ASSESSMENT PRACTICES OF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS FOR COGNITIVE COMMUNICATION IMPAIRMENT AFTER TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY

Umarah Khadim, Shumaila Zubair, Rabia Zubair
{"title":"ASSESSMENT PRACTICES OF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS FOR COGNITIVE COMMUNICATION IMPAIRMENT AFTER TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY","authors":"Umarah Khadim, Shumaila Zubair, Rabia Zubair","doi":"10.36283/pjr.zu.13.1/014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background of the Study: The aim of the present research was to examine the assessment practices of Speech-Language Pathologists for Cognitive Communication Disorders after Traumatic Brain Injury. \nMethodology: It was a cross-sectional survey method, a convenient sampling technique. Research was carried out from January 2021 to June 2021. The sample size was n=21, out of which n= 9 (42.8%) participants, each from Rawalpindi and Islamabad n= 3 (14.4%) participants from Lahore filled in their responses. Medium; being Online, the questionnaire was distributed either through email, WhatsApp or Facebook MessengerApp. SLPs who were undergraduates or who had no experience working with TBI clients were excluded. Questionnaire included 12 items. Responses of research participants were recorded using Google Forms and presented in the form of n (%). The data were analyzed using descriptive analysis, and chi-square analysis was performed to confirm the association between settings, city of practice and years of experience through Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 22.0.\nResults: Speech-Language Pathologists reported that they routinely assessed (62% each) Receptive and Expressive communication. However; less than half of the participants routinely evaluated domains like verbal pragmatic skills (43.3%), functional communication (33.3%) and phonemic awareness (33.3%). SLPs assessed their clients by employing tests like MoCA (55.62%), Quick Aphasia Battery (18.75%), Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA Protocol) (14.35%) and a combination of Formal (48%) and Informal (52%) clinical interviews. \nConclusion: Informal discourse assessment is incorporated more frequently as compared to informal discourse evaluation in assessment practices of Speech-Language pathologists of Pakistan for cognitive communication impairment followed by traumatic brain injury.\nKeywords: Brain injuries, cognitive dysfunction, language therapy, rehabilitation, speech therapy, traumatic.","PeriodicalId":498021,"journal":{"name":"Pakistan journal of rehabilitation","volume":"37 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pakistan journal of rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36283/pjr.zu.13.1/014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background of the Study: The aim of the present research was to examine the assessment practices of Speech-Language Pathologists for Cognitive Communication Disorders after Traumatic Brain Injury. Methodology: It was a cross-sectional survey method, a convenient sampling technique. Research was carried out from January 2021 to June 2021. The sample size was n=21, out of which n= 9 (42.8%) participants, each from Rawalpindi and Islamabad n= 3 (14.4%) participants from Lahore filled in their responses. Medium; being Online, the questionnaire was distributed either through email, WhatsApp or Facebook MessengerApp. SLPs who were undergraduates or who had no experience working with TBI clients were excluded. Questionnaire included 12 items. Responses of research participants were recorded using Google Forms and presented in the form of n (%). The data were analyzed using descriptive analysis, and chi-square analysis was performed to confirm the association between settings, city of practice and years of experience through Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 22.0. Results: Speech-Language Pathologists reported that they routinely assessed (62% each) Receptive and Expressive communication. However; less than half of the participants routinely evaluated domains like verbal pragmatic skills (43.3%), functional communication (33.3%) and phonemic awareness (33.3%). SLPs assessed their clients by employing tests like MoCA (55.62%), Quick Aphasia Battery (18.75%), Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA Protocol) (14.35%) and a combination of Formal (48%) and Informal (52%) clinical interviews. Conclusion: Informal discourse assessment is incorporated more frequently as compared to informal discourse evaluation in assessment practices of Speech-Language pathologists of Pakistan for cognitive communication impairment followed by traumatic brain injury. Keywords: Brain injuries, cognitive dysfunction, language therapy, rehabilitation, speech therapy, traumatic.
言语和语言病理学家对创伤性脑损伤后认知交流障碍的评估方法
研究背景:本研究旨在考察言语治疗师对创伤性脑损伤后认知交流障碍的评估方法。研究方法:采用横断面调查法,方便抽样技术。研究时间为 2021 年 1 月至 2021 年 6 月。样本量为 21 人,其中 9 人(42.8%)来自拉瓦尔品第和伊斯兰堡,3 人(14.4%)来自拉合尔。调查方式:在线调查,问卷通过电子邮件、WhatsApp 或 Facebook MessengerApp 发放。本科生或没有创伤性脑损伤患者工作经验的 SLPs 被排除在外。问卷包括 12 个项目。研究参与者的回答使用谷歌表格进行记录,并以 n (%) 的形式呈现。数据采用描述性分析法进行分析,并通过社会科学统计软件包(SPSS)22.0 版进行卡方分析,以确认工作环境、工作城市和工作年限之间的关联:言语病理学家表示,他们经常对接受性和表达性沟通进行评估(各占 62%)。然而,只有不到一半的参与者对言语语用技能(43.3%)、功能性沟通(33.3%)和音位意识(33.3%)等领域进行常规评估。语言康复师通过使用 MoCA(55.62%)、快速失语症测试(18.75%)、认知评估(LOTCA 协议)(14.35%)等测试以及正式(48%)和非正式(52%)临床访谈相结合的方式对客户进行评估。结论在巴基斯坦言语语言病理学家对脑外伤后认知交流障碍的评估实践中,非正式话语评估比非正式话语评估更常用:脑损伤、认知功能障碍、语言治疗、康复、言语治疗、创伤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信