Validity and satisfaction in telehealth aphasia assessment: videoconference administration of the Comprehensive Aphasia Test-Hungarian

Background: The demand for telehealth aphasia assessment is increasing, yet only a limited number of instruments' validity and feasibility in telehealth have been evaluated. The Comprehensive Aphasia Test (CAT) is a widely available language test with established psychometric properties in several languages, including Hungarian. Aims: The current study aimed to evaluate the validity of administering the Hungarian version of the CAT (CAT-H) via videoconference and explore the satisfaction of people with aphasia (PWA) with videoconference assessment compared to in-person assessment. Methods & Procedures: Twelve PWA with left hemisphere stroke (mean age = 50.83 years, mean post-onset = 19 months), exhibiting mild-to-moderate aphasia, completed both in-person and videoconference assessments using the CAT-H Language Battery. The study used a comparison design, incorporating elements of counterbalancing and blinding. The assessments were conducted by speech-language pathologists (SLPs), with one person leading the in-person assessment and another leading the videoconference assessment for each participant. The order of administration (in-person or videoconference) was counterbalanced across participants. SLPs leading the second assessments were blind to the results of the first assessments. One key adjustment for the videoconference assessment was the utilisation of the screen sharing and/or control sharing features within the videoconferencing software. Participants also filled out a satisfaction questionnaire after each assessment and expressed their preference between the two assessment methods at the end of the study. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to compare the CAT-H modality summary scores and the CAT-H language battery score between in-person and videoconference assessments. Outcomes & Results: There was good-to-excellent agreement between in-person and videoconference assessments, with ICCs ranging from 0.80 to 0.96 (p < 0.001) for the CAT-H modalities and an ICC of 0.97 for the CAT-H language battery score. At the individual level, minor inconsistencies were observed in the language battery score between the two assessments. Participants reported high satisfaction with both assessment methods, with satisfaction levels for the videoconference assessment being comparable to those for the in-person assessment. While the majority of participants did not exhibit a preference between the two methods in terms of understanding the clinician, approximately half of them favoured the in-person assessment for expressing themselves and comfort. Conclusions: Obtained results suggest that the CAT-H can be effectively administered via videoconference, offering a viable alternative to in-person assessment when necessary. Future studies should replicate these findings with a larger and more diverse study sample, involving participants with moderately severe and severe aphasia.