This course provides clinicians with information needed to conduct effective cognitive screenings. Based on prevalence data, perhaps 50% of a typical clinician's caseload will include individuals with some type of cognitive impairment. Discussed will be evidence-based, formal cognitive screening tools to ensure that these impairments will be detected. All of these tools can be used in about 5-10 minutes. Participants will also learn how to estimate the percentage of clients on a typical caseload who may have cognitive impairments, based on diagnoses and prevalence data. This course concludes with a comparison chart of these evidence-supported tools and availability information. Offered for 0.15 ASHA CEUs – 1.5 contact hours.
Run Time: 1:31:00
The content of this online CE course does not focus exclusively on any specific proprietary product or service. Presenter financial and non-financial disclosures may be found in the Presenter & Disclosures area.
Video PowerPoint presentation with author narration & downloadable handout.
Jacqueline J. Hinckley, PhD, CCC-SLP, BC-NCD, is Board Certified in Neurogenic Communication Disorders (ANCDS) and has 25 years of experience treating patients with aphasia and other neurogenic communication disorders. After a career as a clinician and clinical manager, she is now Associate Professor Emeritus in Communication Sciences & Disorders at the University of South Florida in Tampa, FL. Dr. Hinckley is known internationally for her work on treatment effectiveness and implementation. She has a particular interest in integrating the clinician's expertise and the client's values with scientific evidence supporting best practices. She has published numerous articles and book chapters on assessment and treatment in aphasia and is the author of the book Narrative-Based Practice in Speech-Language Pathology.
Financial — Jacqueline Hinckley is an author of online CE courses sponsored by Northern Speech Services; receives royalty payments.
Nonfinancial — Jacqueline Hinckley submitted a manuscript titled, "A Case for the Implementation of Cognitive Screenings After Stroke" to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
This program is offered for 0.15 ASHA CEUs (Intermediate Level; Professional Area).
ASHA CEUs: NSS online courses are registered with ASHA and are offered for ASHA CEUs. The number of ASHA CEUs is noted above. Note that 0.1 ASHA CEU = 1 contact hour = equals 1 CEE.
ASHA CE Registry: During the enrollment process, if you select to receive ASHA credit for this course and if you provide your ASHA number, NSS will automatically submit your CEU information to the ASHA CE Registry after successful course completion (80% on post test). This submission happens once per month, during the first week of the month. For example, if you complete your course on November 7th, NSS will submit all November online course CEUs to ASHA during the first week of December. When ASHA inputs the information into their database, they will mark the course as completed on the last day of the month in which it was completed, so November 30th using this example. The certificate of completion available for you to print immediately, however, will reflect the actual completion date, November 7th in this example. Due to ASHA processing procedures please allow 2-3 weeks, from the submission date, for the course to appear on your ASHA transcript.
ASHA CEUs: Attendees must meet at least one of the following conditions in order to be eligible to earn ASHA CEUs:
If an attendee is not an ASHA member or CCC holder but meets any of the above criteria, they may inform the ASHA CE Registry of their eligibility by visiting this site.
Licensing Boards: Most state licensing boards DO accept CEUs earned online (usually classified as home-study credits). Some state boards do, however, place a limit to the number of credits that can be earned via home study/online courses. For the most current information, we suggest that you contact your licensing board or agency to verify acceptance policies and/or any credit limits related to home-study courses prior to registering for this course.
Additional accrediting agencies by which Northern Speech is an approved CE provider:
Course Completion Timeframe: You have unlimited time to complete this online course. You may log off and log on as you wish in order to complete all sections of this course.
Content Access: Access to course materials and content does not expire, even after completing the post test. You may continue to review course material by logging into your NSS account, clicking the My Online Courses tab, and then viewing your desired course.
Certificate of Completion: On successful completion of the post test (80%), a certificate will be immediately available for download and/or printing. This certificate will include your name, date of completion (based on Eastern Time Zone, USA/Canada), and number of contact hours (CEUs / CEEs). Please note that CEUs are awarded on the date of successful test completion, not the date of course enrollment. Please ensure that you successfully complete the post test prior to any licensure renewal dates.
ASHA CE Registry Submission: During the enrollment process, if you select to receive ASHA credit for this course and if you provide your ASHA number, NSS will automatically submit your CEU information to the ASHA CE Registry after successful course completion (80% on post test). This submission happens once per month, during the first week of the month. For example, if you complete your course on November 7th, NSS will submit all November online course CEUs to ASHA during the first week of December. When ASHA inputs the information into their database, they will mark the course as completed on the last day of the month in which it was completed, so November 30th using this example. The certificate of completion available for you to print immediately, however, will reflect the actual completion date, November 7th in this example. Due to ASHA processing procedures please allow 2-3 weeks, from the submission date, for the course to appear on your ASHA transcript.
Purchase Orders: Purchase orders are NOT accepted when registering for online courses. Payment must be made online in the form of a credit or debit card payment.
What is an Online Course? Our Online Courses consist of video, audio, and/or text content and are offered for ASHA CEUs. Unlike a webinar, which requires participants to be logged on and at a computer at specific times, our Online Courses are available to you at any time, from any device, via your NorthernSpeech.com online account. You may work at your own pace and start and stop your course as you wish. Your course will conclude with a short post test. On successful completion of the post test (>80%), a printable certificate of completion is presented to you.
Receiving CEUs: Northern Speech is an ASHA CE Provider and our online courses are registered with ASHA and offered for ASHA CEUs. Please note that successful completion of the online post test is required prior to the awarding of CEUs. Please contact your state licensing board for acceptance policies related to CEUs earned online.
Registering for an online course: You may browse all online courses by clicking the Continuing Education tab above, then Online Courses. Once you find a course, click Enroll Now, and you will be asked to either log into your existing Northern Speech account or create a new online account. Once you’ve entered your account information and provided your credit card payment, your course will be immediately available to you.
Accessing your purchased course or returning to a purchased course: You will be able to access your online course by logging into your Northern Speech account and then clicking the My Online Courses tab on your profile screen. Click the course you would like to start or to resume. From there, proceed through the course sections until you are ready to complete the post test. You do not have to complete your course all at once. You may log on and off as you wish.
Testing requirements: Each online course concludes with a post test consisting of multiple choice or true & false questions. Scores of 80% or greater are required for successful course completion and awarding of CEUs. You may revisit course materials and retest as needed to achieve a passing score.
Number of CEUs offered: We offer courses from 1 to 21 contact hours. Each course will note the number of CEUs offered. Please note that 0.1 CEU = 1 contact hour = 1 CEE.
State licensing boards and online CEUs: NSS is an ASHA CE Provider and most state licensing boards DO accept ASHA CEUs earned online (usually classified as home-study credits). Some boards do, however, place a limit to the number of CEUs that can be earned via home study/online courses. For the most current information, we suggest that you contact your licensing board or agency to verify acceptance policies and/or any CEU limits related to home-study courses prior to enrolling in an online course.
Course formats: Our course formats include: text, audio, video, and PowerPoint with author narration. Each course will note the format on the course description page.
Course handouts: Most of our online courses provide a link to download the accompanying handout as a PDF file.
Group discounts: Groups of 3 or more are eligible for a 20% discount on each registration on most of our online courses. To receive this discount, registrations need to be processed together via the "Group Rates" tab on the Online Course of your choice.
Computer requirements: For our online courses to function best, we recommend that you update your computer to include the newest version of your Internet browser (Safari, Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Internet Explorer, etc.) and newest version of your computer's operating system. Also a high-speed Internet connection is recommended (cable or DSL). Speakers or headphones will be required for many of our courses as many contain audio components.
Course Cancellation Policy: A purchased online course can be exchanged, refunded, or transferred to another individual if contact is made with NSS (via phone or email) within 30 days of purchase and the course materials have not been viewed or downloaded.
| Contact Us |
"The speaker was informative and demonstrated knowledge of information. The most beneficial aspect of the presentation is the actual study with percentages of cognitive impairments." – G.G. (Feb. 2020)
"I loved the examples and statistics that were presented. I like that the course is short and to the point! No frills needed." – N.T. (Jan. 2020)
"I most enjoyed the statistics for prevalence of cognitive impairment in people with Parkinsons and the case examples." – K.Z. (Jan. 2020)
"I liked the comparison of screening tests. The information comparing formal screening assessments - when constraints such as time limits are used - it may reveal cognitive impairments. It was a helpful short course, thank you!" – J.S. (Dec. 2019)
"Going over the reason why detection of cognitive impairment is so important was hepful. I liked the comparison of different cognitive screens, but I was hoping there would be more detail when describing the Cognistat and Frenchay screening tools." – J.J. (Dec. 2019)
"It was great! Well organized, smoothly delivered, good explanations of research and tips on evidence based tools and how to obtain them. I especially enjoyed the prevalence data on cognitive impairments in different diagnoses." – G.O. (Nov. 2019)
"I appreciated the different screening tools. I currently use the MOCA and SLUMS but will be checking out the cognistat." – J.R. (Nov. 2019)
"The statistics were helpful. Exploring the different screen tests was helpful." – L.B. (Oct. 2019)
"The course was exceptionally well organized and presented in a very objective and easy-to-follow format. The discussion regarding the rates of mortality for individuals with cognitive-linguistic impairment versus no impairment and side by side comparisons of screening tools and their validity in recognizing mild cognitive impairment and dementia was most beneficial." – J.W. (Sept. 2019)
"I liked using and demonstrating how to use specific tools in everyday practice." – J.J. (July 2019)
"I appreciated the introduction and comparison of various cognitive screeners. The information presented was succinct, relevant, and clear." – E.H. (June 2019)
"Great course! I like that it was presented in a very logical, succinct, and clearly stated manner." – N.H. (May 2019)
"I found the differences between cognitive screening tools to most beneficial to my daily practice. I liked the pace of delivery and examples provided. I would have appreciated guidelines for administration of cognitive screenings and how to implement results into goal setting." – M.P. (Apr. 2019)
"I enjoyed comparing the different assessments - the pros and cons. I liked the functional application to daily practice." – A.M. (Mar. 2019)
"The whole course was very beneficial to my work at Vocational Rehab! I like that everything was applicable." – M.G. (Feb. 2019)
"I appreciated learning the difference between data gathered for informal observation vs. formal assessment of cognitive skills." – L.N.K. (Dec. 2018)
"The idea of rating the different diagnosis and related cognitive impairments into percentages for increased caseload perspective was helpful. I like that the course was practical, included tests I use every day, and is easy to apply." – D.K. (Nov. 2018)
"I liked confirming my expectations that a standardized screening is more effective at identifying cognitive difficulties vs informal observation." – J.G. (Nov. 2018)
"I appreciated the breakdown of the different cognitive assessments and results of informal vs formal screening tools in detecting language and cognitive impairments. I liked the organization (eg, broken into shorter segments) and ability to print handouts." – S.C. (Oct. 2018)
"The section I found most beneficial was the topic of the importance of a formal screening tool to identify cognitive impairment, especially mild cognitive impairment. The fact that so many people with impairments are missed based on informal screening was astonishing." – A.B. (July 2018)
"I appreciated the comparison of formal cognitive screening to informal observation." – A.W. (Apr. 2018)
"The comparison of the various cognitive screening tools was very helpful. This was a practical course with concise information presented in an efficient, organized manner." – S.K. (Jan. 2018)
"The discussions on specific tests deemed most effective in identifying MCI and prevalence of cognitive impairments within diagnosis. I liked the use of functional material and practical experiences." – W.N. (Jan. 2018)
"Going over the difference between formal screening and informal in terms of patients overlooked was helpful. I liked the organization of information." – M.T. (Nov. 2017)
"The instructor is easy to understand and explains the topic well. Comparing the screening tests and helping me realize the importance of using a screening tool and not just an informal interview to determine if further testing is needed was most beneficial." – M.A.R. (Oct. 2017)
"I liked going over the specific benefits of different tests." – J.R. (Aug. 2017)
"The discussion on the prevalence of cognitive deficits in patients who suffered a stroke was useful." – R.B. (June 2017)
"I liked how the course was divided into separate videos for each section -- easy to keep my place! I liked that it was quite short and put forth several specific ideas with 'digestion' time devoted to each point. This will make it easier to remember than a day-long course where there are way too many ideas to digest." – S.N. (June 2017)
"The statistics from research re: prevalence of missed dx in various patients due to informal probes vs. formal assessment/screeners was most beneficial. I liked the breakdown of cognition as it relates to various dx." – L.K. (May 2017)
"The use of the FAS and the difference between visual confrontation naming and verbal fluency tasks were very helpful sections." – R.R. (Mar. 2017)
"Logical and well organized presentation. Relevant content. I appreciated the discussion on the high % of pts overlooked when informally observed vs formally screened." – P.H. (Mar. 2017)
"I enjoyed the comparison of the four cognitive screening tools as well as the detailed explanations & pros and cons of the different cognitive screening tools." – L.N. (Jan. 2017)
"Very interesting info!! I liked the links and info for all the tests." – J.T. (Dec. 2016)
"I enjoyed the statistics related to cognitive impairment in different populations. The delivery of information was extremely slow and very basic. The in formation could have been covered in about half the time." – I.M. (Dec. 2016)
"I really appreciated the discussion on the amount of impairment missed with clinical observation only as well as the comparison of formal screenings. I liked the information provided and research or studies to support info." – D.H. (Dec. 2016)
"Going over the large number of patients that have cognitive linguistic deficits that are missed by clinical observation alone was very helpful. Also, the prevalence of cognitive linguistic deficits in differing populations was interesting." – P.D. (Nov. 2016)
"This course has reinforced the fact that these are useful tools and have excellent evidence backing their appropriate use by SLPs. I found that an hour and a half was a good length of time for this information, and the breaking up of the course into 4 sections was an effective format." – R.M. (Oct. 2016)
"The reasons for use and results to expect from each tool reviewed were beneficial. I liked that the course was straight to the point and helpful in explaining variety of screening tools." – C.D. (Oct. 2016)
"The chart comparing the four tests was most useful." – T.T. (Aug. 2016)
"The comparison of the various screening tools was good." – J.P. (July 2016)
"The various screening tools were really helpful. In acute rehab, quick assessments are beneficial. I liked that the course adressed the data for other diagnoses outside of stroke." – J.O. (May 2016)
"The outline was great and the resources are very helpful. The discussion on the vast difference in identifying mild cognitive impairments when comparing informal and formal screenings was most beneficial." – R.A.A. (May 2016)
"I liked the examples of screening tools." – J.O. (Apr. 2016)
"The screening tools were really useful." – L.H. (Mar. 2016)
"I appreciated the overview of what cognitive tests are measuring more specifically. The course was a good review, but I wanted more specifics." – T.O. (Feb. 2016)
"The statistics about cog impairments were great." – M.R. (Feb. 2016)
"I found the statistics of clinical observation vs. formal assessment really beneficial. I appreciated the reinforcement that screening measures (MOCA & SLUMS) I currently use as a screener is supported by research." – J.D. (Feb. 2016)
"I liked the specific information provided comparing the screening tools." – V.K. (Feb. 2016)
"The information regarding information observations versus using a formal screening tool to identify cognitive deficits was really beneficial. However, I expected a discussion identifying patients who will make functional progress." – K.M. (Jan. 2016)