Search

Background: Evidence-based recommendations for a core outcome set (COS; minimum set of outcomes) for aphasia treatment research have been developed (the Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia-ROMA, COS). Five recommended core outcome constructs: communication, language, quality of life, emotional well-being and patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment, were identified through three international consensus studies. Constructs were paired with outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) during an international consensus meeting (ROMA-1). Before the current study (ROMA-2), agreement had not been reached on OMIs for the constructs of communication or patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment., Aim: To establish consensus on a communication OMI for inclusion in the ROMA COS., Methods & Procedures: Research methods were based on recommendations from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Participants with expertise in design and conduct of aphasia trials, measurement instrument development/testing and/or communication outcome measurement were recruited through an open call. Before the consensus meeting, participants agreed on a definition of communication, identified appropriate OMIs, extracted their measurement properties and established criteria for their quality assessment. During the consensus meeting they short-listed OMIs and participants without conflicts of interest voted on the two most highly ranked instruments. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by ≥ 70% of participants., Outcomes & Results: In total, 40 researchers from nine countries participated in ROMA-2 (including four facilitators and three-panel members who participated in pre-meeting activities only). A total of 20 OMIs were identified and evaluated. Eight short-listed communication measures were further evaluated for their measurement properties and ranked. Participants in the consensus meeting (n = 33) who did not have conflicts of interest (n = 29) voted on the top two ranked OMIs: The Scenario Test (TST) and the Communication Activities of Daily Living-3 (CADL-3). TST received 72% (n = 21) of 'yes' votes and the CADL-3 received 28% (n = 8) of 'yes' votes., Conclusions & Implications: Consensus was achieved that TST was the preferred communication OMI for inclusion in the ROMA COS. It is currently available in the original Dutch version and has been adapted into English, German and Greek. Further consideration must be given to the best way to measure communication in people with mild aphasia. Development of a patient-reported measure for satisfaction with/impact of treatment and multilingual versions of all OMIs of the COS is still required. Implementation of the ROMA COS would improve research outcome measurement and the quality, relevance, transparency, replicability and efficiency of aphasia treatment research., What This Paper Adds: What is already known on this subject International consensus has been reached on five core constructs to be routinely measured in aphasia treatment studies. International consensus has also been established for OMIs for the three constructs of language, quality of life and emotional well-being. Before this study, OMIs for the constructs of communication and patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment were not established. What this paper adds to existing knowledge We gained international consensus on an OMI for the construct of communication. TST is recommended for inclusion in the ROMA COS for routine use in aphasia treatment research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The ROMA COS recommends OMIs for a minimum set of outcomes for adults with post-stroke aphasia within phases I-IV aphasia treatment research. Although not intended for clinical use, clinicians may employ the instruments of the ROMA COS, considering the quality of their measurement properties. The systematic inclusion of a measure of communication, such as TST, in clinical practice could ultimately support the implementation of research evidence and best practices., (© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.)

Background: This study explores the psychometric properties of The Scenario Test UK, a culturally adapted version of the Dutch original (The Scenario Test) developed by van der Meulen et al. in 2010, which evaluates functional, daily-life communication in aphasia. The Scenario Test assesses communication in an interactive context with a supportive communication partner., Aims: To evaluate the reliability (internal consistency, interrater and test-retest reliability) and construct validity (convergent, discriminant and known-groups validity) of The Scenario Test UK., Methods & Procedures: The Scenario Test UK and other language, cognition and praxis assessments were administered to persons with aphasia after stroke (3+ months post-stroke) and to non-aphasic controls. Participants were recruited primarily through community stroke groups. Measures were completed in an interview format. Standard psychometric criteria were used to evaluate reliability and construct validity., Outcomes & Results: A total of 74 participants with aphasia and 20 participants without aphasia took part in The Scenario Test UK. The test showed high levels of reliability. Internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.92), interrater reliability (ICC = 0.95) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.96) were excellent. Interrater agreement in scores on the individual items ranged from good to excellent (κ = 0.41-1.00) for all but two items (item 4c κ = 0.38, item 6c κ = 0.36). The test demonstrated good levels of convergent (ρ = 0.37-0.75) and discriminant validity (ρ = -0.04 to 0.23). There was strong evidence for known groups validity (U = 132.50, p < .001), with those with aphasia scoring significantly lower [median (interquartile range-IQR) = 47 (39.8-51.0)] than those without aphasia [53 (52-54)]., Conclusions & Implications: The data support the reliability and validity of the Scenario Test UK as an assessment of functional, daily-life communication for persons with aphasia. Further testing is needed in independent samples on the measure's psychometric properties, including its sensitivity to change. Pending this testing, The test can be used as an assessment tool to evaluate communication skills with people with aphasia, to guide goal setting for therapy and to measure outcomes in response to therapy., (© 2018 Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.)

Background: Discourse is fundamental to everyday communication, and is an increasing focus of clinical assessment, intervention and research. Aphasia can affect the information a speaker communicates in discourse. Little is known about the psychometrics of the tools for measuring information in discourse, which means it is unclear whether these measures are of sufficient quality to be used as clinical outcome measures or diagnostic tools., Aims: To profile the measures used to describe information in aphasic discourse, and to assess the quality of these measures against standard psychometric criteria., Methods & Procedures: A scoping review method was employed. Studies were identified using a systematic search of Scopus, Medline and Embase databases. Standard psychometric criteria were used to evaluate the measures' psychometric properties., Main Contribution: The current review summarizes and collates the information measures used to describe aphasic discourse, and evaluates their quality in terms of the psychometric properties of acceptability, reliability and validity. Seventy-six studies described 58 discourse information measures, with a mean of 2.28 measures used per study (SD = 1.29, range = 1-7). Measures were classified as 'functional' measures (n = 33), which focused on discourse macrostructure, and 'functional and structural' measures (n = 25), which focused on micro-linguistic and macro-structural approaches to discourse. There were no reports of the acceptability of data generated by the measures (distribution of scores, missing data). Test-retest reliability was reported for just 8/58 measures with 3/8 > 0.80. Intra-rater reliability was reported for 9/58 measures and in all cases percentage agreement was reported rather than reliability. Per cent agreement was also frequently reported for inter-rater reliability, with only 4/76 studies reporting reliability statistics for 12/58 measures; this was generally high (>.80 for 11/12 measures). The majority of measures related clearly to the discourse production model indicating content validity. A total of 36/58 measures were used to make 41 comparisons between participants with aphasia (PWA) and neurologically healthy participants (NHP), with 31/41 comparisons showing a difference between the groups. Four comparisons were made between discourse genres, with two measures showing a difference between genres, and two measures showing no difference., Conclusions: There is currently insufficient information available to justify the use of discourse information measures as sole diagnostic or outcome measurement tools. Yet the majority of measures are rooted in relevant theory, and there is emerging evidence regarding their psychometric properties. There is significant scope for further psychometric strengthening of discourse information measurement tools., (© 2017 Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.)

Background: Speech and language therapists (SLTs) and care home activities staff play key roles in managing and supporting the communication needs of older residents in care homes. However, the current practice and perspectives of these two professions in the United Kingdom has not been examined. Aims: To investigate the practice patterns and views of SLTs and activities staff working in UK care homes for older adults in relation to residents' communication needs. Methods and Procedures: Two online surveys, with 63 questions (SLT survey) and 46 questions (activities staff survey) in total, were created using the online platform Qualtrics. Participants were asked to consider their routine practice before COVID‐19. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Outcomes and Results: A total of 116 valid responses were received from SLTs and 29 valid responses from activities staff. A high level of communication needs in care homes was reported by both participant groups, as was insufficient time and resources and lack of managerial encouragement in this area. SLTs reported that the majority of referrals to their service from care homes was for swallowing needs (70%). Cognitive communication difficulty was the most commonly reported communication need by SLTs (65%). Most SLTs (73%–87%) provided some level of communication intervention and considered management of residents' communication needs to be both part of the SLT role and a good investment of their time. Lack of confidence setting goals and providing direct intervention for communication needs was reported, with 25% feeling stressed at the thought of this. The main themes from free text responses about SLT service improvement were increased staff training, funding (of resources and specialist posts) and changes to service provision (referral criteria and accessibility/awareness of SLT service). Hearing impairment was the communication need most commonly reported by activities staff (43%). Participants demonstrated relatively high awareness of communication difficulty in residents and reported high levels of knowledge and confidence identifying and supporting residents' communication. Most (79%–89%) considered identifying and supporting the communication needs of residents to be part of their role and expressed interest in receiving further training in communication support. The reported activities staff data set may be positively biased. Conclusions and Implications: SLTs and activities staff were highly motivated to support the communication needs of care home residents. Increased training, time and resources dedicated to managing the communication needs of residents emerged as opportunities for service improvement across both data sets. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: There is a high level of communication need amongst older care home residents. Social interaction and relationships are important factors contributing to quality of life in this population and rely on successful communication. Speech and language therapists (SLTs) and activities staff play key roles in managing and supporting the communication needs of this client group, but the current practice and perspectives of these professions in the United Kingdom has not been examined. What this study adds: A high level of communication need in care home residents was identified by both SLT and activities staff and both participant groups were motivated to address, identify and manage this need. However, insufficient time and resources, as well as a perceived lack of encouragement from managers to provide communication support/intervention, were reported by both groups. SLT practice was constrained by referral criteria and care pathways, which differed between services. Suggestions for SLT service improvement are reported. Clinical implications of this study: Targeted, ongoing staff training is required in care homes to improve the communication environment and develop care home staff capacity to support residents' communication needs. There is also a call for service level improvements to increase the range of SLT practice in care homes, including a greater focus on communication needs and more specialist (e.g., dementia) SLT roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This review article synthesizes and evaluates the evidence for sentence production treatments in aphasia, systematically charting impairment-based and functional communication outcomes. It reports (a) the level of evidence and fidelity of sentence treatments; (b) the impact of treatment on production of trained and untrained verbs and sentences, functional communication, and discourse; and (c) the potential active ingredients of treatment. Method: The search included studies from January 1980 to June 2019. The level of evidence of each study was documented, as was fidelity in terms of treatment delivery, enactment, and receipt. Studies were also categorized according to treatment methods used. Results: Thirty-three studies were accepted into the review and predominantly constituted Level 4 evidence (e.g., case control studies and case series). Thirty studies (90%) described treatment in sufficient detail to allow replication, but dosage was poorly reported, and fidelity of treatment was rarely assessed. The most commonly reported treatment techniques were mapping (10 studies: 30%), predicate argument structure treatment (six studies: 18%), and verb network strengthening treatment (five studies: 15%). Production of trained sentences improved for 83% of participants, and improvements generalized to untrained sentences for 59% of participants. Functional communication was rarely assessed, but discourse production improved for 70% of participants. Conclusions: The evidence for sentence treatments is predominantly generated from Level 4 studies. Treatments were effective for the majority of participants regarding trained sentence and discourse production. However, there is inconsistent use of statistical analysis to verify improvements, and diverse outcome measures are used, which makes interpretation of the evidence difficult. The quality of sentence treatment research would be improved by agreeing a core set of outcome measures and extended by ascertaining the views of participants on sentence treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Improved discourse production is a priority for all key stakeholders in aphasia rehabilitation. A Cochrane review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for aphasia found speech and language therapy treatment to be effective for improving the ability to communicate in everyday interaction. However, this large-scale review did not focus exclusively on treatment for discourse production and did not include other treatment research designs. Thus, the extent of the evidence base addressing discourse interventions is currently unclear. Objective: The present study undertakes the first systematic review of research on treatment for discourse production in aphasia, appraises the quality of the evidence base; characterises the methods for measuring outcomes; and describes discourse treatment in terms of both content and efficacy. Design: Scopus, Medline, and EmBase databases were searched, providing 334 records. Twenty-five studies (reporting on 127 participants) met inclusion criteria and were reviewed with the following research questions: What is the quality of the study designs used? How complete is the intervention reporting? What is the range, type, and content of outcome measures used? What is the range, type, and content of discourse treatments reported to date? Are discourse treatments efficacious? Results: Seven of the 25 studies met the criteria for quality review, with 3 RCTs scoring moderately well and 3 (of 4) case studies scoring moderate-low. Most studies had adequate levels of completeness of treatment reporting, with 3 scoring highly. There were 514 different outcome measures reported across the 25 studies, with measures of words-in-discourse the most common. Studies were grouped into six treatment categories: "word production in discourse", "sentence production in discourse", "discourse macrostructure", "discourse scripts", "multi-level", and "no consensus". Twenty-two studies reported post-treatment gains, most commonly noted in increased word production. Changes in sentence production and discourse macrostructure were present but infrequently assessed. Conclusions: Discourse treatment is an emerging field of research. Despite limitations in the evidence base, there are clear positive signs that discourse treatment is efficacious. There is emerging evidence for beneficial effects on word and sentence production in discourse, for improved discourse macrostructure, and for treatments working at multiple levels of language. To strengthen the evidence in this field and improve outcomes for people with aphasia, we need more discourse treatment research using an explicit theoretical rationale, high-quality study designs, more complete reporting, and agreed treatment and assessment methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Discourse assessment and treatment in aphasia rehabilitation is a priority focus for a range of stakeholder groups. However, a significant majority of speech and language therapists (SLTs) infrequently conduct discourse analysis, and do not feel competent in doing so. Known barriers identified in other countries, specifically a lack of time, training, expertise and resources, affect use of discourse analysis in clinical practice. Aims: To investigate UK SLTs' reported practices and views of discourse analysis, barriers and facilitators, and clinical feasibility in aphasia rehabilitation. Methods & Procedures: An online survey of 52 questions adapted from existing research and incorporating behaviour change literature was created for the study and piloted. UK SLTs working in aphasia rehabilitation for at least 6 months were invited to participate. Potential participants were contacted through national and local clinical excellence networks, a National Health Service (NHS) bespoke e‐mail list, and national magazine advertisement, and the study was also advertised on social media (Twitter). Therapists read an online participant information sheet and submitted individual electronic consent online; then progressed to the Qualtrics survey. Descriptive, correlational and inferential statistical analyses were conducted, and content analysis was carried out on the questions requiring text. Outcomes & Results: A total of 211 valid responses were received from primarily female SLTs, aged 20–40 years, working full‐time in the NHS in England, in community, inpatient and acute/subacute multidisciplinary settings. A total of 30% SLTs collected discourse analysis often, were mostly very experienced, and working part‐time in community settings. Years of experience was predictive of use. Discourse was most often collected using standardized picture descriptions and recounts during initial assessment. Samples were infrequently recorded, and typically transcribed in real‐time. Most SLTs (53–95%) reported making clinical judgements or manually counted words, sentences, communication of ideas and errors, and were confident in doing so. Barriers included time constraints; lack of expertise, confidence, training, resources and equipment; and patient severity. Discourse 'super‐users' were distinguished by significantly higher professional motivation for discourse and workplace opportunity than other SLTs, and 'non‐users' were distinguished by significantly less knowledge and skills in discourse analysis than other SLTs. SLTs reported a desire and need for training, new/assistive tools and time to do more discourse analysis in practice. Conclusions & Implications: Clinicians were highly engaged and relatively active in at least some aspects of discourse analysis practice. Interventions that target individual clinicians as well as organizations and systems are needed to improve the uptake of discourse analysis in practice. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subject?Discourse in aphasia rehabilitation is a priority in clinical practice and research. However, the majority of clinicians infrequently collect and analyse discourse. Research in Australia and the United States indicated that lack of time, assessment resources and relevant knowledge and skills are the main barriers to use.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeCompared with existing research, UK SLTs were more likely to see discourse analysis as part of their role and experienced fewer barriers, and more SLTs did it at least sometimes in clinic. However, practices were limited by lack of training, giving rise to challenges in selecting and interpreting findings for clients. More use was predicted by more experience and commitment to discourse analysis, particularly where workplaces supported this approach. Less use was associated with less knowledge and skills in discourse analysis. Practice and decision‐making were influenced by client factors and constrained to a lesser degree by logistical challenges.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this study?Education and training in discourse analyses and in specific procedures are needed to improve individual clinicians' knowledge, skills and confidence in using discourse analysis for clients' rehabilitation. Equally, organizational and systems changes are needed to promote, support and reinforce discourse analysis in the workplace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Aphasia research demonstrates increasing interest in the treatment of verb retrieval deficits. This systematically conducted scoping review reports on the level and fidelity of the current evidence for verb treatments; on its effectiveness regarding the production of trained and untrained verbs, functional communication, sentences, and discourse; and on the potential active ingredients. Recommendations to guide clinical decision making and future research are made. Method: The computerized database search included studies from January 1980 to September 2018. The level of evidence of each study was documented, as was fidelity in terms of treatment delivery, enactment, and receipt. Studies were also categorized according to the treatment methods used. Results: Thirty-seven studies were accepted into the review, and all but 1 constituted a low level of evidence. Thirty-three studies (89%) described treatment in sufficient detail to allow replication, dosage was poorly reported, and the fidelity of treatment was rarely assessed. The most commonly reported treatment techniques were phonological and semantic cueing in 25 (67.5%) and 20 (54%) studies, respectively. Retrieval of trained verbs improved for 80% of participants, and improvements generalized to untrained verbs for 15% of participants. There was not sufficient detail to evaluate the impact of treatment on sentence production, functional communication, and discourse. Conclusions: The evidence for verb treatments is predominantly of a low level. There are encouraging findings in terms of treatments being replicable; however, this is tempered by poor monitoring of treatment fidelity. The quality of verb treatment research would be improved by researchers reaching consensus regarding outcome measures (including generalization to, e.g., sentences and discourse) by manualizing treatment to facilitate implementation and exploring the opinions of participants. Finally, while treatment is largely effective in improving production of trained verbs, lack of generalization to untrained items leads to the recommendation that personally relevant verbs are prioritized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Discourse is an increasing focus of assessment in clinical and research settings because it reflects everyday communication. Everyday communication is likely to include a range of different discourse genres, e.g., describing a scene, or reflecting on life experiences. It is likely that speakers use verbs differently in these different discourse genres, but very little is known about this. Aims: To explore whether there were differences in how two groups of speakers (with and without a communication impairment) used verbs in two different discourse genres, in terms of syntax and semantics. Methods & Procedures: Data from people with aphasia (PWA) were taken from an earlier study, and neurologically healthy people were recruited for the current study. Participants produced discourses from two genres: a picture description (the Western Aphasia Battery “Picnic Scene”) and personal narrative (reflective responses to quality of life [QoL] questions). Discourses were analysed using measures of argument structure (mean predicate argument structure score), verb weight (% heavy verbs), and verb semantic category (% mental and relational verbs). Comparisons were made for each measure between genre and group using a series of two mixed two-way ANOVAs. Outcomes & Results: Data from 26 PWA and 27 neurologically healthy people were analysed. For predicate argument structure, there was a main effect of genre, significant interaction between group and genre, and main effect of group. For the semantic measures, there was a main effect of genre for % mental verbs but no effects or interactions for % heavy and % relational verbs. Post hoc correlations explored associations between the variables. Conclusions: Genre exerts no demonstrable impact on semantic weight, in either speaker group, but does exert influence on the semantic category of verbs used because, for both speaker groups, the picture description genre elicited a smaller percentage of mental verbs than the personal narratives produced in response to QoL questions. For PWA only, genre also exerted an influence on argument structure, with QoL narratives eliciting significantly less complex argument structures. This has implications for clinical assessment. Discourses of different genres should be sampled to fully assess a speaker’s syntactic and lexico-semantic skills; and the genre of discourse used for assessment and therapy materials should align with the client’s communication goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on rehabilitation of people with aphasia. Topics discussed include creating a principled inventory of available discourse measurement tools for clinical and research use; improving patients quality of life; and cognitive stage of discourse production such as the selection of relevant information.