Evaluating Cognitive-Linguistic Approaches to Interventions for Aphasia Within the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System

The Flu-ID: A New Evidence-Based Method of Assessing Fluency in Aphasia

PURPOSE

Assessing fluency in aphasia is diagnostically important for determining aphasia type and severity and therapeutically important for determining appropriate treatment targets. However, wide variability in the measures and criteria used to assess fluency, as revealed by a recent survey of clinicians (Gordon & Clough, 2022), results in poor reliability. Furthermore, poor specificity in many fluency measures makes it difficult to identify the underlying impairments. Here, we introduce the Flu-ID Aphasia, an evidence-based tool that provides a more informative method of assessing fluency by capturing the range of behaviors that can affect the flow of speech in aphasia.

METHOD

The development of the Flu-ID was based on prior evidence about factors underlying fluency (Clough & Gordon, 2020; Gordon & Clough, 2020) and clinical perceptions about the measurement of fluency (Gordon & Clough, 2022). Clinical utility is maximized by automated counting of fluency behaviors in an Excel template. Reliability is maximized by outlining thorough guidelines for transcription and coding. Eighteen narrative samples representing a range of fluency were coded independently by the authors to examine the Flu-ID's utility, reliability, and validity.

RESULTS

Overall reliability was very good, with point-to-point agreement of 86% between coders. Ten of the 12 dimensions showed good to excellent reliability. Validity analyses indicated that Flu-ID scores were similar to clinician ratings on some dimensions, but differed on others. Possible reasons and implications of the discrepancies are discussed, along with opportunities for improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The Flu-ID assesses fluency in aphasia using a consistent and comprehensive set of measures and semi-automated procedures to generate individual fluency profiles. The profiles generated in the current study illustrate how similar ratings of fluency can arise from different underlying impairments. Supplemental materials include an analysis template, extensive guidelines for transcription and coding, a completed sample, and a quick reference guide.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.27078199.

Barriers and facilitators to outcome measurement and treatment practices in aphasia rehabilitation in the USA: a mixed methods approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework

PURPOSE

To identify clinician-perceived barriers and facilitators to the delivery of outcome measurement and evidence-based treatment practices and integration of these practices in aphasia rehabilitation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a convergent mixed methods design, aphasia clinicians (n = 87) across care settings in the United States completed an online survey designed within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Participants responded to open-ended questions and rated Likert scale statements. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis and quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Factors related to the TDF domain of "environmental context and resources" (priority and productivity demands; characteristics of resources) were cited as primary barriers in 70% of qualitative responses for both outcome and treatment practices and were consistent with Likert rating statements. Facilitators were associated with TDF domains of "memory, attention, decision-making" (decision-making processes), "knowledge" (awareness of evidence) and "social influences" (client and caregiver preferences).

CONCLUSIONS

Organizational-level factors and the misalignment of the research evidence with clinical needs are barriers to delivering evidence-based care in aphasia rehabilitation. Theoretically informed strategies such as establishing organizational infrastructure for practice change, developing clinically relevant evidence through research-practice partnerships, and implementing algorithms to support clinical decision-making can address barriers and leverage facilitators.

Self-Improved Language Production in Nonfluent Aphasia Through Automated Recursive Self-Feedback

BACKGROUND

Persons with nonfluent aphasia (PWNA) use feedback from external agents (e.g., speech-language pathologists) and self-feedback to improve their language production. The extent to which PWNA can improve their language production using their self-feedback alone is underexplored. In a proof-of-concept study, we developed an automated recursive self-feedback procedure to demonstrate the extent to which two PWNA who used self-feedback alone improved their production of sentences from trained and untrained scripts. In the current study, we use the Rehabilitation Response Specification System as a framework to replicate our initial findings.

METHOD

We tested the effects of two treatments: script production with recursive self-feedback and script production with external feedback in four persons with chronic nonfluent aphasia. We compared the effects of treatment by measuring percent script produced, speaking rate, and speech initiation latency of trained and untrained scripts. The participants received the treatments remotely through mini tablets using two versions of a mobile app we developed. All the participants received each treatment intensively for 14 sessions across 2-3 weeks. We estimated clinical improvements of production of sentences from trained and untrained scripts through nonoverlap of all pairs analysis of performance pretreatment and posttreatment.

RESULTS

Both treatments improved PWNA's language production. Recursive self-feedback improved speaking rate and speech initiation latency, which generalized to untrained scripts in all participants. External feedback treatment did not generalize to improvement in speaking rate in two participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirm our initial evidence that PWNA can self-improve their sentence production from scripts through recursive self-feedback. This novel procedure enables PWNA to autonomously enhance their language production over time. Given the evidence and the mechanics of the procedure, we propose that its utility is not constrained by linguistic idiosyncrasies across cultures. Consequently, it has the potential to bypass linguistic barriers to aphasia care.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.27007060.

Incorporating Metacognitive Strategy Training Into Semantic Treatment Promotes Restitutive and Substitutive Gains in Naming: A Single-Subject Investigation

PURPOSE

This study tested the effectiveness of a modified semantic feature analysis (SFA) treatment protocol that incorporated metacognitive strategy training (MST). Regarding its restitutive component, SFA most reliably results in improved word retrieval for treated items and untreated, semantically related items, but evidence of response generalization is often small/inconsistent. Regarding its substitutive component, SFA is thought to facilitate successful communication via habituation of the SFA circumlocution strategy. However, repeated practice with SFA's strategy in the absence of direct MST may not result in independent strategy use and/or generalization. Furthermore, people with aphasia's independent use of the SFA strategy in moments of anomia is presently underreported. To address these limitations, we incorporated MST into SFA and directly measured substitutive outcomes.

METHOD

Four people with aphasia participated in 24 treatment sessions of SFA + MST in a single-subject, A-B experimental design with repeated measurements. We measured word retrieval accuracy, strategy use, and explicit strategy knowledge. We calculated effect sizes to measure changes in word retrieval accuracy and strategy use and used visual inspection to assess gains in explicit strategy knowledge from pre- to posttreatment and retention.

RESULTS

Participants achieved marginally small to medium effects in word retrieval accuracy for treated; untreated, semantically related; and untreated, semantically unrelated items and marginally small to large effects in independent strategy use. Explicit strategy knowledge was variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Across participants, SFA + MST yielded positive changes in word retrieval accuracy or strategy use, or both. Positive changes in word retrieval accuracy were comparable to other SFA studies. Positive changes in strategy use demonstrate preliminary evidence of this treatment's ability to yield restitutive and substitutive gains. Overall, this study offers preliminary evidence of SFA + MST's effectiveness and highlights the importance of directly measuring SFA's substitutive outcomes, which showed that people with aphasia can respond to this treatment in multiple successful ways-not just improved target word production.

Comparator Groups in ICU-Based Studies of Physical Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of 125 Studies

To characterize comparator groups (CGs) in ICU-based studies of physical rehabilitation (PR), including the type, content, and reporting.

DATA SOURCES

We followed a five-stage scoping review methodology, searching five databases from inception to June 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were completed independently, in duplicate.

STUDY SELECTION

We screened studies by title and abstract, then full-text. We included prospective studies with greater than or equal to two arms enrolling mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 yr), with any planned PR intervention initiated in the ICU.

DATA EXTRACTION

We conducted a quantitative content analysis of authors' description of CG type and content. We categorized similar CG types (e.g., usual care), classified content into unique activities (e.g., positioning), and summarized these data using counts (proportions). We assessed reporting using Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT; proportion of reported items/total applicable).

DATA SYNTHESIS

One hundred twenty-five studies were included, representing 127 CGs. PR was planned in 112 CGs (88.2%; 110 studies), representing four types: usual care (n = 81, 63.8%), alternative treatment than usual care (e.g., different from intervention; n = 18, 14.2%), alternative treatment plus usual care (n = 7, 5.5%), and sham (n = 6, 4.7%). Of 112 CGs with planned PR, 90 CGs (88 studies) reported 60 unique activities, most commonly passive range of motion (n = 47, 52.2%). The remaining 22 CGs (19.6%; 22 studies) reported vague descriptions. PR was not planned in 12 CGs (9.5%; 12 studies), and three CGs (2.4%; three studies) reported no details. Studies reported a median (Q1-Q3) of 46.6% (25.0-73.3%) CERT items. Overall, 20.0% of studies reported no detail to understand planned CG activities.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common type of CG was usual care. We identified heterogeneity in planned activities and CERT reporting deficiencies. Our results could help guide the selection, design, and reporting of CGs in future ICU-based PR studies.

Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System: Identifying Barriers, Facilitators, and Strategies for Implementation in Research, Education, and Clinical Care

OBJECTIVE

To explore rehabilitation professionals' experiences and perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System (RTSS) in research, education, and clinical care.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey with free text and binary responses was completed by rehabilitation professionals. Survey data were analyzed with a deductive approach of directed content analysis using 2 implementation science frameworks: Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC).

SETTING

Rehabilitation professionals across research, educational, and clinical settings.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and eleven rehabilitation professionals-including speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, physicians, psychologists, researchers, and clinic directors-who explored possible uses or applications of the RTSS for clinical care, education, or research (N=111).

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency of reported CFIR barriers and facilitators, as well as keywords related to CFIR and ERIC constructs.

RESULTS

The barriers and facilitating strategies differed according to the end-users' intended use, that is, research, education, or clinical. Overall, the 4 most frequently encountered CFIR barriers were the RTSS's complexity, a lack of available RTSS resources, reduced access to knowledge and information about the RTSS, and limited knowledge and beliefs about the RTSS. The ERIC-CFIR matching tool identified 7 ERIC strategies to address these barriers, which include conducting educational meetings, developing and distributing educational materials, accessing new funding, capturing and sharing local knowledge, identifying and preparing champions, and promoting adaptability.

CONCLUSIONS

When attempting to use the RTSS, rehabilitation professionals commonly encountered barriers to understanding and skillfully using the framework. Theory-driven implementation strategies have been identified that have potential for addressing the RTSS's complexity and lack of educational and skill-building resources. Future work can develop the identified implementation strategies and evaluate their effects on RTSS implementation.

Errorless, Errorful, and Retrieval Practice for Naming Treatment in Aphasia: A Scoping Review of Learning Mechanisms and Treatment Ingredients

PURPOSE

Increasingly, mechanisms of learning are being considered during aphasia rehabilitation. Well-characterized learning mechanisms can inform "how" interventions should be administered to maximize the acquisition and retention of treatment gains. This systematic scoping review mapped hypothesized mechanisms of action (MoAs) and treatment ingredients in three learning-based approaches targeting naming in aphasia: errorless learning (ELess), errorful learning (EFul), and retrieval practice (RP). The rehabilitation treatment specification system was leveraged to describe available literature and identify knowledge gaps within a unified framework.

METHOD

PubMed and CINHAL were searched for studies that compared ELess, EFul, and/or RP for naming in aphasia. Independent reviewers extracted data on proposed MoAs, treatment ingredients, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Twelve studies compared ELess and EFul, six studies compared ELess and RP, and one study compared RP and EFul. Hebbian learning, gated Hebbian learning, effortful retrieval, and models of incremental learning via lexical access were proposed as MoAs. To maximize treatment outcomes within theorized MoAs, researchers manipulated study ingredients including cues, scheduling, and feedback. Outcomes in comparative effectiveness studies were examined to identify ingredients that may influence learning. Individual-level variables, such as cognitive and linguistic abilities, may affect treatment response; however, findings were inconsistent across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant knowledge gaps were identified and include (a) which MoAs operate during ELess, EFul, and RP; (b) which ingredients are active and engage specific MoAs; and (c) how individual-level variables may drive treatment administration. Theory-driven research can support or refute MoAs and active ingredients enabling clinicians to modify treatments within theoretical frameworks.

Examining Dose Frameworks to Improve Aphasia Rehabilitation Research

The effect of treatment dose on recovery of post-stroke aphasia is not well understood. Inconsistent conceptualization, measurement, and reporting of the multiple dimensions of dose hinders efforts to evaluate dose-response relations in aphasia rehabilitation research. We review the state of dose conceptualization in aphasia rehabilitation and compare the applicability of 3 existing dose frameworks to aphasia rehabilitation research-the Frequency, Intensity, Time, and Type (FITT) principle, the Cumulative Intervention Intensity (CII) framework, and the Multidimensional Dose Articulation Framework (MDAF). The MDAF specifies dose in greater detail than the CII framework and the FITT principle. On this basis, we selected the MDAF to be applied to 3 diverse examples of aphasia rehabilitation research. We next critically examined applicability of the MDAF to aphasia rehabilitation research and identified the next steps needed to systematically conceptualize, measure, and report the multiple dimensions of dose, which together can progress understanding of the effect of treatment dose on outcomes for people with aphasia after stroke. Further consideration is required to enable application of this framework to aphasia interventions that focus on participation, personal, and environmental interventions and to understand how the construct of episode difficulty applies across therapeutic activities used in aphasia interventions.

Treatment of the Linguistic and Temporal Components of Lexical Activation to Improve Word Retrieval in Aphasia

Current approaches to treatments for word processing impairments in aphasia emphasize two components to target, the linguistic content, semantic or phonological representations of words, and the processing component, access to and retrieval of those representations. In this study, we explore these two components of a treatment to improve lexical activation that supports access and retrieval of word representations. Five people with aphasia participated. The treatment task was repetition of concrete word pairs after a 5-s response delay which was intended to provide practice in maintaining activation of the words for that 5-s period before reproducing them. Two of the five participants demonstrated a difficulty in maintaining activation of single words in repetition, with accuracy decreasing significantly after the 5-s interval. The treatment was applied to all participants, however, to determine if its benefit was specific to those with the activation maintenance impairment. Results confirmed that the activation maintenance treatment in the context of this repetition task led to more treatment gains for the two participants who demonstrated this specific impairment. They made gains on four of the nine measures compared to improvements on one to two measures for the other participants. A second question addressed in this study was the relative importance of the item component (linguistic content) of the treatment and the processing component, maintenance of activation. To that end, there were two conditions of treatment probes, (1) repeated content for all treatment, immediate post-treatment and 3-month maintenance probes and (2) novel content for probes in these three phases of treatment. Only one participant showed significant improvement in treatment when items were novel for all probes. We discuss the possibility that this outcome reflects a more specific deficit in the temporal processing component of lexical activation compared to the two other participants who showed better performance on probes with repeated items in treatment and post-treatment phases. Clinical implications of this study and directions of future research are discussed.