Telepractice Assessments for Individuals with Aphasia: A Systematic Review.

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.