Using the ICF Framework to Define Outcomes Aphasiologists have suggested that intervention in aphasia should “beginat theend” (e.g.,Golper, 1996; Kagan, Simmons-Mackie, & Threats, 2003; Rosenbek, LaPointe, & Wertz, 1989). For example, Golper (1996, p. 70) recommended that “treatment should begin with a notion of an intended endpoint” In practice, however, endpoints or outcomes tend tobe defined and ... Article
Article  |   April 01, 2004
Using the ICF Framework to Define Outcomes
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Nina Simmons-Mackie
    Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA
Article Information
Professional Issues & Training / International & Global / Language Disorders / Aphasia / Articles
Article   |   April 01, 2004
Using the ICF Framework to Define Outcomes
SIG 2 Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders, April 2004, Vol. 14, 9-11. doi:10.1044/nnsld14.1.9
SIG 2 Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders, April 2004, Vol. 14, 9-11. doi:10.1044/nnsld14.1.9
Aphasiologists have suggested that intervention in aphasia should “beginat theend” (e.g.,Golper, 1996; Kagan, Simmons-Mackie, & Threats, 2003; Rosenbek, LaPointe, & Wertz, 1989). For example, Golper (1996, p. 70) recommended that “treatment should begin with a notion of an intended endpoint” In practice, however, endpoints or outcomes tend tobe defined and measured in many different ways. Frattali (1998)  discussed a range of potential outcomes in speech-language pathology including clinical, functional, social, client-defined, administrative, or financial outcomes. Thus, “endpoints” for an individual might be variously defined as an improved score on a test, improved word finding in conversation, improved ability to get a message across, or increased participation in social activities involving conversation. Outcomes of intervention also extend beyond individual client changes that are measured by the speech-language pathologist. Distinctions can be made among outcome assessments at the individual level, service level, or population level (Worrall & Egan, 2001). For example, clinicians often measure individual client changes in communication (individual level), as well as changes across a group of particular clients (e.g., those diagnosed with stroke or traumatic brain injury) after participating in a program or receiving a designated service (service level). Thus, outcomes in aphasia might be viewed in widely different ways depending on a variety of factors. More-over, methods of measuring outcomes or endpoints tend to differ widely.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Become a SIG Affiliate
Pay Per View
Entire SIG 2 Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders content & archive
24-hour access
This Issue
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access
We've Changed Our Publication Model...
The 19 individual SIG Perspectives publications have been relaunched as the new, all-in-one Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups.