CQUniversity Unit Profile.

For this assessment task, you will be required to integrate neurogenic communication case information to identify one aim for a client and two associated targets and context hierarchies. The two targets will be addressed at the same time in therapy. The first target will use a support context hierarchy and will not have a corrective feedback hierarchy. The second target will use either an input/output hierarchy or a partner/setting hierarchy (your choice) and will additionally have a corrective feedback hierarchy. You will follow the TACSI Framework (Target, Aspect & measure, Context hierarchy, Success criterion), which will be taught in class, to fully develop the two intervention targets. You will be provided with a form to complete the specified TACSI sections and additionally justify your choices. As this is a pure clinical reasoning task, references are not mandatory. However, if you make a statement that requires a reference, you must cite the reference and include it in your reference list, using APA-7 formatting.

There are 6 cases from which you may choose:

• Post-stroke nonfluent aphasia (2 cases)
• Post-stroke fluent aphasia
• Post-stroke dysarthria
• Post-stroke apraxia
• Dysarthria due to Parkinson’s Disease

Each case includes a brief case history, clinical interview results, a summary of formal and informal assessment results, and information about the services available at the client’s service delivery setting.

NOTE: The same cases will be used for Assessment 2, but you will complete a different case for Assessment 2.

The cases will be posted for review in Moodle by the start of term. Case selection sign up will open in Moodle on Wednesday 15th July 2026 at 8:00am and close on Friday 17th July 2026 at 8:00am. You will sign up for a combination of two cases, one for Assessment 1 and a different one for Assessment 2 (e.g., a nonfluent aphasia case for Assessment 1 and a post-stroke dysarthria case for Assessment 2). The combinations are pre-determined and cannot be altered. A maximum of 3 students may select any given case study combination. Any students who do not sign up will be assigned an available case study combination.

Level of AI use allowed:

Level 3: You may use Al to assist with specific tasks such as drafting text, refining, and evaluating your work. You must critically evaluate and modify any Al-generated content you use. 

The full Task Description, including marking rubric, will be provided in Moodle.

There are 4 marking criteria that will be used to assess Assessment 1 for SPCH13008:

1. The first criterion focuses on your generation and justification of one aim and two associated general target areas for intervention, which all clearly reflect a holistic, person-centred, and integrated analysis of the client’s condition, needs, and general circumstances. This criterion is worth 25% of this assessment grade.
2. The second criterion focuses on the accuracy and justification of the A-C-S elements of the TACSI Framework for your first target. This criterion is worth 30% of this assessment grade.
3. The third criterion focuses on the accuracy and justification of the A-C-S elements of the TACSI Framework for your second target, along with the accuracy of your explanation of the corrective feedback hierarchy for this target. This criterion is worth 35% of this assessment grade.
4. The fourth criterion focuses on the accuracy and quality of your referencing (if required), writing, and formatting This criterion is worth 10% of this assessment grade. Note that violation of academic integrity requirements for referencing will additionally impact marks for criteria #1-3.

Detailed marking benchmarks will be included in the rubric accompanying the Task Description in Moodle.

For this assessment task, you will be required to identify a communication intervention approach to meet an area of need for a client. There are 3 steps involved in this assessment task:

1. You will identify and appraise the research evidence behind two possible communication intervention approaches that could meet the area of need for the client. The approaches may come from those discussed in the unit or from your own independent research. You must then compare the strengths and limitations of the research evidence behind each approach. This step focuses on completing an evidence-based appraisal of the quality of the two interventions.
2. You will then compare how characteristics/ requirements of each intervention approach match the client preferences and circumstances. 
3. Finally, you will identify your choice of intervention for the client’s specified need, explaining how you balanced the information from the research literature with the information from the client preferences and circumstances. You must ensure your final choice flows logically and is justified from your analyses in the two steps above. You must choose one of the intervention options; you may not choose both.

The maximum word count across all 3 steps is 1,000 words.

There are 6 cases for this assessment:

• Post-stroke nonfluent aphasia (2 cases)
• Post-stroke fluent aphasia
• Post-stroke dysarthria
• Post-stroke apraxia of speech
• Dysarthria due to Parkinson’s Disease

Each case includes a brief case history, clinical interview results, a summary of formal and informal assessment results, and information about the services available at the client’s service delivery setting. 

You will have been assigned a case for this assessment at the same time you were assigned the case for Assessment 1. 

Level of AI use allowed:

Level 3: You may use Al to assist with specific tasks such as drafting text, refining, and evaluating your work. You must critically evaluate and modify any Al-generated content you use.

The full Task Description, including marking rubric, will be provided in Moodle.

There are 4 marking criteria that will be used to assess Assessment 2 for SPCH13008:

1. The first criterion focuses on your selection of reasonable intervention approaches for the target area you identified for the client and your appraisal of strengths and weaknesses in the research evidence for each approach. This criterion is worth 40% of this assessment grade.
2. The second criterion focuses on your mapping of the two interventions to the client’s characteristics and circumstances, taking a holistic, person-centred approach to your analysis. This criterion is worth 20% of this assessment grade.
3. The third criterion focuses on your analysis and justification of your final choice of intervention to address the target area of need you identified. This criterion is worth 30% of this assessment grade.
4. The fourth criterion focuses on the accuracy and quality of your referencing, writing, and formatting. This criterion is worth 10% of this assessment grade. Note that violation of academic integrity requirements for referencing will additionally impact marks for criteria #1 and #3.

Detailed marking benchmarks will be included in the rubric accompanying the Task Description in Moodle.

For this assessment task, you will be required to prepare and deliver a live presentation that explains and demonstrates an intervention to support a client with a traumatic brain injury (TBI). You will have 8 cases from which to choose:

• Case A (Shannon, returning to work after mild TBI): Using a cognitive strategy to address reading comprehension needs
• Case A (Shannon, returning to work after mild TBI): Using a cognitive strategy to address prospective memory needs
• Case A (Shannon, returning to work after mild TBI): Using an external aid to address reading comprehension needs
• Case A (Shannon, returning to work after mild TBI): Using an external aid to address prospective memory needs
• Case B (Samuel, returning to school/leisure after moderate TBI): Using a cognitive strategy to address social communication needs
• Case B (Samuel, returning to school/leisure after moderate TBI): Using a cognitive strategy to address self regulation needs
• Case B (Samuel, returning to school/leisure after moderate TBI): Using an external aid to address social communication needs
• Case B (Samuel, returning to school/leisure after moderate TBI): Using an external aid to address self regulation needs

Each case includes a summary of the client’s characteristics and needs as well as a recommended resource to help you initiate your research and planning for this assessment. The Samuel case information is provided in written form while the Shannon case information includes a short video segment as well as written notes. The cases will be posted for review in Moodle at 9:00am on Tuesday 11th August 2026. Case selection sign up will open in Moodle on Wednesday 12th August 2026 at 8:00am and close on Friday 14th August 2026 at 8:00am. A maximum of 2 students may select any given case. Any students who do not sign up will be assigned an available case.

Your presentation must include:

1. A brief introduction to your client and an aim they might hope to address via therapy.
2. A Goal Attainment Scale you will use to measure outcome on the aim.
3. A brief overview of your chosen strategy/ aid.
4. The rationale for choosing this strategy/ aid as a therapy target. Your rationale must include reference to external evidence as well as client circumstances and their aim. External evidence may relate broadly to the nature of the strategy or aid and/or specifically to the exact strategy or aid you’re choosing (see chapter 7/ 8 in the prescribed text for examples of evidence to get you started).
5. A description of the ingredients (steps and materials) involved in teaching the strategy/ aid.
6. A maximum 5-minute video role-play of the first session training your client to use the strategy/ aid. Assume you and the client collaboratively selected the strategy/ aid in the prior session. However, the client will need a reminder of what’s involved in carrying out the strategy/ aid and why they’re learning it before you embark on the practice trials. Proceed to demonstrating the practice trials of the steps involved in using the strategy/ aid. With the time restrictions for this role-play, you will likely only be able to demonstrate 1-2 practice trials. If your strategy/ aid training includes a step that requires several minutes, you may instead speak to the camera to explain that the client spent X minutes on this step and indicate what happened by the end of that step.
7. A completed data tracking form that accurately documents the client’s performance during the video role-play.
8. A plan to ensure your client will eventually be able to generalise the strategy/ aid into independent use in the required functional setting, including selection of a context hierarchy (input/output, partner/setting, or support) that matches the nature of the target and your client’s needs, description of three levels in your chosen context hierarchy (the starting level, a level to scaffold down, and a level to scaffold up), and an explanation of how you will involve important others in the client’s rehabilitation.
9. A reference list.

Presentations must be no longer than 20 minutes, including the video role-play. You will be alerted when there are 10 minutes remaining. If applicable, you will additionally be alerted when there are 2 minutes remaining. Following your presentation, you will be required to answer two questions, one from a classmate and one from the lecturer. All presentations and question/answer periods will be recorded for marking purposes.

Level of AI use allowed:

Level 3: You may use Al to assist with specific tasks such as drafting text, refining, and evaluating your work. You must critically evaluate and modify any Al-generated content you use. 

As this assessment involves a live presentation and addressing questions from peers, the 72-hour grace period does not apply. 

The full Task Description, including marking rubric, will be provided in Moodle.

There are 4 marking criteria that will be used to assess Assessment 3 for SPCH13008:

1. The first criterion focuses on the client-centredness of your identified aim, the client-centredness and specificity of the Goal Attainment Scale to measure outcome on the aim, the description of the strategy/ aid, and the rationale for choosing this strategy/ aid. This criterion is worth 30% of this assessment grade.
2. The second criterion focuses on the clarity of your explanation and demonstration of the steps in training the strategy/ aid and the accuracy of your documentation of the role-play training results. This criterion is worth 40% of this assessment grade.
3. The third criterion focuses on your generalisation planning, including the specificity of the context hierarchy to systematically advance your client toward independent use of the strategy/ aid in a functional context, and the clarity of your partner training plan. This criterion is worth 15% of this assessment grade.
4. The fourth criterion focuses on your presentation and referencing skills and the clarity of your responses to questions about the presentation. This criterion is worth 15% of this assessment grade. Note that violation of academic integrity requirements for referencing will additionally impact marks for criteria #1-3.

Detailed marking benchmarks will be included in the rubric accompanying the Task Description in Moodle.