Research evidence to support the use of cognitive interventions for individuals with dementia is accumulating. Researchers are beginning to evaluate treatment efficacy, yet the focus tends to be on discovery, specifically, refining intervention variables that will facilitate optimal outcomes. Implications for clinical practice and avenues for future research are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: Group treatment for individuals with dementia is an option to target activity and participation for residents in long-term care facilities to engage them in meaningful conversation and potentially improve their quality of life. The purpose of this article is to describe a theme-based group treatment approach that capitalizes on the use of the environment through context. Method: Rationale for this group treatment approach is presented, including a brief description and evidence supporting clinical techniques utilized. These include reminiscence therapy, multisensory stimulation, and use of environmental aids. In addition, background is provided regarding capitalizing on memory and linguistic strengths and compensating for weaknesses. Modifications of clinician behaviors are presented to best facilitate successful group interactions. Results and Conclusions: The article culminates in a detailed description of contextual thematic group treatment. This description includes an example lesson plan with corresponding rationale for activities. Data supporting the individual clinical techniques utilized in this group treatment approach are adequate; however, the evidence supporting the combination of these techniques in this format is meager and requires further investigation.

Purpose: Development of valid and reliable outcome tools to document social approaches to aphasia therapy and to determine best practice is imperative. The aim of this study is to determine whether the Conversational Interaction Coding Form (CICF; Pimentel & Algeo, 2009) can be applied reliably to the natural conversation of individuals with aphasia in a group setting. Method: Eleven graduate students participated in this study. During a 90-minute training session, participants reviewed and practiced coding with the CICF. Then participants independently completed the CICF using video recordings of individuals with non-fluent and fluent aphasia participating in an aphasia group. Interobserver reliability was computed using matrices representative of the point-to-point agreement or disagreement between each participant's coding and the authors' coding for each measure. Interobserver reliability was defined as 80% or better agreement for each measure. Results: On the whole, the CICF was not applied reliably to the natural conversation of individuals with aphasia in a group setting. Conclusion: In an extensive review of the turns that had high disagreement across participants, the poor reliability was attributed to inadequate rules and definitions and inexperienced coders. Further research is needed to improve the reliability of this potentially useful clinical tool.