目的:当前文献广泛证明了为失语症患者提供远程练习服务的有效性和可行性。然而,对失语症患者的远程练习评估的检查是有限的。这项系统评价的目的是研究目前对失语症患者使用远程练习评估协议的情况。具体来说,该审查旨在:(a)确定失语症远程练习文献中使用的评估;(b)批判性地评估此类调查的质量;(c)批判性地评估所使用的标准化测试的心理测量特性。方法:2023年1月,通过搜索MEDLINE,对2000年以来以英语发表的文献进行了回顾,EMBASE,PsychInfo,CINAHL,和Scopus数据库。共筛选了2,429篇文章。两名审稿人独立评估记录,发现有11篇文章符合纳入条件。数据提取进行了一次,并由第二个审阅者进行了验证。对纳入的研究以及这些研究中使用的标准化测试措施进行了质量评估。结果:在所有纳入的研究中,远程练习评估方案和失语症测试之间缺乏差异。也就是说,对筛查测试的调查有限,语篇分析,语言外认知措施,以及使用患者报告的措施。研究特征缺乏高质量和无偏倚的检查。使用的大多数标准化测试都表现出较差的有效性和可靠性。结论:总体而言,当前的系统评价指出,有必要研究更广泛的失语症评估方案,这些方案可以通过远程练习提供.此外,更强大的研究设计是必要的,以检查各种评估测试和/或程序,可用于个人失语症评估服务。最后,鉴于纳入研究中使用的许多测试都存在心理测量属性问题,当前的审查引起了人们对这些测试在研究和临床实践中使用的担忧。
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.