Table of contents
  1. Speech language pathology
    1. Dysphagia
    2. Speech and language
    3. Receptive vocabulary
    4. Receptive and expressive language
    5. Literacy
    6. Oromotor abilities and speech

Speech language pathology

Evidence reviewed as of before 20-05-2021

Author(s): Ogourtsova, T. (PhD OT) & Osman, G. (MSc OT student)


Dysphagia

We found one prospective cohort study (Kantarcigil et al., 2017) on a telerehabilitation assessment using the Dysphagia Disorder Survey.

Purpose of assessment
The focus of the Dysphagia Disorder Survey is to evaluate orienting, reception, containment, oral transport, chewing, oral-pharyngeal swallow, and post-swallow.
Health discipline
The Dysphagia Disorder Survey was administered by a speech-language pathologist.
Population
The Dysphagia Disorder Survey was administered to children (n=19) with cerebral palsy and dysphagia, aged 6.9-17.5 (mean=11.6), 12M:7F.
Equipment & platform
  • Equipment used: video camera, tripod, PC, monitor
  • Platform used: QuickTime player recording
Face-to-face comparison
A face-to-face comparison was conducted using the same assessment (Dysphagia Disorder Survey) in person.
Findings
  • Moderate to excellent agreement between f2f and remote, with the same rater. Agreement ranged from 78–100%, with a weighted kappa= 0.64-1 for 5/7 variables; moderate agreement was found 2 variables (oral transport of the bolus and oral pharyngeal swallow), with agreement being 83 and 89%, with a weighted kappa of 0.49 and 0.45, respectively.
  • Moderate to excellent agreement between f2f and remote, with different raters. Agreement for variables with substantial to excellent agreement were: reception of foods and liquids, containment of bolus, oral transport,chewing, oral pharyngeal swallow, and post swallow signs (range 71–89%, KW= 0.62-0.86). While moderate agreement was found on orienting to foods and liquids (agreement of 69%, KW= 0.6).
  • Excellent agreement between f2f and remote evaluations for same clinician (agreement of 100%; KW= 1).
  • Substantial agreement was found between f2f and remote evaluations with different raters (agreement of 85%; KW= 0.76).
Training required
E-certification, or a licensed health professional trained in clinical observation and scoring percentiles (e.g. “Speech-Language Pathologists, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists, Dietitians, Nurses ...”).
Reference
Kantarcigil, C. and G.A. Malandraki, First Step in Telehealth Assessment: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Investigate the Effectiveness of an Electronic Case History Form for Dysphagia. Dysphagia, 2017. 32(4): p. 548-558. https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy3.library.mcgill.ca/27132060/
Dysphagia1
Dysphagia2

Speech and language

We found one method-comparison study (Lin et al., 2013 ) on the telerehabilitation assessments Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - Revised (PPVT-R) and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III).

Purpose of assessment
The foci of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R) and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III) are to evaluate decoding, homographs, auditory vocabulary comprehension, visual vocabulary comprehension, and auditory and visual sentence comprehension.
Health discipline
PPVT-R and WISC-III were administered by a speech-language pathologist.
Population
PPVT-R and WISC-III were administered to children (n=35) with Autism, ages 4-6.
Equipment & platform
  • Equipment used: PC, monitor
  • Platform used: website assessment developed by research team, comprising six subtests, presenting questions in auditory and visual formats.
Face-to-face comparison
A face-to-face comparison was conducted using the same assessment (PPVT-R and WISC-III) in person.
Findings
  • Moderate to excellent reliability (Cronbach alpha values 0.64 and 0.97 for all sub-tests)
  • Low concurrent validity (validity with PPVT-R: concurrent validity ranging from 0.21 to 0.45)
  • Low to moderate predictive validity with WISC-III (predictive validity ranging from 0.46 to 0.75)
  • Accuracy up to 92% raters
Training required
  • PPVT-R: The publisher requires the purchaser to be one of the following categories: (a) trained and certified by a recognized institution in a relevant area of assessment with a minimum Bachelor’s degree, or (b) a member of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, American Psychological Association (APA), National Association for School Psychologists (NASP), or (c) graduate students or teachers whose order is made on institutional letterhead with signed approval from an administrator.
  • WISC-III: trained psychologist, clinical psychologist, or neuropsychologist.
Reference
Lin, C.S., et al., The development of a multimedia online language assessment tool for young children with autism. Res Dev Disabil, 2013. 34(10): p. 3553-65. https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy3.library.mcgill.ca/23962602/
SpeechLanguage1
SpeechLanguage2

Receptive vocabulary

We found one method-comparison study (Marble-Flint et al., 2019) on a telerehabilitation assessment Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-4th edition (PPVT-4).

Purpose of assessment
The focus of PPVT-4 is to evaluate receptive vocabulary.
Health discipline
PPVT-4 was administered by a speech-language pathologist.
Population
PPVT-4 was administered to children (n=15) with Autism, aged 4-6, 12M: 3F.
Equipment & platform
  • Equipment used: iPad, video-recording camera
  • Platform used: Q-interactive
Face-to-face comparison
A face-to-face comparison was conducted using the same assessment (PPVT-4) in person.
Findings
  • No significant difference in scores
  • High correlation between scores (r=0.91)
Training required
"The publisher requires the purchaser to be one of the following categories: (a) trained and certified by a recognized institution in a relevant area of assessment with a minimum Bachelor’s degree, or (b) a member of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, American Psychological Association (APA), National Association for School Psychologists (NASP), or (c) graduate students or teachers whose order is made on institutional letterhead with signed approval from an administrator. "
Reference
Marble-Flint, K.J., K.H. Strattman, and M.A. Schommer-Aikins, Comparing iPad and Paper Assessments for Children With ASD: An Initial Study. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 2019. 40(3): p.152-155. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525740118780750
ReceptiveVocabulary1

Receptive and expressive language

We found one method-comparison study (Sutherland et al., 2019) on the telerehabilitation assessment Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (4th Edition) (CELF-4).

Purpose of assessment
The focus of the CELF-4 is to evaluate receptive and expressive language (vocabulary, syntax, morphology and auditory comprehension).
Health discipline
CELF-4 was administered by a speech-language pathologist.
Population
CELF-4 was administered to children (n=13) with Autism, aged 9.5-12.3 (mean= 11.12).
Equipment & platform
  • Equipment used: PC, separate monitor, build-in speakers, webcam
  • Platform used: Coviu
Face-to-face comparison
A face-to-face comparison was conducted using the same assessment (CELF-4) in person.
Findings
  • Strong inter-rater reliability between telehealth and f2f (r=0.91-0.99)
  • No significant difference in child behavior between telehealth and f2f
  • Positive feedback from participants
Training required
"Qualification B is required to administer this assessment: A master's degree in psychology, education, speech language pathology, occupational therapy, social work, counseling, or in a field closely related to the intended use of the assessment, and formal training in the ethical administration, scoring, and interpretation of clinical assessments; OR Certification by or full active membership in a professional organization (such as ASHA, AOTA, AERA, ACA, AMA, CEC, AEA, AAA, EAA, NAEYC, NBCC, CVRP) that requires training and experience in the relevant area of assessment; OR A degree or license to practice in the healthcare or allied healthcare field; OR Formal, supervised mental health, speech/language, occupational therapy, social work, counseling, and/or educational training specific to assessing children, or in infant and child development, and formal training in the ethical administration, scoring, and interpretation of clinical assessments; OR work for an accredited institution."
Reference
Sutherland, R., et al., Telehealth and autism: Are telehealth language assessments reliable and feasible for children with autism? International journal of language & communication disorders, 2019. 54(2): p. 281-291. https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy3.library.mcgill.ca/30565791/
ReceptiveExLang1

Literacy

We found one method-comparison study (Waite et al., 2010) on the telerehabilitation assessments Queensland University Inventory of Literacy (QUIL), South Australian Spelling Test (SAST), Neale Analysis of Reading Ability 3rd edition (Neale-3).

Purpose of assessment
The foci of the QUIL, SAST, and Neale-3 are to evaluate phonological awareness, reading, and spelling.
Health discipline
The QUIL, SAST, and Neale-3 were administered by a speech-language pathologist.
Population
QUIL, SAST, and Neale-3 were administered to children (n=20) with reading disability, aged 8-13 (mean=9.92), 15M:5F.
Equipment & platform
  • Equipment used: PC, webcam, headset with microphone and earphones, monitor
  • Platform used: Microsoft Windows Media Encoder Codec (for sound stimulus)
Face-to-face comparison
A face-to-face comparison was conducted using the same assessment (QUIL, SAST, and Neale-3) in person.
Findings
  • No significant difference between f2f and telehealth.
  • Moderate to excellent intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.89-1.00). Close agreement was at least 80% for all parameters except nonword spelling, Neale-3, and mispronunciation.
  • Strong inter-rater reliability (mean interrater agreement for nonword spelling was 95.3% and 97.2% for nonword reading).
Training required
  • QUIL: Information not found.
  • SAST: No formal training required: teachers or administrators must read instructions and calculate raw student scores and compare with the average raw score for that age group.
  • Neale-3: No formal training required: Practice with the tests and training by experienced users is helpful
Reference
Waite, M.C., et al., Assessment of children's literacy via an Internet-based telehealth system. Telemedicine Journal & E-Health, 2010. 16(5): p. 564-75. https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy3.library.mcgill.ca/20575724/

Oromotor abilities and speech

We found one pilot study (Waite et al., 2012) on a telerehabilitation assessment evaluating various oro-motor tasks.

Purpose of assessment
The focus of oro-motor tasks are to evaluate face at rest, oral movements, diadochokinetic tasks, speech intelligibility, and oral structures.
Health discipline
Oro-motor tasks were administered by a speech-language pathologist.
Population
Oro-motor tasks were administered to children (n=20) with speech disorders, aged 4-9 (mean= 5).
Equipment & platform
  • Equipment used: PC, 2 webcams, headset with headphones and microphone
  • Platform used: online telehealth system eREHAB
Face-to-face comparison
A face-to-face comparison was conducted using the same assessment (oro-motor tasks) in person.
Findings
  • High agreement between telehealth and f2f (ICC=0.81 for intelligibility, 100% close agreement and 63% exact agreement. All variables of oro-motor assessment were 100% close agreement, overall exact agreement was 61%)
  • Moderate to excellent intra-rater reliability (ICC: 0.44-0.66)
  • Poor inter-rater reliability (ICC = -0.17-0.19)
Training required
No information found.
Reference
Waite, M.C., et al., Assessing children's speech intelligibility and oral structures, and functions via an Internet-based telehealth system. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 2012. 18(4): p.198-203. https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy3.library.mcgill.ca/22604277/