The Value of Volunteers : Enhancing Communication Practice and Participation For Clients With Aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Title: THE VALUE OF VOLUNTEERS: ENHANCING COMMUNICATION PRACTICE AND PARTICIPATION FOR CLIENTS WITH APHASIAAuthors:Lauren Edwards, R.SLP, Carlee Juurakko, R.SLP, and Andrea Simioni, R.SLPInpatient Neurorehabilitation Unit, Carewest Dr. Vernon Fanning Centre, Calgary, Alberta, CanadaDisclosure of Conflict of Interest: NoneAbstract Topic: #16 Multidisciplinary Clinical RehabilitationBackground: The Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations (2015) recommend that treatment for aphasia include participation in conversation groups. Conversation groups can be guided by trained volunteers overseen by a Speech-Language Pathologist (SLP) to supplement the intensity of therapy during hospitalization (Evidence level B). Supported Conversation for Adults with Aphasia (SCAu2122) is an evidence-based set of techniques developed by the Aphasia Institute to facilitate communication for adults with aphasia (Kagan, 1998). A volunteer conversation partner program incorporating SCAu2122 training was developed on our inpatient rehabilitation unit. Methods:Volunteers were recruited through a local university and through word-of-mouth. Volunteers completed a general SCAu2122 Workshop (Module 1) and participated in direct one-on-one conversation training with a client with aphasia and an SLP. SLPs evaluated each volunteer using the Aphasia Instituteu2019s Measure of Skill in Supported Conversation (MSC). Volunteers were assigned to be one-on-one conversation partners or to facilitate a conversation group. Volunteers and clients completed questionnaires to provide feedback on their experiences with the volunteer program.Results: Six volunteers were recruited and trained in the volunteer conversation program. A weekly conversation group as well as one-on-one conversations occurred outside of regularly scheduled therapy times. Group and one-on-one conversations supplemented therapy intensity on our unit. Clients and volunteers reported positive experiences with the program.Conclusion:The volunteer conversation program was beneficial for our clients with aphasia. More volunteers should be recruited and trained as conversation partners for continuation of the program.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".