Assessment of communication competence in acquired communication disorders: A systematic scoping review

Abstract

Purpose

Individuals with acquired communication disorders (ACDs) experience reduced ability to participate independently in activities of daily life, and maintain interpersonal relationships and psychosocial wellbeing. Communication interventions are designed to optimise communication competence in personally relevant everyday activities. However, the assessment tools speech-language pathologists (SLPs) typically utilise to evaluate communication competence in everyday life are not ideal. To explore the range and availability of assessments used in research to examine functional communication in adults with ACDs.

Method

Five databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, SCOPUS and PsycINFO) were searched to identify assessment or intervention studies evaluating functional communication in adults with ACDs. Functional communication tools utilised in each study were identified. Extracted tools were categorised according to type, target population, consideration of multimodal communication, person-specificity, consideration of context, availability, administration/analysis time and availability of normative/psychometric data.

Result

Forty functional communication assessment tools were included. Just over half the tools were performance-based (n = 25), examined different modes of communication (n = 26) and/or considered context (n = 23). Only 14 tools were person-specific. Many of the most comprehensive tools were out of print or considered excessively time consuming to administer and analyse.

Conclusion

A paucity of accessible, time-efficient yet comprehensive tools to assess functional communication in ACDs may limit clinical practice and client outcomes. More versatile functional communication assessments incorporating individualised contexts, and the use of modern communication technologies are recommended.

Keywords:

• communication competence
• acquired communication disorder
• assessment

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the funding support provided by the Motor Accident Insurance Commission (MAIC) through the RECOVER Injury Research Centre at the University of Queensland. Thanks is also extended to Ms Jackie Devenish (Librarian, The University of Queensland) for her assistance with the development of the search strategy and term selection for this scoping review.

Declaration of interest

The authors declare that there are no competing interests existing at the time of preparation or submission of this research.

Supplemental material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at http://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2022.2055142.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Motor Accident Insurance Commission (MAIC) through the RECOVER Injury Research Centre at the University of Queensland.