Telepractice Assessments for Individuals with Aphasia: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Current literature broadly demonstrates the effectiveness and feasibility of telepractice services for people with aphasia. However, the examination of telepractice assessments for people with aphasia is limited. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the current use of telepractice assessment protocols for people with aphasia. Specifically, the review sought to: (a) identify the assessments utilized in the aphasia telepractice literature; (b) appraise critically the quality of such investigations; and (c) evaluate critically the psychometric properties of the standardized tests used. Methods: A review of the literature published in English since 2000 was conducted in January 2023 by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. A total of 2,429 articles were screened. Two reviewers assessed records independently finding 11 articles eligible for inclusion. Data extraction was conducted once and validated by a second reviewer. Quality appraisal was carried out for the included studies as well as for the standardized testing measures used in these studies. Results: There was a lack of variation among the telepractice assessment protocols and aphasia tests used across all the included studies. That is, there was limited investigation of screening tests, discourse analysis, extralinguistic cognitive measures, and the use of patient-reported measures. Study characteristics lacked high-quality and free-of-bias examinations. Most standardized tests that were utilized exhibited poor validity and reliability properties. Conclusions: Overall, the current systematic review pointed to the need to investigate a wider range of aphasia assessment protocols that can be offered via telepractice. Moreover, more robust research designs are necessary to examine the variety of assessment tests and/or procedures that are available for in-person aphasia assessment services. Finally, given that many tests used in the included studies had psychometric property issues, the current review raised concerns regarding the use of these tests in research and clinical practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".