ArticleAphasiology2021
Clinician Perspectives on the Assessment of Short-Term Memory in Aphasia.
Article in Aphasiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Working Memory Load and Typicality on Semantic Processing in Aphasia.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVerbal short-term memory (STM) and the related ability, working memory (WM), are widely understood to be integral components of language production and comprehension. However, assessment of these abilities in people with aphasia is hampered by a lack of valid, standardized measures that are clinically appropriate. Focusing primarily on verbal STM, we held a series of five focus groups with speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to understand better their current clinical practices and their beliefs and attitudes regarding assessment of verbal STM in aphasia.
aimsThe purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes, beliefs and preferences of clinical SLPs to determine: (1) current practices related to verbal STM assessment; (2) the extent to which practices reflect current theories of aphasia and the role of verbal STM in language processing; and (3) practical considerations regarding aphasia assessment in clinical practice. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Five focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured interview protocol with a total of 44 SLPs. Grounded theory methodology was used to collect, code and analyse the data. Codes were reviewed to identify emerging themes. Themes were compared to explore meta-themes, connections and potential theoretical frameworks. OUTCOMES &
resultsFive main themes were identified: (1) The theoretical understanding that clinical SLPs have regarding the role of verbal STM in aphasia is not always consistent with clinical practice; (2) Clinical SLPs highly value functionally relevant assessments; (3) The intense time constraints in clinical practice affect all aspects of assessment; (4) Clinical SLPs feel that there is a lack of appropriate tests for assessment of STM in aphasia; and (5) Clinical SLPs prefer tests that are comprehensive, easy to administer and psychometrically sound.
conclusionsClinical SLPs report a lack of standardized measures to assess STM in individuals with aphasia. Researchers are met with several challenges in the development of these tests including effective communication with clinicians regarding the benefit of verbal STM assessments, especially as it relates to functional skills, and the creation of a test that is comprehensive yet simple, quick and easy to administer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.