Trauner (2008)




NA = not applicable

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

RHBD = right hemisphere brain damage


SOURCE: Trauner, D. A. (2008). Right hemisphere brain damage in children. Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders, 18, 73-81.




DATE: December 14, 2014

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: D – (The highest possible grade for this review was D due to the nature of the design.)


POPULATION: Right Hemisphere Brain Damage; Children


PURPOSE: To describe the cognitive and linguistic functions affected by right hemisphere brain damage (RHBD) in children



Although the author addresses numerous cognitive and linguistic functions (e.g., intellectual test performance, language comprehension, expressive language measures, facial recognition, visual spatial skills) that are affected by RHBD in children, only prosody will be discussed in this review. Only 2 investigations concerned with prosody were reviewed. Together they suggest that children with RHBD are likely to experience problems with the production of linguistic prosody as well as the comprehension and production of affective prosody.



  1. What type of evidence was identified? Secondary Research

What type of secondary review? Narrative Review


  1. Were the results valid? Yes
  2. Was the review based on a clinically sound clinical question? Yes
  3. Did the reviewer clearly describe reasonable criteria for inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review (i.e., sources)? No, the author did not describe criteria.
  4. Author noted that she reviewed the following resources: The author did not describe the search strategy.
  5. Did the sources involve only English language publications? Yes
  6. Did the sources include unpublished studies? Yes
  7. Was the time frame for the publication of the sources sufficient? Yes
  8. Did the reviewer identify the level of evidence of the sources? No
  9. Did the reviewers describe procedures used to evaluate the validity of each of the sources? No
  10. Was there evidence that a specific, predetermined strategy was used to evaluate the sources? No
  11. Did the reviewer or review teams rate the sources independently? No
  12. Were interrater reliability data provided? NA
  13. If the reviewers provided interrater reliability data, list them: NA
  14. If there were no interrater reliability data, was an alternate means to insure reliability described? NA
  15. Were assessments of sources sufficiently reliable? NA
  16. Was the information provided sufficient for the reader to undertake a replication? No
  17. Did the sources that were evaluated involve a sufficient number of participants? Unclear
  18. Were there a sufficient number of sources? No but that is the status of the literature.
  1. Description of outcome measures:

NOTE: Only behaviors concerned with prosody as an outcome or as a dependent variable will be described here.

  • Outcome #1: Expression of affective and linguistic prosody (Trauner et al., 1996)
  • Outcome #2: Receptive prosody (Cohen et al., 1994)



  1. Description of results:
  2. What evidence-based practice (EBP) measures were used to represent the magnitude of the treatment/effect size?  NA
  3. Summarize overall findings of the secondary review:
  • Outcome #1: Expression and comprehension of affective and linguistic prosody (Trauner et al., 1996)

Trauner et al. (1996) reported that children with early focal lesions of the right or left hemisphere had difficulty with the production of linguistic and affective prosody and only those with RHBD had trouble with the comprehension of affective prosody.

  • Outcome #2: Receptive prosody (Cohen et al., 1994)

Cohen et al. (1994) reported that neuropsychological testing revealed that children with RHBD had trouble with overall receptive prosody. Children with left hemisphere brain damage did not evidence similar problems.

  • Overall,

– children with RHBD are likely to experience problems with

  1. the comprehension and production of affective prosody
  2. the production of linguistic prosody
  3. performance on neuropsychological measures of overall receptive prosody

–   children with left hemisphere brain damage seem only to be challenged by

  1. the production of (linguistic and affective) prosody .


  1. Were the results precise? Unclear, this information was not provided by the author.
  2. If confidence intervals were provided in the sources, did the reviewers consider whether evaluations would have varied if the “true” value of metrics were at the upper or lower boundary of the confidence interval? NA
  3. Were the results of individual studies clearly displayed/presented? Yes, but the author only provided general statements about the findings.
  4. For the most part, were the results similar from source to source? Yes
  5. Were the results in the same direction? Yes
  6. Did a forest plot indicate homogeneity? NA
  7. Was heterogeneity of results explored? No
  8. Were the findings reasonable in view of the current literature? Yes
  9. Were negative outcomes noted? No



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: