RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The delivery of telepractice interventions for people with poststroke aphasia has been found effective and feasible compared to traditional, in-person interventions; however, telepractice assessments, particularly screening protocols, which may foster convenient access to aphasia diagnostic services, have received limited examination within the aphasia literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine a novel telepractice screening protocol for people with poststroke aphasia that assesses both language and extralinguistic cognitive abilities via both performance-based and patient-reported measures. METHOD: Twenty-one participants with previously diagnosed poststroke aphasia completed the telepractice administration of the Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test (FAST), the Aphasia Impact Questionnaire-21 (AIQ-21), the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS), and the Cognitive-Communication Checklist for Acquired Brain Injury (CCCABI). Care partners of the participants completed the Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI). After the telepractice session, each participant completed a feasibility questionnaire to rate their overall experience. RESULTS: All participants screened as having aphasia. Pearson correlation analyses yielded a strong positive relationship between OCS and FAST scores (r = .74), a strong relationship between OCS and CCCABI scores (r = -.71), and a moderate relationship between FAST and AIQ-21 scores (r = -.35). Moderate relationships were noted between the performance-based measures and the CETI (r = .30). The overall feasibility of telepractice administration was rated positively by each participant. No significant relationships were found between the feasibility responses and participant characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the telepractice screening protocol yielded an effective and feasible way to identify poststroke aphasia. Similar to in-person administration of screening measures, it was more difficult to identify milder levels of aphasia severity. Future research should examine whether this telescreening protocol can identify poststroke aphasia within the broader stroke population.
RESUMEN
Purpose: Current literature broadly demonstrates the effectiveness and feasibility of telepractice services for people with aphasia. However, the examination of telepractice assessments for people with aphasia is limited. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the current use of telepractice assessment protocols for people with aphasia. Specifically, the review sought to: (a) identify the assessments utilized in the aphasia telepractice literature; (b) appraise critically the quality of such investigations; and (c) evaluate critically the psychometric properties of the standardized tests used. Methods: A review of the literature published in English since 2000 was conducted in January 2023 by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. A total of 2,429 articles were screened. Two reviewers assessed records independently finding 11 articles eligible for inclusion. Data extraction was conducted once and validated by a second reviewer. Quality appraisal was carried out for the included studies as well as for the standardized testing measures used in these studies. Results: There was a lack of variation among the telepractice assessment protocols and aphasia tests used across all the included studies. That is, there was limited investigation of screening tests, discourse analysis, extralinguistic cognitive measures, and the use of patient-reported measures. Study characteristics lacked high-quality and free-of-bias examinations. Most standardized tests that were utilized exhibited poor validity and reliability properties. Conclusions: Overall, the current systematic review pointed to the need to investigate a wider range of aphasia assessment protocols that can be offered via telepractice. Moreover, more robust research designs are necessary to examine the variety of assessment tests and/or procedures that are available for in-person aphasia assessment services. Finally, given that many tests used in the included studies had psychometric property issues, the current review raised concerns regarding the use of these tests in research and clinical practices.