Anxiety: current practices in assessment and treatment of anxiety of burn patients

Burns ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 549-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhonda Robert ◽  
Patricia Blakeney ◽  
Cynthia Villarreal ◽  
Walter J Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Burn Patients ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Current Practices

scholarly journals Spoken Discourse Assessment and Analysis in Aphasia: An International Survey of Current Practices

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Brielle C. Stark ◽  
Manaswita Dutta ◽  
Laura L. Murray ◽  
Davida Fromm ◽  
Lucy Bryant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survey Study ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Process Standardization ◽  
Spoken Discourse ◽  
Qualitative Survey ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Current Survey ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Reporting Procedures ◽  
Current Practices

Purpose Spoken discourse analysis is commonly employed in the assessment and treatment of people living with aphasia, yet there is no standardization in assessment, analysis, or reporting procedures, thereby precluding comparison/meta-analyses of data and hindering replication of findings. An important first step is to identify current practices in collecting and analyzing spoken discourse in aphasia. Thus, this study surveyed current practices, with the goal of working toward standardizing spoken discourse assessment first in research settings with subsequent implementation into clinical settings. Method A mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) survey was publicized to researchers and clinicians around the globe who have collected and/or analyzed spoken discourse data in aphasia. The survey data were collected between September and November 2019. Results Of the 201 individuals who consented to participate, 189 completed all mandatory questions in the survey (with fewer completing nonmandatory response questions). The majority of respondents reported barriers to utilizing discourse including transcription, coding, and analysis. The most common barrier was time (e.g., lack of time). Respondents also indicated that there was a lack of, and a need for, psychometric properties and normative data for spoken discourse use in the assessment and treatment of persons with aphasia. Quantitative and qualitative results are described in detail. Conclusions The current survey study evaluated spoken discourse methods in aphasia across research and clinical settings. Findings from this study will be used to guide development of process standardization in spoken discourse and for the creation of a psychometric and normative property database. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.166395100

406 The Importance of Nutrition in Elderly Burn Patients: A Survey of Current Practices

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S175-S175
Author(s):  
J T Schulz ◽  
K Romanowski ◽  
A L Blough ◽  
A Wiktor ◽  
B Hickerson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Burn Patients ◽  
Current Practices

Anxiety: Current Practices in Assessment and Treatment

1998 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. S181
Author(s):  
R Robert ◽  
P Blakeney ◽  
C Villarreal ◽  
W Meyer ◽  
J Marvin
Keyword(s):  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Current Practices

scholarly journals Current Practices of Physical and Occupational Therapists Regarding Spasticity Assessment and Treatment

2017 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 303-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andréanne K. Blanchette ◽  
Marika Demers ◽  
Kathleen Woo ◽  
Akash Shah ◽  
John M. Solomon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Occupational Therapists ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Current Practices

scholarly journals Spoken Discourse Assessment and Analysis in Aphasia: An International Survey of Current Practices

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brielle C Stark ◽  
Manaswita Dutta ◽  
Laura Murray ◽  
Davida Fromm ◽  
Lucy Bryant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survey Study ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Process Standardization ◽  
Spoken Discourse ◽  
Qualitative Survey ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Current Survey ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Reporting Procedures ◽  
Current Practices

Purpose: Spoken discourse analysis is commonly employed in the assessment and treatment of people living with aphasia, yet there is no standardization in assessment, analysis, or reporting procedures, thereby precluding comparison/meta-analyses of data and hindering replication of findings. An important first step is to identify current practices in acquiring, analyzing, and reporting spoken discourse information in aphasia. Thus, this study surveyed current practices, with the goal of working toward standardizing assessment, analysis, and reporting, first in research settings with subsequent implementation in clinical settings.Method: A mixed-methods (quantitative, qualitative) survey was publicized to researchers and clinicians around the globe who have collected and/or analyzed spoken discourse data in aphasia. The survey data were collected between September and November 2019.Results: Of the 201 individuals who consented to participate, 189 completed the entire survey. The majority of respondents reported barriers to utilizing discourse including transcription, coding, and analysis. The most common barrier was time (e.g., lack of time). Respondents also indicated that there was a lack of, and a need for, psychometric properties and normative data for spoken discourse use in the assessment and treatment of persons with aphasia. Quantitative and qualitative results are described in detail. Conclusions: The current survey study evaluated spoken discourse methods in aphasia across research and clinical settings. Findings from the current study will be used to guide development of process standardization in spoken discourse, and for the creation of a psychometric and normative property database.

The Need for a Broad-Based Model of Phonological Disorders

1992 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan G. Kamhi
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Phonological Disorders ◽  
Production Processes ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Speech Delays ◽  
Explanatory Adequacy ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
Assessment Procedures ◽  
Treatment Procedures

My response to Fey’s article (1985; reprinted 1992, this issue) focuses on the confusion caused by the application of simplistic phonological definitions and models to the assessment and treatment of children with speech delays. In addition to having no explanatory adequacy, such definitions/models lead either to assessment and treatment procedures that are similarly focused or to procedures that have no clear logical ties to the models with which they supposedly are linked. Narrowly focused models and definitions also usually include no mention of speech production processes. Bemoaning this state of affairs, I attempt to show why it is important for clinicians to embrace broad-based models of phonological disorders that have some explanatory value. Such models are consistent with assessment procedures that are comprehensive in nature and treatment procedures that focus on linguistic, as well as motoric, aspects of speech.

Assessment and Intervention for Children With Limited English Proficiency and Language Disorders

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 77-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celeste Roseberry-McKibbin
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Limited English Proficiency ◽  
English Proficiency ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Academic Difficulties ◽  
Language Differences ◽  
Language Impaired ◽  
Number Of Children ◽  
Assessment And Treatment

The number of children with limited English proficiency (LEP) in U.S. public schools is growing dramatically. Speech-language pathologists increasingly receive referrals from classroom teachers for children with limited English proficiency who are struggling in school. The speech-language pathologists are frequently asked to determine if the children have language disorders that may be causing or contributing to their academic difficulties. Most speech-language pathologists are monolingual English speakers who have had little or no coursework or training related to the needs of LEP children. This article discusses practical, clinically applicable ideas for assessment and treatment of LEP children who are language impaired, and gives suggestions for distinguishing language differences from language disorders in children with limited English proficiency.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document