评估失语症患者的功能性沟通:正式和非正式措施的范围审查

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Lauren Hammond, Thomas Christensen, Julius Fridriksson, Dirk B. den Ouden
{"title":"评估失语症患者的功能性沟通:正式和非正式措施的范围审查","authors":"Lauren Hammond,&nbsp;Thomas Christensen,&nbsp;Julius Fridriksson,&nbsp;Dirk B. den Ouden","doi":"10.1111/1460-6984.70051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The communicative effectiveness of persons with aphasia (PWA) has been assessed through a range of functional communication measures. However, variability in interpretations of what is covered by the term “functional communication” may have resulted in challenges to the implementation of appropriate and consistent patient-centred evaluations, with different measures focusing on subsets of the components of functional communication.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>This paper aims to examine the current literature on informal and formal evaluation of functional communication in PWA and to identify gaps in currently available assessment tools.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This scoping review included studies published between 1965 and 2024 that assessed functional communication in PWA, excluding studies focused on non-aphasic populations or impairment-based assessments without real-world application. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO using predefined search terms. Of the 541 studies identified, 67 met the inclusion criteria after title/abstract and full-text screening. Measures were categorized as formal (standardized) or informal (non-standardized) and evaluated based on contextuality, multimodality, and interactiveness. Informal assessments also emphasized life participation, quality of life, augmentative alternative communication (AAC) strategies, conversational discourse, the informativeness and complexity of language use, and real-world communicative transactions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>In the 67 studies included in the literature review, 32 functional communication assessments were identified across the categories of informal and formal evaluation. Informal assessments (28) included patient-reported, clinician-reported, observer-reported, and performance-based outcome measures. Formal functional communication assessments (4) included systematically normed instruments provided to PWA under controlled conditions, yielding a diagnosis or level of specified functional communication capability. Of the reviewed informal and formal measures, a limited quantity met all criteria for a comprehensive assessment of functional communication in aphasia, namely, being contextual, multimodal, and interactive.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Existing assessments reveal gaps in the comprehensive evaluation of functional communication. The findings emphasize the need for standardized, multimodal, and context-sensitive tools that better reflect the dynamic, real-world communicative needs of PWA.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS</h3>\n \n <div><i>What is already known on the subject</i>\n \n <ul>\n \n <li>Functional communication is recognized as a cornerstone for assessing real-world abilities in persons with aphasia (PWA). However, current assessments vary in their design and implementation, reflecting the diverse approaches taken across clinical and research settings.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n \n <div><i>What this paper adds to existing knowledge</i>\n \n <ul>\n \n <li>This study emphasizes the importance of integrating contextuality, multimodality, and interactiveness into functional communication assessments. It highlights the valuable contributions of informal tools, which offer adaptability and focus on life participation, and identifies opportunities to enhance formal tools to better address real-world communication needs.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n \n <div><i>What are the potential or clinical implications of this work?</i>\n \n <ul>\n \n <li>Developing standardized, holistic tools for functional communication assessment will provide clinicians and researchers with more effective resources to evaluate and support PWA. These advancements will promote consistency in practice, enable meaningful comparisons across studies, and ultimately improve life participation and communication outcomes for PWA.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":49182,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders","volume":"60 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1460-6984.70051","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Functional Communication in Persons With Aphasia: A Scoping Review of Formal and Informal Measures\",\"authors\":\"Lauren Hammond,&nbsp;Thomas Christensen,&nbsp;Julius Fridriksson,&nbsp;Dirk B. den Ouden\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1460-6984.70051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The communicative effectiveness of persons with aphasia (PWA) has been assessed through a range of functional communication measures. However, variability in interpretations of what is covered by the term “functional communication” may have resulted in challenges to the implementation of appropriate and consistent patient-centred evaluations, with different measures focusing on subsets of the components of functional communication.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aims</h3>\\n \\n <p>This paper aims to examine the current literature on informal and formal evaluation of functional communication in PWA and to identify gaps in currently available assessment tools.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This scoping review included studies published between 1965 and 2024 that assessed functional communication in PWA, excluding studies focused on non-aphasic populations or impairment-based assessments without real-world application. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO using predefined search terms. Of the 541 studies identified, 67 met the inclusion criteria after title/abstract and full-text screening. Measures were categorized as formal (standardized) or informal (non-standardized) and evaluated based on contextuality, multimodality, and interactiveness. Informal assessments also emphasized life participation, quality of life, augmentative alternative communication (AAC) strategies, conversational discourse, the informativeness and complexity of language use, and real-world communicative transactions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Contribution</h3>\\n \\n <p>In the 67 studies included in the literature review, 32 functional communication assessments were identified across the categories of informal and formal evaluation. Informal assessments (28) included patient-reported, clinician-reported, observer-reported, and performance-based outcome measures. Formal functional communication assessments (4) included systematically normed instruments provided to PWA under controlled conditions, yielding a diagnosis or level of specified functional communication capability. Of the reviewed informal and formal measures, a limited quantity met all criteria for a comprehensive assessment of functional communication in aphasia, namely, being contextual, multimodal, and interactive.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Existing assessments reveal gaps in the comprehensive evaluation of functional communication. The findings emphasize the need for standardized, multimodal, and context-sensitive tools that better reflect the dynamic, real-world communicative needs of PWA.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS</h3>\\n \\n <div><i>What is already known on the subject</i>\\n \\n <ul>\\n \\n <li>Functional communication is recognized as a cornerstone for assessing real-world abilities in persons with aphasia (PWA). However, current assessments vary in their design and implementation, reflecting the diverse approaches taken across clinical and research settings.</li>\\n </ul>\\n </div>\\n \\n <div><i>What this paper adds to existing knowledge</i>\\n \\n <ul>\\n \\n <li>This study emphasizes the importance of integrating contextuality, multimodality, and interactiveness into functional communication assessments. It highlights the valuable contributions of informal tools, which offer adaptability and focus on life participation, and identifies opportunities to enhance formal tools to better address real-world communication needs.</li>\\n </ul>\\n </div>\\n \\n <div><i>What are the potential or clinical implications of this work?</i>\\n \\n <ul>\\n \\n <li>Developing standardized, holistic tools for functional communication assessment will provide clinicians and researchers with more effective resources to evaluate and support PWA. These advancements will promote consistency in practice, enable meaningful comparisons across studies, and ultimately improve life participation and communication outcomes for PWA.</li>\\n </ul>\\n </div>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49182,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders\",\"volume\":\"60 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1460-6984.70051\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1460-6984.70051\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1460-6984.70051","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究背景通过一系列的功能性沟通测量来评估失语症患者的沟通效果。然而,对“功能性沟通”一词所涵盖内容的解释存在差异,这可能导致实施适当和一致的以患者为中心的评估面临挑战,不同的措施侧重于功能性沟通组成部分的子集。本文旨在研究目前关于PWA功能沟通非正式和正式评估的文献,并找出现有评估工具的差距。方法:本综述纳入了1965年至2024年间发表的评估PWA功能性沟通的研究,排除了非失语人群或没有实际应用的基于损伤评估的研究。在PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus和PsycINFO中使用预定义的搜索词进行系统搜索。在541项研究中,67项符合标题/摘要和全文筛选后的纳入标准。措施被分类为正式(标准化)或非正式(非标准化),并根据情境性、多模态和互动性进行评估。非正式评估还强调了生活参与、生活质量、补充性替代交流(AAC)策略、会话话语、语言使用的信息性和复杂性以及现实世界的交际交易。在文献综述中包含的67项研究中,确定了非正式和正式评估类别中的32种功能沟通评估。非正式评估(28)包括患者报告、临床报告、观察者报告和基于绩效的结果测量。正式的功能沟通评估(4)包括在受控条件下向PWA提供系统规范的工具,产生诊断或指定功能沟通能力的水平。在审查的非正式和正式措施中,有限数量的措施符合失语症功能性沟通综合评估的所有标准,即上下文,多模式和互动。结论现有的评估显示了功能沟通综合评价的不足。研究结果强调需要标准化、多模式和上下文敏感的工具,以更好地反映PWA的动态、现实世界的交流需求。功能性沟通被认为是评估失语症患者(PWA)真实世界能力的基石。然而,目前的评估在设计和实施上各不相同,反映了临床和研究环境中采取的不同方法。本研究强调将情境性、多模态和交互性纳入功能性交际评估的重要性。它强调了非正式工具的宝贵贡献,这些工具提供了适应性和对生活参与的关注,并确定了加强正式工具以更好地满足现实世界通信需求的机会。这项工作的潜在或临床意义是什么?开发标准化、全面的功能沟通评估工具将为临床医生和研究人员提供更有效的资源来评估和支持PWA。这些进步将促进实践的一致性,使研究之间能够进行有意义的比较,并最终改善PWA的生活参与和交流结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Assessing Functional Communication in Persons With Aphasia: A Scoping Review of Formal and Informal Measures

Assessing Functional Communication in Persons With Aphasia: A Scoping Review of Formal and Informal Measures

Background

The communicative effectiveness of persons with aphasia (PWA) has been assessed through a range of functional communication measures. However, variability in interpretations of what is covered by the term “functional communication” may have resulted in challenges to the implementation of appropriate and consistent patient-centred evaluations, with different measures focusing on subsets of the components of functional communication.

Aims

This paper aims to examine the current literature on informal and formal evaluation of functional communication in PWA and to identify gaps in currently available assessment tools.

Methods

This scoping review included studies published between 1965 and 2024 that assessed functional communication in PWA, excluding studies focused on non-aphasic populations or impairment-based assessments without real-world application. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO using predefined search terms. Of the 541 studies identified, 67 met the inclusion criteria after title/abstract and full-text screening. Measures were categorized as formal (standardized) or informal (non-standardized) and evaluated based on contextuality, multimodality, and interactiveness. Informal assessments also emphasized life participation, quality of life, augmentative alternative communication (AAC) strategies, conversational discourse, the informativeness and complexity of language use, and real-world communicative transactions.

Main Contribution

In the 67 studies included in the literature review, 32 functional communication assessments were identified across the categories of informal and formal evaluation. Informal assessments (28) included patient-reported, clinician-reported, observer-reported, and performance-based outcome measures. Formal functional communication assessments (4) included systematically normed instruments provided to PWA under controlled conditions, yielding a diagnosis or level of specified functional communication capability. Of the reviewed informal and formal measures, a limited quantity met all criteria for a comprehensive assessment of functional communication in aphasia, namely, being contextual, multimodal, and interactive.

Conclusions

Existing assessments reveal gaps in the comprehensive evaluation of functional communication. The findings emphasize the need for standardized, multimodal, and context-sensitive tools that better reflect the dynamic, real-world communicative needs of PWA.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject
  • Functional communication is recognized as a cornerstone for assessing real-world abilities in persons with aphasia (PWA). However, current assessments vary in their design and implementation, reflecting the diverse approaches taken across clinical and research settings.
What this paper adds to existing knowledge
  • This study emphasizes the importance of integrating contextuality, multimodality, and interactiveness into functional communication assessments. It highlights the valuable contributions of informal tools, which offer adaptability and focus on life participation, and identifies opportunities to enhance formal tools to better address real-world communication needs.
What are the potential or clinical implications of this work?
  • Developing standardized, holistic tools for functional communication assessment will provide clinicians and researchers with more effective resources to evaluate and support PWA. These advancements will promote consistency in practice, enable meaningful comparisons across studies, and ultimately improve life participation and communication outcomes for PWA.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (IJLCD) is the official journal of the Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists. The Journal welcomes submissions on all aspects of speech, language, communication disorders and speech and language therapy. It provides a forum for the exchange of information and discussion of issues of clinical or theoretical relevance in the above areas.
×
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