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 [greater than or equal to] 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.

Background: After total laryngectomy, surgical voice restoration is used to establish communication via tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis. Once voice is established, there is a paucity of information on what speech and language therapists (SLTs) should do to improve tracheoesophageal voice quality to ensure functional communication. No existing surveys or studies investigate this specific question. There is also a disconnect between guidelines, knowledge and clinical practice, whereby clinical guidelines stipulate the requirement for SLT intervention, but do not detail what this entails in the rehabilitation context. Aims: (1) To advance understanding of current clinical practice beyond voice prosthesis management and care. (2) To explore what approaches are implemented in clinical practice across the UK and Republic of Ireland to rehabilitate tracheoesophageal voice. (3) To investigate the barriers and facilitators to provision of tracheoesophageal voice therapy. Methods & Procedures: A self-administered 10-min online survey was developed using Qualtrics software and piloted before dissemination. Survey development was informed by the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify barriers, facilitators and additional factors contributing to SLTs' provision of voice therapy to tracheoesophageal speakers. The survey was disseminated via social media and professional networks. Eligibility criteria included SLTs with at least one year post-registration experience and with experience of working with laryngectomy in the past 5 years. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse closed answer questions. Open question responses were analysed using content analysis. Outcomes & Results: The survey received 147 responses. Participants were representative of the head and neck cancer SLT workforce. SLTs believe that tracheoesophageal voice therapy is an important aspect of laryngectomy rehabilitation; however, there was a lack of knowledge about therapy approaches and insufficient resources for implementing therapy. SLTs expressed a desire for more training, specific guidelines and a stronger evidence base to inform clinical practice. Some SLTs expressed feelings of frustration and lack of acknowledgement for the specialist skills required to undertake laryngectomy rehabilitation and tracheoesophageal work in general. Conclusions & Implications: The survey identifies the need for a robust training approach and detailed clinical guidelines to promote consistent practice across the profession. The evidence base within this clinical area is emergent, hence there is a need for increased research and clinical audit to inform practice. Under-resourcing was highlighted, which should be considered in service planning to ensure that adequate staff, access to expert practitioners or time ring-fenced for therapy are available for tracheoesophageal speakers to receive the support they require.

Background: Research evidence suggests aphasia therapy must be delivered at high intensity to effect change. Comprehensive therapy, addressing all domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, is also called for by people with aphasia and their families. However, aphasia therapy is rarely intense or comprehensive. Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programmes (ICAPs) were designed to address this challenge, but such programmes are not widely implemented. Aims: This study surveyed the views of UK-based speech and language therapists (SLTs) regarding intensive and comprehensive aphasia therapy. It explored definitions of intensive and comprehensive therapy, patterns of provision, views about candidacy and barriers/facilitators. It also investigated awareness of ICAPs and perceived potential of this service model. Differences across UK regions and workplace settings were explored. Methods & Procedures: An e-survey ran for 5 months. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative free text comments were analysed using content analysis. Outcomes & Results: Two hundred twenty-seven respondents engaged in the e-survey. Definitions of intensive aphasia therapy did not reach UK clinical guideline/research-level thresholds for most of the sample. Those providing more therapy provided definitions with higher standards of intensity. Mean therapy delivered was 128 min/week. Geographical location and workplace setting influenced the amount of therapy delivered. The most frequently delivered therapy approaches were functional language therapy and impairment-based therapy. Cognitive disability and fatigue were concerns for therapy candidacy. Barriers included lack of resources and low levels of optimism that issues could be solved. 50% of respondents were aware of ICAPs and 15 had been involved in ICAP provision. Only 16.5% felt their service could be reconfigured to deliver an ICAP. Conclusions & Implications: This e-survey evidences a mismatch between an SLT's concept of intensity and that espoused by clinical guidelines/research. Geographical variations in intensity are concerning. Although a wide range of therapy approaches are offered, certain aphasia therapies are delivered more frequently. Awareness of ICAPs was relatively high, but few respondents had experience of this model or felt it could be executed in their context. Further initiatives are needed if services are to move from a low-dose or non-comprehensive model of delivery. Such initiatives might include but not be confined to wider uptake of ICAPs. Pragmatic research might also explore which treatments are efficacious with a low-dose model of delivery, given that this model is dominant in the United Kingdom. These clinical and research implications are raised in the discussion.

Background: The communication skills of older adults living in care homes is an underexplored topic. Ageing can lead to reduced communication ability and activity; and in the care home environment there may also be fewer communication opportunities. This situation is likely to negatively impact well-being. Previous reviews have found evidence of the effectiveness of behavioural interventions in increasing well-being, but no systematic review to date has focused specifically on the evidence base for group language and communication interventions in this population. Aims: To identify and evaluate the evidence for behavioural interventions with older adults, delivered in groups in care homes, that specifically included a language or communication activity. To explore the impact of such intervention on the specific domains of language, communication and social interaction. To determine whether behavioural mechanisms of action can be identified. Methods & Procedures: Embase, Medline, Ovid Nursing database, Psych info and CINAHL complete were searched and produced 158 records for screening, of which 22 remained for review. In order to identify and evaluate the quality of the evidence base presented the following research questions were posed: What research has been conducted in this area? What is the methodological quality of the studies identified? How complete is the intervention reporting? How was change measured in the domains of language, communication and social interaction? Is there evidence of efficacy, indicated by statistically significant improvement, in these domains? How did the interventions work? Synthesis tools employed included the PEDro-P Scale, the TIDieR checklist and the ITAX. Main contribution: A total of 22 studies met the criteria for review. One study used solely language or communication interventions, but the remaining 21 studies used behavioural interventions which incorporated language and communication activities to varying degrees. Studies fell into four broad intervention types: reminiscence or life review; cognitive stimulation; narrative or storytelling; and multi-modality group communication. The majority of studies were of fair methodological quality, with a moderate level of detail provided in treatment reporting. Statistically significant improvement was reported by authors in all four intervention types and across language, communication and social domains. Social interaction, social support and behavioural skills were the most consistent mechanisms of action in the reviewed behavioural interventions. Conclusions & Implications: Despite limitations in the evidence base, there are important positive signs for the beneficial effects of supporting language and communication in care homes. Blinding of assessors, and the accuracy and accessibility of statistical reporting are important areas to address in order to improve the quality of the evidence base.

Background: People with aphasia rely on gesture more than healthy controls to get their message across, but use a limited range of gesture types. Gesture therapy is thus a potential avenue of intervention for people with aphasia. However, currently no gesture assessment evaluates how they use gesture. Such a tool could inform therapy targets and measure outcomes. In gesture research, many different coding categories are used to describe gesture forms and functions. These coding methods are prohibitively time-consuming to use in clinical practice. There is therefore a need for a 'quick and dirty' method of assessing gesture use. Aims: To investigate current practice among UK-based clinicians (speech and language therapists) in relation to gesture assessment and therapy, to synthesize gesture-coding frameworks used in aphasia research, to develop a gesture checklist based on the synthesized coding frameworks suitable for use in clinical practice, and to investigate the interrater reliability (IRR) of the checklist among experienced and unfamiliar users. Methods & Procedures: The research team synthesized seven gesture-coding frameworks and trialled three resulting prototype checklists at a co-design workshop with 20 clinicians. Attending clinicians were also consulted about their current clinical gesture practice using a questionnaire. A final City Gesture Checklist (CGC) was developed based upon outcomes and feedback from the workshop. The IRR of the CGC was evaluated between the research team and 11 further clinicians within a second workshop. Both groups used the CGC to count gestures in video clips of people with aphasia talking to a conversation partner. Main Contribution: A total of 18 workshop attendees completed the current practice questionnaire. Of these, 10 reported assessing gesture informally and five also used formal assessment. Gesture-coding synthesis highlighted six main categories of gesture form. Clinicians at the co-design workshop provided feedback on prototype checklists regarding the relevance and usability of the gesture categories, layout, use of images and instructions. A final version of the CGC was created incorporating their recommendations. The IRR for the CGC was moderate between both the researchers and clinicians. Conclusions & Implications: The CGC can be used to assess the types of gesture that people with aphasia produce. The IRR was moderate amongst both experienced users and new users who had received no training. Future research directions include investigating how to improve IRR, evaluating intra-rater reliability and sensitivity to change, and exploring use of the CGC in clinical practice.

Purpose: This study synthesizes participant and outcome data from peer-reviewed Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programme (ICAP) studies. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Study eligibility criteria were specified in relation to population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and design considerations. Data were extracted according to six research questions. Narrative synthesis was used. Results: Twenty-one studies were included covering 13 ICAPs (N = 485, aged 18–86 years, between 11 and 335 months post-stroke). Twenty-seven participant selection criteria were identified. Fifty-six outcome measures spanning the WHO-ICF were used, with the majority assessing the body function domain. Only eight studies employed an experimental design with data appropriate for analysis and synthesis. Risk of bias was noted across this sub-group. Participants improved in word-finding, communication, activity/participation, and communication-related quality of life, and maintained their gains; however, except for word finding, evidence of effect came from isolated studies. Factors influencing outcomes were rarely considered. Some drop-outs, missed sessions, and fatigue were noted. Some studies reported IPD alongside group analyses. Conclusions: ICAP selection criteria need justification and should contribute to the understanding of candidacy for this treatment model. Rationalisation of ICAP treatment content and outcome measurement is required, spanning all WHO-ICF domains. Employment of the core outcome set for aphasia would enable data synthesis and facilitate comparisons between the ICAP and other therapy models. Implications for Rehabilitation: Healthcare professionals can use this review to appreciate that the evidence base for intensive and comprehensive aphasia programmes is emerging and based on studies of varying methodological quality and thus findings are not conclusive. Patients across the lifespan and across a range of aphasia severities, and patients who are independent or have support for activities of daily living, can participate in intensive and comprehensive aphasia programmes. Patients can expect improved word finding ability from participation in an intensive and comprehensive aphasia programme, and some patients can experience benefits in functional communication, communication confidence, and aphasia-related quality of life. Outcome measurement from intensive and comprehensive aphasia programmes should encompass language functioning, communication activities/participation, quality of life, and outcomes for family members, and ideally environmental and personal factors should be considered. [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.

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]

Background: Stroke survivors with aphasia want to improve their everyday talking (discourse). In current UK practice, 90% of speech and language therapists believe discourse assessment and treatment is part of their role but are hampered by barriers in resources, time and expertise. There is a clinical need for well-articulated discourse assessment and treatments. LUNA is a multi-level treatment targeting words, sentences and discourse macrostructure in personal stories that addresses this clinical need. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of LUNA trial procedures in a randomised waitlist-controlled trial; and to evaluate preliminary efficacy. Methods: This paper reports a phase II, waitlist-controlled, proof-of-concept feasibility trial. Participants with chronic aphasia (n = 28) were recruited from the community and randomised to an Immediate (n = 14) or Delayed (n = 14) group. LUNA treatment was delivered twice weekly for 10 weeks via the videoconferencing technology, Zoom. Feasibility was assessed in terms of participant recruitment and retention, adherence, missing data, and treatment fidelity. Preliminary treatment efficacy was assessed in terms of between group differences in outcome measures relating to discourse, language, and psychosocial state. Results: The remote LUNA trial was feasible: 85% of those eligible consented to the trial; trial retention was 86%; 87% of treatment sessions were delivered as scheduled, and 79% of participants completed 80%+ of the treatment programme; data was missing only for participants who withdrew; treatment fidelity was high at 92% adherence; and only one clinical outcome measure demonstrated ceiling effects. ANCOVA analysis of the clinical outcome measures revealed group differences with medium and large effect sizes, indicating, improvements in the production of words, sentences, discourse macrostructure, overall language functioning (WAB-R), and psychosocial state (VAMS) following LUNA treatment. For most outcomes measured, similar treatment benefits were suggested in a secondary, non-parametric analysis. Conclusions: Large-scale evaluation of the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of LUNA is warranted and supported by these findings. Trial registration: Clinical trials registration: NCT05847023 (clinical trials.gov). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech and language therapy can reduce the level of impairment and disability caused by aphasia (Brady et al., 2016). Selecting a therapy can be challenging for clinicians who may struggle to stay abreast of the best evidence to support therapy selection (Rose et al., 2014). Once a therapy is selected, accessing relevant resources is a significant barrier to implementation (Shrubsole et al., 2019). The Aphasia Therapy Finder (ATF) is proposed to be an online repository of therapy resources designed to aid selection of evidence-based aphasia therapies and to bridge the evidence-practice gap in aphasia rehabilitation. Aims: In this study, we aimed to explore speech pathologists’ selection and use of aphasia therapy approaches, and access to aphasia therapy resources in clinical practice. We further aimed to explore speech pathologists’ perspectives on the proposed ATF. Methods & Procedures: A cross-sectional, mixed-methods, survey design was employed. A 22-item web-based survey was developed and disseminated to speech pathologists via professional networks internationally. Data analyses included descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Outcomes & Results: Eligible responses from 176 speech pathologists across 19 countries were included in the analyses (86.3% completion rate). Speech pathologists reported using a range of therapy approaches (n = 43) in aphasia rehabilitation, consistent with previous findings (Rose et al., 2014). Information regarding new therapy approaches was predominantly obtained from academic sources including conferences, research literature, and professional development workshops. Speech pathologists placed high importance on research evidence when selecting therapy approaches. Resource limitations, including time and budget constraints, were identified as key barriers to implementing evidencebased aphasia therapy approaches in clinical practice. There was strong support for development of the ATF; 91.7% of respondents indicated they would use it in clinical practice. Recency of research, equity of access with the inclusion of linguistically and culturally diverse resources, and usability of resources were identified as priorities when developing the ATF. Conclusions: While speech pathologists report using a range of aphasia therapy approaches in clinical practice and consider research evidence when selecting therapy approaches, resource limitations continue to present a barrier to the implementation of evidence-based practice. The development of the ATF may support the translation of research evidence into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Discourse in adults with aphasia is increasingly the focus of assessment and therapy research. A broad range of measures is available to describe discourse, but very limited information is available on their psychometric properties. As a result, the quality of these measures is unknown, and there is very little evidence to motivate the choice of one measure over another. Aims: To explore the quality of a range of discourse measures, targeting sentence structure, coherence, story structure and cohesion. Quality was evaluated in terms of the psychometric properties of acceptability (data completeness and skewness), reliability (inter- and intra-rater), and validity (content, convergent, discriminant and known groups). Methods & Procedures: Participants with chronic mild-to-moderate aphasia were recruited from community groups. They produced a range of discourses which were grouped into Cinderella and everyday discourses. Discourses were then transcribed orthographically and analyzed using macro- and microlinguistic measures (Story Grammar, Topic Coherence, Local Coherence, Reference Chains and Predicate Argument Structure--PAS). Data were evaluated against standard predetermined criteria to ascertain the psychometric quality of the measures. Outcomes & Results: A total of 17 participants took part in the study. All measures had high levels of acceptability, inter- and intra-rater reliability, and had good content validity, as they could be related to a level of the theoretical model of discourse production. For convergent validity, as expected, 8/10 measures correlated with the Western Aphasia Battery--Revised (WAB-R) spontaneous speech scores, and 7/10 measures correlated with the Kissing and Dancing Test (KDT) scores (r = 0.3), giving an overall positive rating for construct validity. For discriminant validity, as predicted, all measures had low correlations with Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices (RCPM) and WAB-R Auditory Verbal Comprehension scores (r < 0.3), giving an overall positive rating for construct validity. Finally, for known groups validity, all measures indicated a difference between speakers with mild and moderate aphasia except for the Local Coherence measures. Overall, Story Grammar, Topic Coherence, Reference Chains and PAS emerged as the strongest measures in the current study because they achieved the predetermined thresholds for quality in terms of each of the psychometric parameters profiled. Conclusions & Implications: The current study is the first to psychometrically profile measures of discourse in aphasia. It contributes to the field by identifying Story Grammar, Topic Coherence, Reference Chains and PAS as the most psychometrically robust discourse measures yet profiled with speakers with aphasia. Until further data are available indicating the strength of other discourse measures, caution should be applied when using them.

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 a = 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 (? = 0.41-1.00) for all but two items (item 4c ? = 0.38, item 6c ? = 0.36). The test demonstrated good levels of convergent (? = 0.37-0.75) and discriminant validity (? = -0.04 to 0.23). There was strong evidence for known groups validity (U = 132.50, p < 0.001), 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.

Background: Information from speech and gesture is often integrated to comprehend a message. This integration process requires the appropriate allocation of cognitive resources to both the gesture and speech modalities. People with aphasia are likely to find integration of gesture and speech difficult. This is due to a reduction in cognitive resources, a difficulty with resource allocation or a combination of the two. Despite it being likely that people who have aphasia will have difficulty with integration, empirical evidence describing this difficulty is limited. Such a difficulty was found in a single case study by Cocks et al. in 2009, and is replicated here with a greater number of participants. Aims: To determine whether individuals with aphasia have difficulties understanding messages in which they have to integrate speech and gesture. Methods & Procedures: Thirty-one participants with aphasia (PWA) and 30 control participants watched videos of an actor communicating a message in three different conditions: verbal only, gesture only, and verbal and gesture message combined. The message related to an action in which the name of the action (e.g., 'eat') was provided verbally and the manner of the action (e.g., hands in a position as though eating a burger) was provided gesturally. Participants then selected a picture that 'best matched' the message conveyed from a choice of four pictures which represented a gesture match only (G match), a verbal match only (V match), an integrated verbal-gesture match (Target) and an unrelated foil (UR). To determine the gain that participants obtained from integrating gesture and speech, a measure of multimodal gain (MMG) was calculated. Outcomes & Results: The PWA were less able to integrate gesture and speech than the control participants and had significantly lower MMG scores. When the PWA had difficulty integrating, they more frequently selected the verbal match. Conclusions & Implications: The findings suggest that people with aphasia can have difficulty integrating speech and gesture in order to obtain meaning. Therefore, when encouraging communication partners to use gesture alongside language when communicating with people with aphasia, education regarding the types of gestures that would facilitate understanding is recommended.

"Viva voce" exams are used in many disciplines as a test of students' knowledge and skills. Whilst acknowledged as a useful form of assessment, vivas commonly lead to a great deal of anxiety for students. This anxiety is also apparent for vivas in phonetics, where the students must produce and recognise sounds drawn from across the world's languages, and previous work has shown that viewing a video of a mock-viva does not reduce this anxiety. To address anxiety prior to phonetics vivas, 63 students, across 3 cohorts, engaged in a brief, isolated, peer-mentoring session with previously successful students ("viva survivors"). Anxiety about the viva was measured before and after the mentoring experience, using the short form of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. There was a significant reduction in anxiety after mentoring, and a significant correlation between anxiety before mentoring and the decrease in anxiety after mentoring. Short-term mentoring is posited as a time- and cost-effective method to decrease viva-related anxiety across disciplines.

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 (> 0.80 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.

Background: Social perception is an important skill. One assessment that is commonly used to assess social perception abilities is The Awareness of Social Inference Test (TASIT). The only normative data available for this test are for Australian younger adults. Despite no normative data being available for British adults, the test is widely used in the UK with older and younger adults. There is a growing body of research that suggests that older adults have difficulty with skills associated with social perception. There is therefore a need to determine whether British adults, and more specifically British older adults, perform similarly to the Australian normative TASIT scores available in the manual. Aims: To explore the differences between older and younger British adults' performance on TASIT, and to determine whether younger and older British adults perform similarly to the data from Australian adults in TASIT manual. Methods & Procedures: TASIT was administered to a total of 42 native British English speaking participants. The participants were split into two age groups 18-45 and 60-90 years. Comparisons were made between the two groups and the Australian data in TASIT manual. Outcomes & Results: The younger British and Australian adults obtained similar scores on all parts of TASIT. The older British adults though, obtained significantly lower scores than the Australian younger adults on all parts of TASIT and when education was controlled for they obtained significantly lower scores than the British younger adults. Conclusions & Implications: The findings are discussed in the light of previous research that has found that older adults are worse than younger adults at social inferences. The findings of the current study suggest that caution should be used when using TASIT with older British adults to assess social perception abilities.

There is increasing evidence that face-to-face treatments for verb and sentence production deficits in aphasia can be effective. However, very few studies have investigated supplementing such treatments with self-managed computer-based home practice. Given the increasing importance of computer-based aphasia treatment, it is imperative that the feasibility of this mode of delivering verb and sentence treatments is explored. This study explored the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of a novel computer-based treatment for sentence production deficits in aphasia, delivered by a combination of face-to-face and self-managed treatment sessions. The effect of treatment on verb and sentence production, discourse and functional communication was assessed. The study used a pre-post design with six single cases: three males and three females aged 49 – 81 years. The Sentence Production Treatment (SPT) was developed based on the evidence from systematic reviews of verb-in-isolation and sentence treatments respectively. The SPT was low dose (8 hours) and clinician delivered, supplemented by a minimum set level (16 hours) of self-managed computer-based treatment. The feasibility of the SPT was investigated by: monitoring recruitment and retention of participants; logging any technical issues; assessing the fidelity of face-to-face treatment delivery using checklists; and monitoring compliance with self-delivered treatment. The SPT was found to be feasible and acceptable to the six participants. Treatment effects were noted on trained verb production and sentence production for five participants each. Generalisation to untrained verb and sentence targets and discourse was more limited, however four participants perceived functional communication improvements. The study represents the first preliminary evidence that a computer-based sentence level treatment for sentence production deficits in aphasia, which included a self-managed component, is feasible and can be effective. Given these overall positive findings of feasibility and benefit, further feasibility testing is warranted, exploring intervention refinement and candidacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Spatial communication consists of both verbal spatial language and gesture. There has been minimal research investigating the use of spatial communication, and even less focussing on people with aphasia. Aims: The aims of this exploratory study were to describe the frequency and variability of spatial language and gesture use by three participants with aphasia in comparison to nine control participants. This included: (1) frequency of gestures; (2) types of gesture; (3) number of spatial descriptions described by gestures but no language; and (4) frequency and variety of locative prepositional, verb, and noun phrases. Methods & Procedures: Each participant was videoed undertaking 11 spatial communication tasks: four description tasks, and seven tasks involving directing the researcher in the placement of objects or pictures. Gestures and language produced were transcribed and analysed. Outcomes & Results: Participants with aphasia used significantly more gesture. Participants with aphasia also used more gesture without spoken phrases when spatial vocabulary was unavailable. Finally, there were differences between the participants with regards to the types of gesture that they used when they were unable to access language. Conclusion & Implications: The results suggest that the analysis of gesture produced by people with aphasia may provide insight into their underlying language impairment. As this was an exploratory study, with just three participants with aphasia, further research is needed. (Contains 3 tables, 6 figures, and 1 note.)

In this paper, we reconsider some of the processes that distinguish production and comprehension. In particular, we discuss the specific forms of thinking involved in each: "thinking for speaking" and "thinking for listening" (Black and Chiat, 2000; Slobin, 1996). We argue that thinking for speaking (or for any form of language output) crucially involves schematisation or "paring down" of conceptual information (Dipper, 1999), a process partly driven by the language system itself. Thinking for listening, on the other hand, involves an "enrichment" of skeletal conceptual information derived from the linguistic input, using pragmatic principles. Production and comprehension involve distinct forms of interaction between thought and language, and should not be characterised as a simple reversal of the same processes. This approach allows us to account for different patterns of production and comprehension in non-fluent aphasia, and predict some of the factors that facilitate processing for people with these language impairments.

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]

Conversation is important in everyday life and this importance is not diminished in aphasia. Context parameters such as topic and partner are known to influence the linguistic content of conversations. With gesture being closely linked to language, these parameters may influence gestures used in conversations. This has not been investigated in previous studies. This study explored the spontaneous use of gestures in the conversations of participants with aphasia (PWA) and neurologically healthy participants (NHP). It aimed to examine the influence of conversation topic and partner on gesture production overall and on the production of semantically rich and empty gestures. Twenty PWA and 21 NHP were filmed during conversations with different topics (narrative & procedural) and different partners (familiar & unfamiliar). Analysis 1 investigated the influence of the conversation topic on gesture production overall and on the production of semantically rich and empty gestures. In Analysis 2, the influence of the conversation partner on gesture production was investigated. Both groups produced significantly more gestures in procedural than in narrative conversations. Moreover, PWA and NHP produced significantly more semantically rich gestures in procedural conversations. In terms of the conversation partner, both groups produced significantly more gestures in the conversations with the unfamiliar than in those with the familiar conversation partner. For all findings, there were no group differences and no interactions between group and context parameters. These findings shed light on factors that influence gesture production and suggest that both modalities should be viewed together as a communicative resource for PWA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gestures are spontaneous hand and arm movements that are part of everyday communication. The roles of gestures in communication are disputed. Most agree that they augment the information conveyed in speech. More contentiously, some argue that they facilitate speech, particularly when word-finding difficulties (WFD) occur. Exploring gestures in aphasia may further illuminate their role. Aims: This study explored the spontaneous use of gestures in the conversation of participants with aphasia (PWA) and neurologically healthy participants (NHP). It aimed to examine the facilitative role of gesture by determining whether gestures particularly accompanied WFD and whether those difficulties were resolved. Methods & Procedures: Spontaneous conversation data were collected from 20 PWA and 21 NHP. Video samples were analysed for gesture production, speech production, and WFD. Analysis 1 examined whether the production of semantically rich gestures in these conversations was affected by whether the person had aphasia, and/or whether there were difficulties in the accompanying speech. Analysis 2 identified all WFD in the data and examined whether these were more likely to be resolved if accompanied by a gesture, again for both groups of participants. Outcomes & Results: Semantically rich gestures were frequently employed by both groups of participants, but with no effect of group. There was an effect of the accompanying speech, with gestures occurring most commonly alongside resolved WFD. An interaction showed that this was particularly the case for PWA. NHP, on the other hand, employed semantically rich gestures most frequently alongside fluent speech. Analysis 2 showed that WFD were common in both groups of participants. Unsurprisingly, these were more likely to be resolved for NHP than PWA. For both groups, resolution was more likely if a WFD was accompanied by a gesture. Conclusions: These findings shed light on the different functions of gesture within conversation. They highlight the importance of gesture during WFD, both in aphasic and neurologically healthy language, and suggest that gesture may facilitate word retrieval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]