2017
DOI: 10.1080/17549507.2017.1290136
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of the Aboriginal Communication Assessment After Brain Injury (ACAABI): A screening tool for identifying acquired communication disorders in Aboriginal Australians

Abstract: There is a need for a screening tool for ACD to be developed but any tool must be informed by knowledge of Aboriginal language, culture and community input in order to be acceptable and valid.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Consistent with tool development within the wider population, briefness remains highly valued in the development of Aboriginal specific screening tools [33,34,51]. The screening tools have also generally maintained a closed system approach to screening [29,30,[52][53][54][55].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Consistent with tool development within the wider population, briefness remains highly valued in the development of Aboriginal specific screening tools [33,34,51]. The screening tools have also generally maintained a closed system approach to screening [29,30,[52][53][54][55].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This includes studies that are examining the validity of 'mainstream' screening tools with Aboriginal populations [26,27]; adaptation studies which validate an 'Aboriginal version' of an existing tool [25,28,29]; and the development and validation of new Aboriginal specific screening tools [30][31][32]. These and other emerging endeavours [33] inform our understanding of what acceptable clinical screening practises look like for Aboriginal Australians.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consistent with tool development within the wider population, briefness remains highly valued in the development of Aboriginal specific screening tools (25,26,43). The screening tools have also generally maintained a closed system approach to screening (21,22,(44)(45)(46)(47).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This includes studies that are examining the validity of 'mainstream' screening tools with Aboriginal populations (18,19); adaptation studies which validate an 'Aboriginal version' of an existing tool (17,20,21); and the development and validation of new Aboriginal specific screening tools (22)(23)(24). These and other emerging endeavours Several studies detailing the development and validation of Aboriginal specific screening tools have been published (17,19,(21)(22)(23)(24)(25), few studies however, report on the process and outcomes of clinical implementation (26,27). Without this lens of enquiry it is impossible to understand if the overall objective for developing Aboriginal specific screening tools, namely health equity, is achieved.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In screening for impairment after brain injury, identification of acquired communication disorders is an important first step in designing appropriate services and supports because of the centrality of linguistic and cultural differences in communication (Armstrong et al , 2018). The work that has been done in Australia with First Nations people to reflect cross-cultural differences in screening and assessment instruments provides an example of ways to blend Aboriginal and Western speech pathology epistemologies and develop culturally valid content and administrative procedures (Armstrong et al , 2017; Armstrong et al , 2018). Research to better understand cognitive impairment in older First Nations people in Australia has attempted to provide normative data for this population group from commonly used cognitive assessments, and it has made valuable contributions to research and clinical applications (Lavrencic et al , 2019; Dingwall et al , 2014; Radford et al , 2015a; Radford et al , 2015b; Dingwall et al , 2017; Shepherd et al , 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%