Teti Selina D, Murray Laura L, Orange J B, Kankam Keren S, Roberts Angela C
Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Telemed J E Health. 2025 Jan;31(1):37-49. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2024.0268. Epub 2024 Aug 23.
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. 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. 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. 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.
当前文献广泛证明了远程实践服务对失语症患者的有效性和可行性。然而，针对失语症患者的远程实践评估研究有限。本系统评价的目的是考察目前失语症患者远程实践评估方案的使用情况。具体而言，该评价旨在：(a) 确定失语症远程实践文献中使用的评估方法；(b) 严格评估此类研究的质量；(c) 严格评估所使用标准化测试的心理测量特性。2023年1月，通过检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsychInfo、CINAHL和Scopus数据库，对2000年以来发表的英文文献进行了综述。共筛选了2429篇文章。两名评审员独立评估记录，发现11篇文章符合纳入标准。数据提取由一人进行，并由第二名评审员进行验证。对纳入研究以及这些研究中使用的标准化测试方法进行了质量评估。所有纳入研究中使用的远程实践评估方案和失语症测试缺乏多样性。也就是说，对筛查测试、话语分析、语言外认知测量以及患者报告测量的使用研究有限。研究特征缺乏高质量且无偏差的检验。大多数所使用的标准化测试的效度和信度都很差。总体而言，当前的系统评价表明需要研究更广泛的可通过远程实践提供的失语症评估方案。此外，需要更稳健的研究设计来考察可用于面对面失语症评估服务的各种评估测试和/或程序。最后，鉴于纳入研究中使用的许多测试存在心理测量特性问题，当前评价引发了对这些测试在研究和临床实践中使用的担忧。
