China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Rehabilitation of Language Disorders in Adults and Children
Published in Barbara A. Wilson, Jill Winegardner, Caroline M. van Heugten, Tamara Ownsworth, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 2017
Anastasia Raymer, Lyn Turkstra
If the individual is in the acute stage of recovery when behaviour is the most changeable, observation and interview data may be the main source of assessment. It also may be helpful to give standardised or informal screening tests (e.g. shortened forms of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination [Goodglass, Kaplan and Barresi, 2001] or Western Aphasia Battery [Kertesz, 2007]). In the chronic stage, formal, standardised language tests become more useful for characterising the patient's strengths and limitations. If the goal of assessment is to give an overall picture of the patient's language functioning – including reading, writing, auditory comprehension and spoken language – the clinician may administer a comprehensive aphasia test battery (e.g. the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination or Aphasia Diagnostic Profiles). Scores across subtests of these comprehensive batteries can classify the aphasia into one of the main syndromes defined above. Standardised aphasia test batteries are normed only on adults, and there are no analogous tests for children. Some comprehensive child language tests include individually standardised subtests, which allow comparison of performance across language modalities commonly affected by aphasia (e.g. syntax comprehension vs. repetition), but standard scores will be unreliable indicators of ability when the test model is developmental rather than acquired language problems.
Better long-term speech outcomes in stroke survivors who received early clinical speech and language therapy: What’s driving recovery?
Published in Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 2022
Sophie Roberts, Rachel M. Bruce, Louise Lim, Hayley Woodgate, Kate Ledingham, Storm Anderson, Diego L. Lorca-Puls, Andrea Gajardo-Vidal, Alexander P. Leff, Thomas M. H. Hope, David W. Green, Jennifer T. Crinion, Cathy J. Price
All patients were assessed with an objective language and cognitive assessment, the Comprehensive Aphasia Test (CAT) (Swinburn et al., 2004). The CAT is a fully standardized test battery, which consists of a total of 27 different tasks. The current study selected 3 speaking measures from the CAT to evaluate therapy effects: (1) repetition, a composite measure of a patient’s ability to repeat heard words (e.g., plant), non-words (e.g., trimpy), complex words (e.g., president), sentences and digit strings; (2) spoken naming, a composite measure of object naming, action naming and verbal fluency, and (3) spoken picture description, which measures connected speech, including appropriateness of information-carrying words, grammatical accuracy, syntactic variability and speed of production. Additionally, we controlled for the impact of non-speech (perceptual and semantic) impairments on the ability to perform our speaking tasks by factoring out performance on two other CAT tasks: (4) auditory word comprehension, which measures the patient’s ability to match pictures to a heard word, in the presence of phonological and semantic distractors. This was included because poor auditory word comprehension will affect the ability to repeat words; and (5) semantic memory, which measures the ability to perceive pictures and identify semantic links (e.g., monkey and banana). This was included because poor performance on this task will affect the ability to name objects and describe pictures.
The development and feasibility of an online aphasia group intervention and networking program – TeleGAIN
Published in International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2019
Rachelle Pitt, Deborah Theodoros, Anne J. Hill, Trevor Russell
The data collected during the study were primarily concerned with technical feasibility and usability, acceptability of the intervention, therapeutic effect and participant satisfaction. Technical feasibility was monitored by the treating clinician who kept a log of network connection, and audio and video quality during each session. The clinician noted the audio and video connectivity and quality at their end and checked the quality and connectivity with participants every 15 min during the session. Treatment attendance was recorded by the clinician and reasons for non-attendance were noted. Reflective notes regarding the therapy online were also recorded by the treating clinician primarily concerning technology use, participant involvement in sessions and group processes. To determine potential therapeutic effect, participants were assessed face-to-face by one of three speech–language pathologists independent to the study immediately before and after treatment. Language function was assessed using the Comprehensive Aphasia Test (CAT), which evaluates comprehension of spoken and written language, naming, repetition, reading and writing (Swinburn, Porter, & Howard, 2004). Communication-related quality of life was assessed using the Assessment for Living with Aphasia (ALA) which has been demonstrated to capture the experience of living with aphasia (Kagan et al., 2007). Participant satisfaction with the online treatment was measured using an aphasia friendly satisfaction questionnaire at the completion of the treatment block.