A Preliminary Examination of a Novel Telepractice Screening Protocol for Poststroke Aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The delivery of telepractice interventions for people with poststroke aphasia has been found effective and feasible compared to traditional, in-person interventions; however, telepractice assessments, particularly screening protocols, which may foster convenient access to aphasia diagnostic services, have received limited examination within the aphasia literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine a novel telepractice screening protocol for people with poststroke aphasia that assesses both language and extralinguistic cognitive abilities via both performance-based and patient-reported measures. Method: Twenty-one participants with previously diagnosed poststroke aphasia completed the telepractice administration of the Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test (FAST), the Aphasia Impact Questionnaire-21 (AIQ-21), the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS), and the Cognitive-Communication Checklist for Acquired Brain Injury (CCCABI). Care partners of the participants completed the Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI). After the telepractice session, each participant completed a feasibility questionnaire to rate their overall experience. Results: All participants screened as having aphasia. Pearson correlation analyses yielded a strong positive relationship between OCS and FAST scores ( r = .74), a strong relationship between OCS and CCCABI scores ( r = −.71), and a moderate relationship between FAST and AIQ-21 scores ( r = −.35). Moderate relationships were noted between the performance-based measures and the CETI ( r = .30). The overall feasibility of telepractice administration was rated positively by each participant. No significant relationships were found between the feasibility responses and participant characteristics. Conclusions: Overall, the telepractice screening protocol yielded an effective and feasible way to identify poststroke aphasia. Similar to in-person administration of screening measures, it was more difficult to identify milder levels of aphasia severity. Future research should examine whether this telescreening protocol can identify poststroke aphasia within the broader stroke population.
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 | 0.033 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".