7.17 Where possible, treatment should be offered in all relevant languages and relevant modalities
Reference: Ansaldo & Saidi, 2014: Narrative review; Centeno & Ansaldo, 2013: Book chapter; ·Faroqi-Shah et al., 2010: Systematic review of 14 studies (12 case studies, 2 single subject design); Meinzer et al., 2007: Case study; Penn et al., 2007: Non-randomised observational study; Roberts, 2008: Book chapter.
NHMRC level of Evidence: III-2
Rationale: Systematic avoidance of a language may reduce the potential for its recovery (Meinzer et al., 2007). In addition, avoidance of a language may reduce the communication access opportunities for a bi/multilingual person (Centeno & Ansaldo, 2013; Penn et al., 2007). Cross-linguistic transfer of treatment gains provided only in one language does not occur in all cases (Ansaldo & Saidi, 2014; Faroqi-Shah et al., 2010), but may occur more easily when using translation tasks, Semantic Feature Analysis or a combination of this approach with phonological cueing, and treating in the weaker premorbid language or in the stronger post-morbid language (Ansaldo & Saidi, 2013).
However, the choice of language should reflect relative accessibility and proficiency, and also the client’s preferences and needs among other factors (Centeno & Ansaldo, 2013; Roberts, 2008).
![]() | aphasiacre@latrobe.edu.au |
![]() | +61 3 9479 5559 |
![]() | Professor Miranda Rose |