Assessment of Aphasia Across the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Using an iPad-Based Application
Assessment of Aphasia Across the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Using an iPad-Based Application
复制标题
DOI：
10.1089/tmj.2016.0072
复制
发表时间：
2017-04-01
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Koh, Gerald Choon-Huat
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Guo, Yiting Emily;Togher, Leanne;Koh, Gerald Choon-Huat
背景：Access2Aphasia(TM)是一种基于iPad(TM)的失语症评估应用程序，它允许失语症患者(PWA)和语音语言病理学家(SLP)之间的实时视听交流，并使用支持的对话技术。本研究旨在建立Access2失语症在国际功能、残疾和健康分类(ICF)中评估失语症的可靠性，并将其与面对面(FTF)评估进行比较。材料和方法：30名PWA被随机分为两种情况：在线引导和FTF评估。在线小组的参与者在自己家里使用Access2Aphasia(TM)进行远程评估，而FTF SLP同时进行静默评分。FTF组的参与者使用标准的管理材料对FTF进行评估。评估包括语言处理活动心理语言评估(PALPA)和失语症生活评估(ALA)的两个分测试，以使结果能够涵盖ICF领域。消费者对Access2失语症的看法来自PWA和在线领导小组中的研究SLP。结果：Kappa统计显示在线SLP和FTF SLP之间存在中等到几乎完美的一致性(k=0.71-1.00)。评价员和评价员之间的信度非常好(ICC=0.99-1.00)，与在线引导和FTF条件下的信度相当。在线领导小组中的PWA和研究SLP都报告了对总体体验的满意，研究SLP提供了改善Access2失语症的建议。结论：本研究支持在线环境下跨ICF提供基于iPad的失语症评估，其可靠性与FTF评估相当。未来的研究有必要支持开发基于iPad的失语症评估和治疗，作为PWA的替代服务提供方式。
Background: Access2Aphasia (TM) is an iPad (TM)-based aphasia assessment application that enables real-time audiovisual communication between people with aphasia (PWA) and speech-language pathologists (SLPs), and the use of supported conversation techniques. This study aimed to establish the reliability of aphasia assessment across the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) using Access2Aphasia, and compare it with face-to-face (FTF) assessment. Consumer perspectives of Access2Aphasia were also examined.Materials and Methods: Thirty PWA were randomized into two conditions: online-led and FTF assessment. Participants in the online-led group were assessed remotely using Access2Aphasia (TM) in their own homes, while an FTF SLP scored silently simultaneously. Participants in the FTF group were assessed FTF using standard administration materials. Assessment included two subtests of the Psycholinguistic Assessment of Language Processing Activities (PALPA) and the Assessment of Living with Aphasia (ALA) to allow for outcomes to be captured across the ICF domains. Consumer perspectives on Access2Aphasia were obtained from both PWA and research SLPs in the online-led group.Results: Kappa statistics indicated moderate to almost perfect agreement between online and FTF SLPs (k = 0.71-1.00). Intrarater and interrater reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.99-1.00) and equivalent for the online-led and FTF conditions. Both PWA and research SLPs in the online-led group reported being satisfied with the experience overall, with suggestions provided by research SLPs to improve Access2Aphasia.Conclusion: This study supports the provision of iPad-based aphasia assessments across the ICF in the online environment, with comparable reliability to FTF assessments. Future research is warranted to support the development of iPad-based aphasia assessment and treatment as an alternative mode of service delivery to PWA.