Behaviour Rating Index (BRI) and Metacognitive Index (MI). Patients were either outpatients or at least 1 year post-injury. Main outcomes and results: Each index measured a latent trait, separating individuals into five-to-six ability levels and demonstrated good reliability (0.94 and 0.96). Four items were identified that did not meet the infit criteria. Conclusions: The results provide support for the use of the BRIEF-A as a supplemental assessment of executive function in TBI populations. However, further validation is needed with other measures of executive function. Recommendations include use of the index scores over the Global Executive Composite score and use of the difficulty hierarchy for setting therapy goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]