Lotte Meteyard




Clinical academic

Speech and Language Therapist

Researching aphasia rehabilitation, with a sideline in statistics

My profile on ORCID

My profile on Google Scholar

If you're interested in collaborating, see the Research page

Acquired Brain & Communication Disorders Lab at University of Reading.

Visit our Lab website! Find the lab on twitter

New publications

A feasibility study of teleassessment for people with aphasia in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait

Altaib, M. K., & Meteyard, L. (2022). A feasibility study of teleassessment for people with aphasia in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Aphasiology, 1-25.

One of the first studies to compare the use of Telepractice for Speech & Language Therapy assessment in Gulf Arabic countries. Previous studies have shown TP to be comparable to the traditional face-to-face (FTF) delivery method for the assessment of PWA. However, these studies have largely been conducted in Western, English-speaking countries. This study evaluates the feasibility of TP to assess PWA using the Short Aphasia Test for Gulf Arabic speakers (SATG). The feasibility study adopted a within-subject cross-over study design, involving 19 individuals with post-stroke aphasia aged 25–64. Each participant was assessed twice using the SATG, once with each delivery method (FTF and TP) and the scores were compared. We collected a number of feasibility measures, including a comparison of the scores for FTF and TP. Anecdotal cultural influences on participant preferences for TP were noted by researchers. There were no significant differences between the two methods in overall scores, but auditory comprehension assessment was affected by poor internet connectivity. High satisfaction with TP was reported, and participants reported a preference for some FTF contact to support setting up TP and prior to the first TP session. Practical considerations for implementing TP are discussed and the paper highlights the influence of cultural aspects on the use of videoconferencing.

What is Functional Communication? A Theoretical Framework for Real-World Communication Applied to Aphasia Rehabilitation

Doedens, W. & Meteyard, L. (2022). What is Functional Communication? A Theoretical Framework for Real-World Communication Applied to Aphasia Rehabilitation. Neuropsychology Review (published online 25.01.2022).

Open access from Neuropsyhology Review

The best outcome for aphasia rehabilitation is that it improves the individual's day to day communication. However, a wealth of evidence shows that typical impairment based approaches (e.g. naming therapy) do not always generalise to what is called 'functional communication'. There is no agreed definition of functional communication, a heterogenous set of outcome measures are used to tap into this ill-defined concept, and there are no consistent guidelines on how Speech & Language Therapists should try to target it during therapy. This position paper and review presents a theoretical framework that defines functional communication as 'situated language use' (Clark, 1996): it is (a) interactive, (b) multimodal and (c) based on common ground/contextualised. Using this framework we present a theoretically motived way to target functional communication in assessment and therapy, reviewing the relevant evidence from healthy adults and individuals with aphasia.

Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science

Meteyard, L., & Davies, R. A. (2020). Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. Journal of Memory and Language, 112, 104092. DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104092

PDF available from Research Gate

The culmination of 5 years' work, with Rob Davies (Lancaster, UK). The use of Linear Mixed-effects Models (LMMs) is set to dominate statistical analyses in psychological science and may become the default approach to analyzing quantitative data. We examined the diversity in how LMMs are used and applied using two methods – a survey of researchers (n = 163) and a quasi-systematic review of papers using LMMs (n = 400). The survey revealed substantive concerns among psychologists using or planning to use LMMs and an absence of agreed standards. The review of papers complemented the survey. Most worryingly, we found huge variation in how models were reported, making meta-analysis or replication near impossible. Using these data as our departure point, we present a set of best practice guidance focusing on the reporting of LMMs. We review and discuss current best practice approaches, and provide easy to read summaries (in a table and in bullet points), and example tables for reporting model comparisons and results.