Purpose: In this pilot study, the author investigated the association of proxy report of communicative participation for persons with aphasia (PWA) to determine if proxy report can be used to assess communicative participation status. Method: The current study included 7 PWA- proxy pairs. All participants were administered the Communicative Participation Item Bank General Short Form (CPIB). PWA and proxy responses and various participant characteristics (e.g., age, severity of aphasia, time post onset, relationship and time spent together) were compared using graphic representations and statistical analyses. Results: Inferential statistical analysis was unreliable due to small sample size; consequently, visual inspection was the primary means for interpretation. Overall, proxies rated communicative participation lower than PWA and rated higher communicative participation for PWA with less severe aphasia. Male proxies rated communicative participation lower than females. Male PWA rated their communicative participation greater than did females. PWA report of communicative participation and severity of aphasia did not appear to be associated. Differences of time spent together and relationship between PWA and proxy were unable to be determined due to the homogeneity of sample in regards to these characteristics. Conclusions: This study suggests that there is modest association between PWA and proxy report on the CPIB. Although the PWA reported with a negative bias, proxy report paralleled PWA report. Low proxy report of communication is associated with increased PWA and proxy age, time post onset, and severity of aphasia. Limitations of the current study included small sample size, difficulty controlling participant attributes, discrepancies in administration techniques, and using unrepresentative language scores. The CPIB may be used with PWA with intact receptive language to assess communicative participation but may not be appropriate for individuals with impaired receptive language. Preliminary results indicate that further evaluation of proxy reliability and any influencing factors is warranted.

Many patients with head and neck cancer suffer from dysphagia caused by organ preserving regimens of chemoradiation therapy. However, intervention for this population varies in terms of timing, intensity, and types of treatments prescribed. This prospective study investigated swallowing-related quality of life, functional oral intake, and swallowing-related pain for patients who received two different types of preventative swallowing intervention before and during chemoradiation therapy. A total of eight participants who had undergone chemoradiation therapy participated in the study. Four participants completed direct swallowing exercises (exercises that require swallowing). The remaining four completed indirect swallowing exercises (exercises that do not require swallowing). There were no significant differences between groups for all outcome measures taken. These findings support the hypothesis that both programs were equally effective intervention methods. Due to these results and the high prevalence of odynophagia in this population, indirect swallowing exercises may cause the patient less pain than direct swallowing exercises while still sparing their swallowing function to the same degree as the direct regimen. However, due to the low census and lack of a control group, these findings should be interpreted with reasonable caution. Thus, further investigation with a larger sample size and comparator control data is warranted.

Intensity significantly impacts aphasia treatment efficacy, yet research protocols have not answered questions about optimal intensity and/or dosage. A single-subject ABA design investigated the influence of repetition priming on naming performance for four individuals with stroke-induced aphasia. The participants completed an intensive training protocol with repeated attempts to name pictures. Independent variables included training status and stimulus dosage. The dependent variable was response accuracy. Response accuracy increased for all participants during the training phase, and training effects persisted through the maintenance phase for all participants. Stimulus dosage did not consistently influence response accuracy for the participants.