Bibliographic Details
| Title: |
The Flu-ID: A New Evidence-Based Method of Assessing Fluency in Aphasia. |
| Authors: |
Gordon, Jean K.1 jean.gordon@uri.edu, Clough, Sharice2 |
| Source: |
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Nov2024, Vol. 33 Issue 6, p2972-2990. 19p. |
| Subject Terms: |
*Comparative grammar, *Statistical correlation, *Human services programs, *Phonological awareness, *Aphasia, *Verbal behavior testing, *Stuttering, *Speech evaluation, *Storytelling, *Articulation (Speech), *Inter-observer reliability, Multitrait multimethod techniques, Time pressure, Research funding, Research evaluation, Descriptive statistics, Physiological aspects of speech, Medical coding |
| Abstract: |
Purpose: Assessing fluency in aphasia is diagnostically important for determining aphasia type and severity and therapeutically important for determining appropriate treatment targets. However, wide variability in the measures and criteria used to assess fluency, as revealed by a recent survey of clinicians (Gordon & Clough, 2022), results in poor reliability. Furthermore, poor specificity in many fluency measures makes it difficult to identify the underlying impairments. Here, we introduce the Flu-ID Aphasia, an evidence-based tool that provides a more informative method of assessing fluency by capturing the range of behaviors that can affect the flow of speech in aphasia. Method: The development of the Flu-ID was based on prior evidence about factors underlying fluency (Clough & Gordon, 2020; Gordon & Clough, 2020) and clinical perceptions about the measurement of fluency (Gordon & Clough, 2022). Clinical utility is maximized by automated counting of fluency behaviors in an Excel template. Reliability is maximized by outlining thorough guidelines for transcription and coding. Eighteen narrative samples representing a range of fluency were coded independently by the authors to examine the Flu-ID’s utility, reliability, and validity. Results: Overall reliability was very good, with point-to-point agreement of 86% between coders. Ten of the 12 dimensions showed good to excellent reliability. Validity analyses indicated that Flu-ID scores were similar to clinician ratings on some dimensions, but differed on others. Possible reasons and implications of the discrepancies are discussed, along with opportunities for improvement. Conclusions: The Flu-ID assesses fluency in aphasia using a consistent and comprehensive set of measures and semi-automated procedures to generate individual fluency profiles. The profiles generated in the current study illustrate how similar ratings of fluency can arise from different underlying impairments. Supplemental materials include an analysis template, extensive guidelines for transcription and coding, a completed sample, and a quick reference guide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
Education Research Complete |
