Aphasia rehabilitation and the strange neglect of speed.

Timing data is infrequently reported in aphasiological literature and time taken is only a minor factor, where it is considered at all, in existing aphasia assessments. This is not surprising because reaction times are difficult to obtain manually, but it is a pity, because speed data should be indispensable in assessing the severity of language processing disorders and in evaluating the effects of treatment. This paper argues that reporting accuracy data without discussing speed of performance gives an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of any cognitive function. Moreover, in deciding how to treat, when to continue treatment and when to cease therapy, clinicians should have regard to both parameters: Speed and accuracy of performance. Crerar, Ellis and Dean (1996) reported a study in which the written sentence comprehension of 14 long-term agrammatic subjects was assessed and treated using a computer-based microworld. Some statistically significant and durable treatment effects were obtained after a short amount of focused therapy. Only accuracy data were reported in that (already long) paper, and interestingly, although it has been a widely read study, neither referees nor subsequent readers seemed to miss "the other side of the coin": How these participants compared with controls for their speed of processing and what effect treatment had on speed. This paper considers both aspects of the data and presents a tentative way of combining treatment effects on both accuracy and speed of performance in a single indicator. Looking at rehabilitation this way gives us a rather different perspective on which individuals benefited most from the intervention. It also demonstrates that while some subjects are capable of utilising metalinguistic skills to achieve normal accuracy scores even many years post-stroke, there is little prospect of reducing the time taken to within the normal range. Without considering speed of processing, the extent of this residual functional impairment can be overlooked.

The Development of a Holistic and Quantitative Tool for the Assessment and Improvement of Survey Quality.

There are a variety of guidelines and methods available to measure and assess survey quality. Most of these are based on qualitative descriptions. In practice, they are not easy to implement and it is very difficult to make comparisons between surveys. Hence there is a theoretical and pragmatic demand to develop a mainly quantitative based survey assessment tool. This research aimed to meet this need and make contributions to the evaluation and improvement of survey quality. Acknowledging the critical importance of measurement issues in survey research, this thesis starts with a comprehensive introduction to measurement theory and identifies the types of measurement errors associated with measurement procedures through three experiments. Then it moves on to describe concepts, guidelines and methods available for measuring and assessing survey quality. Combining these with measurement principles leads to the development of a quantitative based statistical holistic tool to measure and assess survey quality. The criteria, weights and subweights for the assessment tool are determined using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) and a survey questionnaire based on the Delphi method. Finally the model is applied to a database of surveys which was constructed to develop methods of classification, assessment and improvement of survey quality. The model developed in this thesis enables survey researchers and/or commissioners to make a holistic assessment of the value of the particular survey(s). This model is an Excel based audit which takes a holistic approach, following all stages of the survey from inception, to design, construction, execution, analysis and dissemination. At each stage a set of criteria are applied to assess quality. Scores attained against these assessments are weighted by the importance of the criteria and summed to give an overall assessment of the stage. The total score for a survey can be obtained by a combination of the scores for every stage weighted again by the importance of each stage. The advantage of this is to construct a means of survey assessment which can be used in a diagnostic manner to assess and improve survey quality.

Marking and providing feedback face-to-face: staff and student perspectives.

The setting, marking and providing feedback on assessments forms an important part of a tutor’s role. Studies into the use of feedback and how it is interpreted by students indicate a mismatch between what students are looking for and what tutors think they are giving. Tutors comment that students are more interested in the mark than the feedback, and yet students indicate that they do not get enough feedback, or that it is not useful. This study investigates student and staff perceptions of the linking of marking and feedback in face-to-face sessions. A cohort of year one university students were given the option of receiving either written feedback or a 15 minute meeting with one of their tutors to have their essay marked with them. Forty nine students chose face-to-face marking, the remaining 35 students received written feedback. Focus groups were used to investigate the student experience. Staff members were also asked to reflect on the process. Students and staff found the experience of face-to-face marking beneficial and positive. Both felt that the time spent together allowed for a feedback dialogue about the piece of work, and that staff could explain and justify why marks were given.

Comprehensive assessment of alcohol-related brain damage (ARBD): gap or chasm in the evidence?

Alcohol-related brain damage (ARBD) is primarily caused by chronic alcohol misuse and thiamine deficiency, and results in a broad range of impairments. Despite the increasing incidence of ARBD in the UK in recent decades, it is currently underdiagnosed, managed inappropriately and treated inadequately. Moreover, information about assessments for individuals with ARBD is currently absent from clinical guidelines and policy documents. The aim of this paper was to review the evidence relating to the neurological, neuropsychological, psychosocial, physical and nutritional assessment of individuals with ARBD to identify appropriate assessment tools that could be used to measure and monitor the impact of ARBD over time. A systematic online database search revealed a total of 160 separate references, 133 of which were rejected and two of which could not be accessed. Twenty-five papers were included in the review, including six neuroimaging studies, 17 neuropsychological studies and two studies using psychosocial methods of assessment. A lack of evidence for nutritional and physical assessment of individuals with ARBD was found. The review findings are inconclusive; most instruments currently used in ARBD research have not specifically been validated for use within an ARBD context. Further research is required to identify comprehensive methods of ARBD assessment.