Conversation as an Outcome of Aphasia Treatment: A Systematic Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Conversation-focused speech-language pathology services are a top priority for people living with aphasia, but little is known about how researchers measure conversation as an outcome of treatment. This scoping review was undertaken to systematically review the evidence regarding the measurement of conversation in aphasia studies and to identify current practices and existing gaps. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies published between January 1995 and September 2019 in multiple electronic databases. Covidence software was used to manage search results, study selection, and data charting processes. Data were extracted from each study and then collated and organized to elucidate the breadth of approaches, tools, or procedures oriented to measuring conversation as an outcome and identify gaps in the existing literature. RESULTS: The systematic search of the literature resulted in 1,244 studies. A total of 64 studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The review summarizes the various tools and procedures used to measure conversation as an outcome of aphasia intervention, including variations in data collection and analysis procedures. The review also evaluates the quality of conversation measures in terms of psychometric properties and informal measures of validity. There was a total of 211 measures used across the 64 studies. CONCLUSIONS: While there was no clear measure that was objectively superior, several measures show promise and warrant future exploration. Some of the orientations, conceptualizations, and procedures we have presented can be seen as options that might be included in a future conversation-focused core outcome set. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21514062.

A cross-sectional study of the portrayal of childhood speech and language disorders in YouTube videos.

PURPOSE: This study examined meta-data, source, type of informational content, understandability, and actionability of YouTube content related to speech and/or language disorders. METHOD: The 100 most widely viewed videos related to children with speech and/or language disorders were obtained. Meta-data and sources of each upload were identified. Type of informational content within the videos was analyzed. The Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials was used to assess understandability and actionability. RESULTS: A significant difference between video source groups was found for length of video, thumbs-up, and thumbs-down, but not for number of views. The YouTube videos related to speech and/or language disorders covered a range of issues, although a majority of the content focused on signs/symptoms and treatment. Videos had close-to-adequate understandability (i.e. 68%), although poor actionability scores (i.e. 32%) were noted. Videos uploaded by professionals were superior to other upload sources in understandability, but no difference was noted between video source for actionability. CONCLUSIONS: Study insights about meta-data, source, type of informational content, understandability, and actionability of YouTube videos may help professionals understand the nature of online content related to speech and/or language disorders. Study implications and recommendations for further research are discussed.