View
48
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Cognitive-Linguistic Profiles of Aphasic Communicators Who Use AAC. Joanne P. Lasker, Ph.D. Florida State University Kathryn L. Garrett, Ph.D. Duquesne University. Presentation at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Convention November 22, 2003 Chicago, IL. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Cognitive-Linguistic Profiles of Aphasic Communicators Who Use AAC
Joanne P. Lasker, Ph.D.
Florida State University
Kathryn L. Garrett, Ph.D.
Duquesne University
Presentation at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association ConventionNovember 22, 2003
Chicago, IL
A. Statement of the Problem
Many people with severe aphasia have unmet communication needs.
Which individuals with chronic aphasia will benefit from augmentative and alternative communication strategies (AAC)?
Which type/class of AAC strategies? Are there systematic ways of assessing this
issue? Is there a “profile” of an effective AAC
communicator?
B. Cognitive-Linguistic Considerations in AAC
definition of aphasia “Language” or “symbolic deficits” across
modalities Intermittency of processing (Brookshire, 1978;
McNeil, 1983) more recently we have seen attention to
possible cognitive aspects of aphasia
Cognition and Aphasia
Aspects of cognition related to aphasia may include: (Purdy, 2001; Hinckley, 2002) attention memory executive function skills resource allocation pragmatics
Demands of AAC Techniques
Think to initiate communication through external means -- “outside” of the communicator’s own head and language system (Garrett & Kimelman, 2000)
Verbal memory for messages Spatial memory for message location Symbol translation skills -- from icons to meanings Executive function skills -- to judge which method of
communication best fits the situation Attention and perseverance to complete the
message transaction
Resource Allocation to balance the cognitive demands of using a novel form of
communication… …with the pragmatic demands of speaking to a
communication partner And the linguistic demands of encoding messages And any other stressors in the communication environment
Balancing Noise Multiple speakers Multiple topics Interruptions Communication breakdowns
Challenges with AAC and Aphasia Limited information is available re: who is and
is not successful.
“Matching” AAC approaches to skills/needs of communicator involves many variables.
Limited knowledge is available about how to effectively train people with aphasia to use AAC in real-life situations.
Still More Challenges
People with aphasia tend to be isolated, and therefore have limited social opportunities to communicate.
Message pools selected for AAC systems may not be appropriate or meaningful for adults with aphasia.
Negative or ambivalent attitudes toward technology may be held by adults with aphasia and/or communication partners.
Recent Research Helm-Estabrooks (2002) described a case study of a
person with aphasia who used a high tech AAC system (C-Speak Aphasia; Nicholas & Elliot).
Her analysis of the individual’s cognitive-linguistic profile revealed: mild-moderate aphasia as measured by the WAB relatively strong cognitive skills on specific subtests of
the Cognitive-Linguistic Quick Test (Helm-Estabrooks, 2001) Trail Making Design Generation Mazes
Testable Hypothesis
Certain measures of cognition may serve as reasonable predictors of an individual’s ability to use an AAC system to communicate meaningfully.
C. Our Purpose/Design
Case study approach. generate a cognitive-linguistic and behavioral
profile of successful AAC users with aphasia Independent Communicators Partner Dependent Communicators Nonusers
aid in assessment and intervention planning
Proposed Test Battery Western Aphasia Battery (Kertesz, 1982) Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices (Raven, Raven, &
Court, 1998) Cognitive-Linguistic Quick Test (Helm-Estabrooks, 2001) Wisconsin Card Sort Task (Kongs, Thompson, Iverson, &
Heaton, 2000) Multimodal Communication Screening Task (Garrett, 1998) The Assistive Technology Device Predisposition Assessment
Consumer Form (adapted from Scherer & McKee, 1989 by Lasker & Bedrosian, 2000; under revision)
Categorical Assessment of Communicators with Aphasia (Garrett & Beukelman, 1998; under revision)
One Comparison:WAB Writing Task
Client’s Written Responses
MHJK
RM
The Multimodal Communication Screening
QuickTime™ and aYUV420 codec decompressor
are needed to see this picture.Video Clip
MULTIMODAL COMMUNICATION SCREENING TASK FOR PERSONS WITH APHASIA: SCORESHEET (C) 1997, Kathryn L. Garrett see http:// www.aac.unl .edu for pictoral stimuli that accompany this score sheet
CLIENT NAME: DATE: EVALUATOR: INSTRUCTIONS: Show the person with aphasia the booklet containing the symbolized choices. Explain that the pictures, letters, sentences and maplocations can all be used to communicate ideas. Provide examples if necessary. For each item, ask individual “How would you communicate ? You can usethis book or any other way you have to communicate.” Mark + if all concepts were communicated, +/- if some were communicated, and - if no items werecommunicated . Circle concepts that were successfully conveyed. Record cues if provided. Substitute alternate concepts as appropriate.
Abstract Mult. page Target Symbols Meaning? search needed? +/- Cues Comments A. IDENTIFICATION OF NOUNS BY NAME 1. Shoes Pic/word NO NO 2. Open Door Pic/word NO YES (2) 3. Grandchild Pic/word YES YES (3) 4. Need to buy something Pic/word YES YES (3) 5. State of residence (“Nebraska”) Map or 1st letter NO YES (5)
B. 2-SYMBOL COMBINATIONS 6. I've been walking alot and I'm tired. Pic/word YES NO 7. Open the window; it's too hot. Pic/word NO YES (2) 8. I'm glad my grandkids are visiting Pic/word YES YES (3)
C. 3-SYMBOL COMBINATIONS9. I want to buy some toys for my
grandchildren. Pic/word YES YES (3) 10.The kids are coming next week from Pic/word, map,
name of state or city. or 1st letter YES YES (6) 11.I want to eat an expensive meal at Pic/word, map,
name of favorite restaurant tonight. or1st letter YES YES (6)
D. PHRASE LISTS“Pretend you’re at the drugstore//with your grandkids.” F ind the page thatwill help you do this. Then, tell me how you’d say...”
12. I need more aspirin and shampoo. Phrase list NO NO 13.Please fill my prescription for 2 refills
and write down your instructions for me. Phrase list NO NO 14. Tell me about school. How is your ? Phrase list NO NO
15.Do you do your homework? Are your grades good? Phrase list YES YES (2) SUMMARY & INTERPRETATION: Can this person intentionally locate info on multiple pages? Combine concepts? Use symbols abstractly? Use writtenwords, maps, or the 1st letter of a word? Use other modalities? Answer and initiate questions?
Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices
Cognitive-Linguistic Quick Test (Helm-Estabrooks, 2001)
criterion-referenced test relative skills in the areas
of: attention memory language executive function visuospatial skills
does require verbal skills for some tasks (e.g., story retelling)
CLQT – Tasks and Composites
Personal Facts Symbol Cancellation Confrontation Naming Clock Drawing Story Retelling Symbol Trails Generative Naming Design Memory Mazes Design Generation
Yield composite scores: attention memory executive function language visuospatial skills
Trailmaking task…oops …not this…
Trail Making Example
Wisconsin Card Sort Test
sort cards by: number shape color
rules change after 10 correct sorts
WCST Example
Sample questions from the “Technology Predisposition Survey”
I will benefit from using this AAC system. This AAC system will help me achieve a goal that I
have. I will feel comfortable using this AAC system in
public. This AAC system will improve the quality of my life. I will feel comfortable using this AAC system around
my family.
Categories of AAC Use
Partner-Dependent Communicators
Emerging Communicators
Contextual Choice Communicators
Augmented Input Communicators
Categories (cont.)
Independent Communicators
Transitional Communicators
Stored Message Communicators
Generative Communicators
D. Case Studies
On to Pennsylvania folks!
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
JV -- Emerging Communicator WAB AQ - .6/100 BASA -- 2nd %ile for people
with global aphasia Raven’s -- 0/36 CLQT -- N/A Technology Attitudes
Minimal experience Interested in trying
technology Required specific training to
use symbols to request Max assist to locate
symbolized messages
QuickTime™ and aYUV420 codec decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
AA & RC -- Contextual Choice Communicators
WAB AQ = 9.2 Reading: 11/100 Writing: 10.5/100 Ravens: 15/36 CLQT
Symbol Trails: 1/10 Design Memory: 2/6 Mazes: 0/8 Design Generation: 6/13
Technology Attitudes: Minimal to some computer
experience Willing to learn to operate simple
AAC systems Less willing to use in real-life
QuickTime™ and aYUV420 codec decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
SA - Transitional Communicator
WAB AQ = 93.4 Reading = 80/100 Writing = 71/100 Praxis = 55/60 Block Design = 7/9 Calculation = 24/24 Raven’s = 16/20 Moderate dysarthria Technology Attitudes:
Moderate computer experience
Interested in Palmtop PC-type device because of social acceptability
QuickTime™ and aYUV420 codec decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
GW--Deferred Technology User
WAB = 35 Broca’s profile 1 year post onset Lawyer Computer experience Technology Attitudes --
No interest in learning to use AAC at present
QuickTime™ and aYUV420 codec decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Florida AAC/Aphasia Clients
Client: MH 52-year old woman left CVA in March, 2001
2 years post 14 years of education right hemiparesis lives with mother who is in frail
health completed assessment phase
of project before relocation diagnosed with moderate
receptive and severe expressive aphasia
limited speech therapy
MH - Results
Instrument
Score
CLQT Atte ntion
mild
CLQT Memory
sev
CLQT Executive Function
mod
CLQT Language
sev
CLQT Visuospatial
mild
Clock Drawing
mild
MH - Results
Instrument
Score
WAB Aphasia Quotient (out of 100)
34.8
WAB Reading (out of 100)
66.5/100
WAB Writing (out of 100)
41.5
WAB Praxis (out of 60)
DNT
Ravens (out of 36)
27
Wisconsin Card Sort
1 category
MH – AAC Trials
Communication Task
How much assistance for
success? unaided low-tech strategy use
mod
stored information system
mod (single hits only)
preformulated di gitized messages
min
multiple levels digitized messages
min
dynamic display
mod
augmented writing
max
MH – Strengths & Challenges
Challenges emotional issues:
frustration sadness anxiety
social isolation impaired auditory
comprehension impaired executive skills severity of speech deficit
Strengths reading writing motivation
MH – Current Status
relocated after assessment currently not receiving any services SLP attempting to contact an area SLP to
continue intervention and device trial
Client: JK
53-year-old tenured geography professor
earned doctorate left CVA in 3/2001
8 months post at first visit employed by university for 21
years (since 1982) lives with husband (also a
professor) and young daughter (5 years old)
diagnosed with moderate expressive aphasia and mild receptive aphasia
JK - Results
Instrument
Score
WAB Aphasia Quotient (out of 100)
79.1
WAB Reading (out of 100)
80
WAB Writing (out of 100)
75
WAB Praxis(out of 60)
55
Ravens (out of 36)
29
Wisconsin Card Sort
5 categor ies
JK - Results
Instrument
Score
CLQT Atte ntion
mild
CLQT Memory
mild
CLQT Executive Function
mild
CLQT Language
mild
CLQT Visuospatial
mild
Clock Drawing
mild
JK – AAC Trials
Communication Task
How much assistance for
success? unaided low-tech strategy use
independent
stored information system
independent (uses speech)
preformulated di gitized messages
independent
multiple levels digitized messages
independent
dynamic display
min
augmented writing
min (for technology support only )
Student Evaluations: First Teaching Experience After Stroke
“It was very interesting to see how Dr. Kodras put her sentences together and got her point across to the class.”
“Topic ---- instructor ---- extremely well versed ---- passionate about topic ---- makes all difference ----- instructor ----- exceptional.”
“I could see that living with aphasia does not mean that you have to stop living.”
JK – Strengths and Challenges
Challenges communication needs impaired executive skills
Strengths reading writing motivation education? familiarity with technology family support
JK – Current Status
Participating in intervention to utilize a combination of EZ Keys and “Key Word Teaching” to lecture to her graduate classes.
Continues to use EZ Keys to prepare lectures.
Continues to negotiate support from department.
Client: RM
62-year-old education: 14 years retired airport manager left CVA occurred 1995 diagnosed with moderate
aphasia and moderate-severe apraxia of speech
RM - Results
Instrument
Score
WAB Aphasia Quotient (out of 100)
55.4
WAB Reading (out of 100)
75
WAB Writing (out of 100)
78
WAB Praxis(out of 60)
58
Ravens (out of 36)
29
Wisconsin Card Sort
2 categor ies
RM - Results
Instrument
Score
CLQT Atte ntion
WNL
CLQT Memory
sev
CLQT Executive Function
WNL
CLQT Language
sev
CLQT Visuospatial
WNL
Clock Drawing
WNL
RM – AAC Trials
Communication Task
How much assistance for
success? unaided low-tech strategy use
independent
stored information system
independent (uses speech)
preformulated di gitized messages
independent
multiple levels digitized messages
independent
dynamic display
independent
augmented writing
mod (spelling
difficulties )
Message Behaviors
Message RM’s Behavior Production Partner
Behavior
General manger
Rod spells and uses word prediction and
word morphology pop-up
Device speaks. Partner reauditorizes.
Ja Rod spells. Attempts
before spelling (unintelligible) .
Partner predicts.
Pensacola Rod spells and uses
word prediction .
Rod attempts after spelling
(unintelligible).
Partner responds.
London Rod spells and uses
word pr ediction . No spoken production.
Partner reads message and
responds.
Device Usage - “Press Behaviors”
“I like a cheeseburger and coke please.”
Press Type Number
Navigation 10
Phrase Retrieval 0
Word Retrieval 6
Spelling 4
Word Prediction 0
Total Time 65
seconds
RM – Challenges and Strengths
Challenges poor spelling unable to use word-
based pages on device effectively
resistant to change of relatively inefficient layout of device automaticity? familiarity?
Strengths positive attitude about
everything multimodal to the
extreme willing to use device in
public, on phone, as email tool
RM – Current Status
increase and enhance facilitative behaviors on device category-based word search word by word formulation
decrease non-facilitative behaviors inappropriate topic setting device navigation
participating in motor-based learning study to increase speech output
acts as ambassador and community educator
E. Summing Up
What did we learn?
“Salient” Subtests on CLQT
Symbol Trails Design Memory Mazes Design Generation0123456789
10111213
CLQT Subtests
CC MH RM JK
Categories of AAC Use
Partner-Dependent Communicators
Emerging Communicators
Contextual Choice Communicators
Augmented Input Communicators
JV
AA and RC
Categories (cont.)
Independent Communicators
Transitional Communicators
Stored Message Communicators
Generative Communicators
MH and SA
RM and JK
E. Summary: What did we learn?
Clinician judgment (via AAC trials) differentiated independent from partner-dependent communicators. Test results verified these judgments.
Potential “suspects” for determining outcome – likely a complex picture. . . AQ’s expressive writing task attitude toward AAC system cognitive tasks on CLQT
As always…
Further research is warranted
Your comments are appreciated
Handouts: give us one week to post them on the ASHA website
Recommended