Assessment of individuals with aphasia: an integrative literature review

Abstract

Objective: to analyze which evaluations are used by occupational therapists, speechlanguage pathologists and physiotherapists on individuals presented with aphasia and what these evaluations address. Methods: the study conducted a national and international documental analysis of evaluations used by professionals working on the neurological rehabilitation of adults and/or elderly individuals with aphasia, published in the last ten years (January 2008/ June 2018). This analysis was performed by an integrative review of databases LILACS, SciELO and PubMed, using the descriptors: Health Assessment or Testing, or Protocols, or Psychometrics, or Questionnaires and Rehabilitation, combined with the descriptors: Aphasia, Occupational Therapy, Speech-language Pathology and Physiotherapy. Results: 26 studies were included, most of which were scored as level VI of scientific evidence; the years of 2013 and 2016 presented publication peaks. The studies used 54 evaluation tools, among which 13 were recurrent in the studies, mostly analyzing aspects of communication/language. It is assumed that these data are related to the fact that speech-language pathologists provide care for individuals with aphasia; however, these individuals may present other needs beyond communication, such as those related to human occupation, requiring multiprofessional and integral health care. Among the protocols, the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) was considered the most complete, since it addresses communication, linguistic, human occupation and psycho-affective aspects. Conclusion: this study identified the use of few instruments dedicated to individuals with aphasia related to all aspects that involve life, with predominance of protocols and evaluations that only address disabilities, highlighting the importance of assessments that address subjectivity, evaluating individuals with aphasia in all dimensions of their lives.These systems of evidence classification provide basis for a critical evaluation of research findings and consequently in decision-making about the incorporation of evidence into clinical practice. The papers were excluded initially by year of publication; then,