Stierwalt, Julie A. G.

Purpose: The purpose of this literature review is to guide speech-language pathologists (SLPs) on how to increase effective collaboration with interpreters and translators in order to enhance communication with clients and significant others from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Method: A review of definitions of interpretation and translations and practical guidance on certifications and collaborative practices within a health literacy framework approach is described. Strategies to build effective and ethical SLP–interpreter/translator working relationships are reviewed. Results: Findings emphasize the importance of interprofessional collaboration between SLPs and interpreters/translators. When working with professional interpreters/translators, SLPs application of a brief–intervention–debrief framework, use of plain language, and knowledge of local and national training and practice requirements, are identified as mechanisms to enhance effective and ethical collaboration. Conclusion: Effective collaboration with interpretation and translation services should be a key component of clinical practice to ensure that health information is clearly understood by clients and families.

AbstractPersons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (PALS) are at risk of developing cognitive impairments and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). This study examined the relationship between performance of the ALS-Cognitive Behavioral Screen (ALS-CBS) and the demographic parameters of sex, education, time post–ALS diagnosis, and severity of symptoms. Data were collected retrospectively from 69 participants seen at the Mayo Clinic. Correlations were conducted on the ALS-CBS total scores and subsection scores and the above listed parameters; t-tests were conducted between participant subgroups. No statistically significant relationships or differences occurred between the ALS-CBS or its subsections and the variables measured with exception of age and the attention subsection. Older participants had lower ALS-CBS attention subsection scores. Based on the ALS-CBS scores, most participants had some degree of cognitive impairments: 43 had suspected cognitive impairment, 8 had suspected FTD; 18 fell within the normal range of cognitive function. Overall, the variables of sex, education, time post-diagnosis, and severity of symptoms do not appear to influence ALS-CBS scores. It is recommended cognitive screenings be completed for all PALS due to the high risk for developing cognitive impairments and FTD. Such knowledge can help clinicians develop assessment and treatment plans.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe, compare, and understand speech modulation capabilities of patients with varying motor speech disorders (MSDs) in a paradigm in which patients made highly cued attempts to speak faster or slower. Method: Twenty-nine patients, 12 with apraxia of speech (AOS; four phonetic and eight prosodic subtype), eight with dysarthria (six hypokinetic and two spastic subtype), and nine patients without any neurogenic MSD completed a standard motor speech evaluation where they were asked to repeat words and sentences, which served as their “natural” speaking rate. They were then asked to repeat lower complexity (counting 1–5; repeating “cat” and “catnip” 3 times each) and higher complexity stimuli (repeating “catastrophe” and “stethoscope” 3 times each and “My physician wrote out a prescription” once) as fast/slow as possible. Word durations and interword intervals were measured. Linear mixed-effects models were used to assess differences related to MSD subtype and stimuli complexity on bidirectional rate modulation capacity as indexed by word duration and interword interval. Articulatory accuracy was also judged and compared. Results: Patients with prosodic AOS demonstrated a reduced ability to go faster; while they performed similarly to patients with spastic dysarthria when counting, patients with spastic dysarthria were able to increase rate similar to controls during sentence repetition; patients with prosodic AOS could not and made increased articulatory errors attempting to increase rate. AOS patients made more articulatory errors relative to other groups, regardless of condition; however, their percentage of errors reduced with an intentionally slowed speaking rate. Conclusions: The findings suggest comparative rate modulation abilities in conjunction with their impact on articulatory accuracy may support differential diagnosis between healthy and abnormal speech and among subtypes of MSDs (i.e., type of dysarthria or AOS). Findings need to be validated in a larger, more representative cohort encompassing several types of MSDs. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22044632

Purpose: Prior studies have shown that communication-related participation restrictions in patients with degenerative disease do not always match clinician judgment or objective indices of symptom severity. Although there is a growing body of literature documenting that discrepancies between patients with dementia and their care partners' perception of participation restrictions exist, it is not known how care partner perceptions of communication participation restrictions specifically match or diverge from the patients' experiences, which may inform the use of care partner proxy in the context of degenerative diseases. Method: Thirty-eight patients with progressive neurologic conditions (progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome, and primary progressive aphasia or apraxia of speech) and, in most instances, focal cognitive-communication disorders were included. The patients and their accompanying care partners independently completed the Communicative Participation Item Bank, short form, a 10-question survey about communication participation restrictions in different contexts. Care partners were instructed to complete the form with their perception of the patient's experience. The difference between patient and care partner total scores were calculated and analyzed relative to clinical and demographic variables of interest. Results: Care partner ratings modestly tracked with patient experience and objective indices of symptom severity but did not exactly match patient ratings. The presence of aphasia increased, but did not fully account for, the likelihood of a discrepancy between care partner and patient ratings. Conclusion: Although careful consideration should be given prior to using care-partner report as a proxy for patient experience, it is worthwhile to include care partner ratings as a means of supporting conversations about differing perceptions, guiding joint intervention planning, and monitoring care-partner perceptions of change along with the implementation of supported conversation strategies.

AbstractPrior studies have shown communication‐related participation restrictions in patients with degenerative disease do not always match clinician judgment of symptom severity. Relatedly, there is a growing body of literature documenting discrepancies between patients with dementia and care partner perception of participation restrictions. However, it is not known how care partner perceptions of communication participation restrictions match or diverge from the patient's experience, which was the topic of this study.Toward that end, 28 patients with apraxia of speech and/or dysarthria associated with primary progressive apraxia of speech, nonfluent/agrammatic primary progressive aphasia, or progressive supranuclear palsy, all types of frontotemporal dementia, were seen for speech‐language examinations. The patients and their care partners were asked to independently complete the Communication Participation Item Bank (CPIB), short form, which is a 10‐question survey about communication in different contexts; higher scores reflect less interference from their condition on communication. Care partners were instructed to complete the form with their perception of the patient's restrictions. The total CPIB score (maximum 30) and difference scores were calculated and visualized.The data (Figure) suggest mismatches exist in care partner and patient ratings of communication participation restrictions. Of 28 patients, only 1 pair had identical scores, each rating severe interference in all communication contexts. 57% of patients rated communication as less impacted (higher scores) compared to their family member, leaving 39% of family members rating communication as less impacted than their loved one's perception. This study lays the foundation for future research to include patient and care partner ratings when examining the benefit of impairment‐based therapy, utilization of compensatory speech strategies, effectiveness of such strategies, and impact of other augmentative or alternative means of communication. The CPIB may be useful to document reduced psychosocial impact of disease and diminished burden and burnout on care partners with different intervention options. Future studies will explore possible differences between FTD phenotypes and, more specifically, whether 1) the motor speech disorder (MSD) disorder is primary or secondary to other motor impairment, 2) the nature or severity of the MSD, or 3) concomitant cognitive‐communication impairment predict the existence of and/or direction of a discrepancy.