Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine how quality of life (QoL) is measured in people with dementia involved in interventions designed to improve well-being and to explore how those measures align with principles of person-centered care. Method A systematic literature review was conducted utilizing PsychInfo, CINAHL, and PubMed and combinations of the search terms: “dementia,” “outcome measure,” “creative engagement,” “creative intervention,” “TimeSlips,” “art,” “quality of life,” and “well-being.” The search was limited to studies published in peer-reviewed journals that reported outcomes for people with dementia in response to a creative intervention. Results Across the 24 reviewed studies, 30 different outcome measures were reported including eight self-reported, nine observational, and 13 proxy-reported measures. Self-report of QoL was elicited 16 times, observational measures were reported 17 times, and proxy-reported measures were used 28 times. All measures were used with participants across the dementia severity spectrum. Conclusion Current clinical practice of QoL evaluation does not align well with person-centered care principles of self-determination based on the low proportion of self-report. The previously reported limitations of proxy-report have been in part confirmed with this study. Implications of the findings for speech-language pathologists are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Numerous authors report that people with aphasia have greater difficulty allocating attention than people without neurological disorders. Studying how attention deficits contribute to language deficits is important. However, existing methods for indexing attention allocation in people with aphasia pose serious methodological challenges. Eye-tracking methods have great potential to address such challenges. We developed and assessed the validity of a new dual-task method incorporating eye tracking to assess attention allocation. Twenty-six adults with aphasia and 33 control participants completed auditory sentence comprehension and visual search tasks. To test whether the new method validly indexes well-documented patterns in attention allocation, demands were manipulated by varying task complexity in single- and dual-task conditions. Differences in attention allocation were indexed via eye-tracking measures. For all participants significant increases in attention allocation demands were observed from single- to dual-task conditions and from simple to complex stimuli. Individuals with aphasia had greater difficulty allocating attention with greater task demands. Relationships between eye-tracking indices of comprehension during single and dual tasks and standardized testing were examined. Results support the validity of the novel eye-tracking method for assessing attention allocation in people with and without aphasia. Clinical and research implications are discussed.