Assessing Language in Unstructured Conversation in People With Aphasia: Methods, Psychometric Integrity, Normative Data, and Comparison to a Structured Narrative Task.
Assessing Language in Unstructured Conversation in People With Aphasia: Methods, Psychometric Integrity, Normative Data, and Comparison to a Structured Narrative Task.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1044/2021_jslhr-20-00641
复制
发表时间：
2021-10
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Marion C. Leaman;L. Edmonds
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Marion C. Leaman;L. Edmonds
目的 本研究评估了失语症患者 (PWA) 和无失语症匹配参与者 (M-PWoA) 的七种语言测量指标（正确信息单元百分比、相关性、主谓-[宾语]、完整话语、语法性、指称衔接、整体连贯性）以及非结构化对话和故事叙述独白 (SNM) 中的交际成功率。此外，还针对这些措施研究了非结构化会话中语言与 SNM 的关系。方法 20 个 PWA 和 20 个 M-PWoA 在不同的日子与接受过社交对话伙伴培训的不同言语病理学家参加了两次非结构化对话。对每次对话的 8 至 12 分钟片段进行了分析。此外，每次访问时都会使用无字图画书来获取 SNM 样本。进行相关分析来解决主要研究问题。还计算了两种条件下测量的标准范围和最小可检测变化数据。结果 对于两组的参数测量，IRR 和 TRTS 均为中等至良好，非参数测量为中等至优秀，但对话中 PWA 的参考凝聚力的 TRTS 除外。此外，在 PWA 中，八个指标中的三个在不同条件下都表现出很强的相关性。八项指标中的三项显示出中等或较弱的相关性，八项指标中的两项相关性并不显着。辅助发现是，对于任何测量，两种条件之间的样本间变异性均未发生显着差异。结论 这项研究重复了之前的研究，证明了在 PWA 中可靠地测量非结构化对话中的语言的可行性。此外，这项研究提供了初步证据，表明非结构化对话和 SNM 之间的某些措施的语言产生存在差异，有助于建立证明不同类型独白之间语言差异的文献基础。因此，这些发现表明，纳入 PWA 感兴趣的特定类型的话语对于失语症的综合评估可能很重要。补充材料 https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16569360。
Purpose This study evaluated interrater reliability (IRR) and test-retest stability (TRTS) of seven linguistic measures (percent correct information units, relevance, subject-verb-[object], complete utterance, grammaticality, referential cohesion, global coherence), and communicative success in unstructured conversation and in a story narrative monologue (SNM) in persons with aphasia (PWAs) and matched participants without aphasia (M-PWoAs). Furthermore, the relationship of language in unstructured conversation and SNM was investigated for these measures. Methods Twenty PWAs and 20 M-PWoAs participated in two unstructured conversations on different days with different speech-language pathologists trained as social conversation partners. An 8- to 12-min segment of each conversation was analyzed. Additionally, a wordless picture book was used to elicit an SNM sample at each visit. Correlational analyses were conducted to address the primary research questions. Normative range and minimal detectable change data were also calculated for the measures in both conditions. Results IRR and TRTS were moderate to good for parametric measures and moderate to excellent for nonparametric measures for both groups, except for TRTS for referential cohesion for the PWAs in conversation. Furthermore, in PWAs, a strong correlation was demonstrated for three of eight measures across conditions. Moderate or weaker correlations were demonstrated for three of eight measures, and correlations for two of eight measures were not significant. An ancillary finding was no significant differences occurred for sample-to-sample variability between the two conditions for any measure. Conclusions This study replicates previous research demonstrating the feasibility to reliably measure language in unstructured conversation in PWAs. Furthermore, this study provides preliminary evidence that language production varies for some measures between unstructured conversation and SNM, contributing to a literature base that demonstrates language variation between different types of monologue. Thus, these findings suggest that inclusion of the specific types of discourse of interest to the PWA may be important for comprehensive assessment of aphasia. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16569360.