Improving research outcome measurement in aphasia: Development of a core outcome set

Wallace, Sarah

doi:10.14264/uql.2017.61

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, as previously mentioned, this study is restricted to measures available in the database, which shaped the approach of dividing by WAB-R subtype. Although we recognize the limitations of the WAB-R, using it as a lens through which to examine differences associated with specific constellations of deficits assists in communicating results about discourse measures to a broad audience because it is commonly used and was recently suggested as a core outcome measure for aphasia (Wallace, Worrall, Rose, & Le Dorze, 2016a). Regarding discourse measures, in previous work , we have found high protocol fidelity in the AphasiaBank database across locations and assessors.…”

Section: Absentmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Relationship Between Confrontation Naming and Story Gist Production in Aphasia

Richardson

Dalton

Fromm

et al. 2018

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Absentmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Relationship Between Confrontation Naming and Story Gist Production in Aphasia

Richardson

Dalton

Fromm

et al. 2018

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A second part of the ROMA project has been to take steps towards obtaining consensus on the actual measurements to be used in aphasia trials (Wallace et al, 2016b), an endeavour shared by the European COST-funded network, Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists (http:// www.aphasiatrials.org). Although the two groups have made different recommendations for the assessment of language functioning, there is concurrence in pointing to the Scenario test (van der Meulen, van de Sandt-Koenderman, Duivenvoorden, & Ribbers, 2010) or the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT) (Blomert, Kean, Koster, & Schokker, 1994) as suggested measures of functional communication (Visch-Brink, 2017).…”

Section: Consensus On Outcome Measures In Aphasia Rehabilitation and The Relevance Of These Measures To Communication Partner Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this second part, two different types of CPT approaches will be used to exemplify issues in measuring outcomes. Third, examples of existing measurements and the proposed ROMA Core Outcome Set (Wallace, Worrall, Rose, & Le Dorze, 2016b) are discussed in relation to the two CPT approaches as well as implications for future measurements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity in measuring outcomes after communication partner training: alignment between goals of intervention and methods of evaluation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Researchers are currently discussing the need for consensus on a core set of outcome measures to assess interventions in aphasia. For indirect, environmental approaches to aphasia intervention, such as communication partner training (CPT), the roadmap to obtaining consensus on core outcome measures seems especially complex. While the purpose of CPT is to improve communication for people with communication disorders, the intervention is aimed at the communication partner. There is also a variety of goals, activities, and possible settings for CPT. This complexity increases the risk of a mismatch between the goals and content of the intervention and measures used to evaluate the outcome. Aims: The purpose of this paper is to describe the complexity of measuring outcomes from CPT. The aim is to enable clinicians and researchers to reflect on the outcomes to be measured and also on how different types of measures may or may not be aligned with the goals and content of a specific CPT intervention. Main contribution: The current proliferation of outcome measures used in CPT is considered in the light of a survey of general factors to be considered in evaluating intervention outcomes. The complexity of measuring outcomes in CPT is illustrated and the importance of alignment of main objectives, intervention tasks, and projected outcomes is exemplified by referencing two common types of CPT approaches. Objectives relating to knowledge of aphasia, interactional behaviour, and feelings and attitudes are considered in relation to specific outcome measurements. It is suggested that both study-specific and more general measures are needed for capturing and comparing outcomes. The measurement of relevant outcome in CPT is discussed along with implications for future research and clinical practice. Conclusions: Different CPT approaches share the same purpose of facilitating communication in aphasia, but their application in research studies or in the clinic, is specific to the particular context. Special care must thus be taken in both clinical practice and research to safeguard the alignment between objectives, tasks, and projected intervention outcomes and the actual measures ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…However, outcomes in aphasia research should be those that are important to people with aphasia and their families (Wallace, 2016). Recent work has shown that these include a range of outcomes across the ICF as well as quality of life and patient satisfaction with treatment (Wallace et al, 2016).…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraint and multimodal approaches to therapy for chronic aphasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Pierce

Menahemi-Falkov

O’Halloran

et al. 2017

Neuropsychological Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aphasia is a significant cause of disability and reduced quality of life. Two speech pathology treatment approaches appear efficacious: multimodal and constraint-induced aphasia therapies. In constraint-induced therapies, non-verbal actions (e.g., gesture, drawing) are believed to interfere with treatment and patients are therefore constrained to speech. In contrast, multimodal therapies employ non-verbal modalities to cue word retrieval. Given the clinical and theoretical implications, a comparison of these two divergent treatments was pursued. This systematic review investigated both approaches in chronic aphasia at the levels of impairment, participation and quality of life. After a systematic search, the level of evidence and methodological quality were rated. Meta-analysis was conducted on 14 single case experimental designs using Tau-U, while heterogeneity in the four group designs precluded meta-analysis. Results showed that high-quality research was limited; however, findings were broadly positive for both approaches with neither being judged as clearly superior. Most studies examined impairment-based outcomes without considering participation or quality of life. The application and definition of constraint varied significantly between studies. Both constraint and multimodal therapies are promising for chronic post-stroke aphasia, but there is a need for larger, more rigorously conducted studies. The interpretation of "constraint" also requires clearer reporting.

show abstract

Improving research outcome measurement in aphasia: Development of a core outcome set

Cited by 5 publications

References 62 publications

The Relationship Between Confrontation Naming and Story Gist Production in Aphasia

The Relationship Between Confrontation Naming and Story Gist Production in Aphasia

Complexity in measuring outcomes after communication partner training: alignment between goals of intervention and methods of evaluation

Constraint and multimodal approaches to therapy for chronic aphasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About