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 2008 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Rehabilitation
- Otorhinolaryngology
- Speech and Hearing
Cite this
Clinical note logical alternatives to aphasia therapy when evidence-based research is lacking. / Tanner, Dennis C; Sciacca, John.
In: Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, Vol. 16, No. 3, 09.2008, p. 119-122.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical note logical alternatives to aphasia therapy when evidence-based research is lacking
AU - Tanner, Dennis C
AU - Sciacca, John
PY - 2008/9
Y1 - 2008/9
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865392177&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84865392177&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84865392177
VL - 16
SP - 119
EP - 122
JO - Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology
JF - Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology
SN - 1065-1438
IS - 3
ER -