Abstract
Speech-language pathologists should always provide evidence-based therapies for their aphasic patients. Unfortunately, there is not always evidence-based research demonstrating effective treatment approaches for each type of aphasia, modalities of deficits, and individual patient variables related to age, gender, education, etiology, and other diversity issues. This article discusses clinical syllogisms related to intuition, authority, and relative application as methods for evaluating nonscientifically based therapeutic methods and procedures in aphasia. They should only be used when there is no appropriate evidence-based therapeutic research for a particular patient.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 119-122 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology |
| Volume | 16 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| State | Published - Sep 1 2008 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Otorhinolaryngology
- Rehabilitation
- Speech and Hearing
Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical note logical alternatives to aphasia therapy when evidence-based research is lacking'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
Cite this
Tanner, D. C., & Sciacca, J. (2008). Clinical note logical alternatives to aphasia therapy when evidence-based research is lacking. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 16(3), 119-122.