Summary of the Systematic Review

Article Citation

Assessment and Treatment of Cognition and Communication Skills in Adults With Acquired Brain Injury via Telepractice: A Systematic Review

Coleman, J. J., Frymark, T., et al. (2015).
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24(2), 295-315.
Go to Article

Sponsoring Body

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

Article Quality Ratings

Read about Our Rating Process

Indicators of Review Quality

  • Yes The review states a clearly focused question/aim.
  • Yes Criteria for inclusion of studies are provided.
  • Yes Search strategy described in sufficient detail for replication.
  • Yes Included studies are assessed for study quality.
  • Yes Quality assessments are reproducible.
  • Yes Characteristics of the included studies are provided.

Article Details

Description

This is a review of quasi-experimental or experimental research investigating the use of telepractice as compared to in-person service delivery to assess and treat motor speech, language, and cognitive impairments in adults following an acquired brain injury.

Questions/Aims Addressed

Assessment:

  1. For adults with ABI, what is the impact of telepractice versus in-person service delivery on SLP assessment of motor speech body function impairment?
  2. For adults with ABI, what is the impact of telepractice versus in-person service delivery on SLP assessment of motor speech activity limitations/participation restrictions?
  3. For adults with ABI, what is the impact of telepractice versus in-person service delivery on SLP assessment of language body function impairment?
  4. For adults with ABI, what is the impact of telepractice versus in-person service delivery on SLP assessment of language activity limitations/participation restrictions?
  5. For adults with ABI, what is the impact of telepractice versus in-person service delivery on SLP assessment of cognitive body function impairment?
  6. For adults with ABI, what is the impact of telepractice versus in-person service delivery on SLP assessment of cognitive activity limitations/participation restrictions?

Intervention:

  1. For adults with ABI, what is the impact of telepractice versus in-person service delivery on SLP intervention for motor speech body function impairment?
  2. For adults with ABI, what is the impact of telepractice versus in-person service delivery on SLP intervention for motor speech activity limitations/participation restrictions?
  3. For adults with ABI, what is the impact of telepractice versus in-person service delivery on SLP intervention for language body function impairment?
  4. For adults with ABI, what is the impact of telepractice versus in-person service delivery on SLP intervention for language activity limitations/participation restrictions?
  5. For adults with ABI, what is the impact of telepractice versus in-person service delivery on SLP intervention for cognitive body function impairment?
  6. For adults with ABI, what is the impact of telepractice versus in-person service delivery on SLP intervention for cognitive activity limitations/participation restrictions?

Population

Adults with acquired brain injury

Intervention/Assessment

Telepractice versus in-person service delivery

Number of Studies Included

10

Years Included

From 1980 to August 2013


Conclusions from This Systematic Review

What are Conclusions?

Go to Map

Assessment

Overall, participants expressed comfort and satisfaction with telepractice as a delivery model for speech-language pathology assessment and treatment. Some participants expressed indifference to service delivery method. Some stated their lack of Internet access at home would preclude their ability to receive telepractice services.

Keywords: Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice)

Results indicated equivalence of telepractice and in-person modalities for assessment of cognitive impairment in acquired brain injury. No studies were found for assessment of cognitive activity limitations/participation restrictions. 

Keywords: Cognition, Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice)

Assessment scores for language impairment in acquired brain injury were not significantly different between telepractice and in-person administration, suggesting equivalence of the two modalities. Significant (p = .04) differences between narrative writing assessment scores in telepractice versus in-practice assessments were found in one study. "However, the authors adopted a stringent alpha level of .01 due to the multiplicity of testing and, as such, did not consider this finding at the p = .04 level to be statistically significant" (p. 309).

Keywords: Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Language

Three studies compared telepractice and in-person assessments of motor speech for adults with acquired brain injury. High interrater reliability scores and a lack of statistically significant differences between test scores suggested equivalence between the assessment modalities for motor speech impairment. Exceptions were noted for the measurement of communication efficiency and word intelligibility which displayed statistically significant differences (or trending toward significant) between the assessment modalities. One study compared telepractice and in-person assessments of motor speech activity limitations/participation. Results from this study did not suggest equivalence between the assessment modalities. Interrater reliability was higher for telepractice than in-person assessment.

Keywords: Format (Group/Telepractice), Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Acquired Brain Injury, Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Speech/Voice

Treatment

Overall, participants expressed comfort and satisfaction with telepractice as a delivery model for speech-language pathology assessment and treatment. Some participants expressed indifference to service delivery method. Some stated their lack of Internet access at home would preclude their ability to receive telepractice services.

Keywords: Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice)

Three studies examined cognitive treatments with no differences found between in-person and remote conditions on cognitive impairments and activity limitations/participation restrictions. No studies examined motor speech or language treatments. Further research is warranted.

Keywords: Cognition, Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Cognitive Treatment (Not Otherwise Specified)

Service Delivery

Overall, participants expressed comfort and satisfaction with telepractice as a delivery model for speech-language pathology assessment and treatment. Some participants expressed indifference to service delivery method. Some stated their lack of Internet access at home would preclude their ability to receive telepractice services.

Keywords: Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice)

Three studies examined cognitive treatments with no differences found between in-person and remote conditions on cognitive impairments and activity limitations/participation restrictions. No studies examined motor speech or language treatments. Further research is warranted.

Keywords: Cognition, Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Cognitive Treatment (Not Otherwise Specified)

Results indicated equivalence of telepractice and in-person modalities for assessment of cognitive impairment in acquired brain injury. No studies were found for assessment of cognitive activity limitations/participation restrictions. 

Keywords: Cognition, Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice)

Assessment scores for language impairment in acquired brain injury were not significantly different between telepractice and in-person administration, suggesting equivalence of the two modalities. Significant (p = .04) differences between narrative writing assessment scores in telepractice versus in-practice assessments were found in one study. "However, the authors adopted a stringent alpha level of .01 due to the multiplicity of testing and, as such, did not consider this finding at the p = .04 level to be statistically significant" (p. 309).

Keywords: Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Language

Three studies compared telepractice and in-person assessments of motor speech for adults with acquired brain injury. High interrater reliability scores and a lack of statistically significant differences between test scores suggested equivalence between the assessment modalities for motor speech impairment. Exceptions were noted for the measurement of communication efficiency and word intelligibility which displayed statistically significant differences (or trending toward significant) between the assessment modalities. One study compared telepractice and in-person assessments of motor speech activity limitations/participation. Results from this study did not suggest equivalence between the assessment modalities. Interrater reliability was higher for telepractice than in-person assessment.

Keywords: Format (Group/Telepractice), Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Acquired Brain Injury, Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Speech/Voice

Go to Map

Assessment

Three studies compared telepractice and in-person assessments of motor speech for adults with acquired brain injury. High interrater reliability scores and a lack of statistically significant differences between test scores suggested equivalence between the assessment modalities for motor speech impairment. Exceptions were noted for the measurement of communication efficiency and word intelligibility which displayed statistically significant differences (or trending toward significant) between the assessment modalities. One study compared telepractice and in-person assessments of motor speech activity limitations/participation. Results from this study did not suggest equivalence between the assessment modalities. Interrater reliability was higher for telepractice than in-person assessment.

Keywords: Format (Group/Telepractice), Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Acquired Brain Injury, Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Speech/Voice

Service Delivery

Three studies compared telepractice and in-person assessments of motor speech for adults with acquired brain injury. High interrater reliability scores and a lack of statistically significant differences between test scores suggested equivalence between the assessment modalities for motor speech impairment. Exceptions were noted for the measurement of communication efficiency and word intelligibility which displayed statistically significant differences (or trending toward significant) between the assessment modalities. One study compared telepractice and in-person assessments of motor speech activity limitations/participation. Results from this study did not suggest equivalence between the assessment modalities. Interrater reliability was higher for telepractice than in-person assessment.

Keywords: Format (Group/Telepractice), Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Acquired Brain Injury, Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Speech/Voice

Go to Map

Assessment

Three studies compared telepractice and in-person assessments of motor speech for adults with acquired brain injury. High interrater reliability scores and a lack of statistically significant differences between test scores suggested equivalence between the assessment modalities for motor speech impairment. Exceptions were noted for the measurement of communication efficiency and word intelligibility which displayed statistically significant differences (or trending toward significant) between the assessment modalities. One study compared telepractice and in-person assessments of motor speech activity limitations/participation. Results from this study did not suggest equivalence between the assessment modalities. Interrater reliability was higher for telepractice than in-person assessment.

Keywords: Format (Group/Telepractice), Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Acquired Brain Injury, Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Speech/Voice

Service Delivery

Three studies compared telepractice and in-person assessments of motor speech for adults with acquired brain injury. High interrater reliability scores and a lack of statistically significant differences between test scores suggested equivalence between the assessment modalities for motor speech impairment. Exceptions were noted for the measurement of communication efficiency and word intelligibility which displayed statistically significant differences (or trending toward significant) between the assessment modalities. One study compared telepractice and in-person assessments of motor speech activity limitations/participation. Results from this study did not suggest equivalence between the assessment modalities. Interrater reliability was higher for telepractice than in-person assessment.

Keywords: Format (Group/Telepractice), Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Acquired Brain Injury, Format (e.g. Group/Telepractice), Speech/Voice

Our Partners