A Comparison of Three Discourse Elicitation Methods in Aphasia and Age-Matched Adults: Implications for Language Assessment and Outcome.
A Comparison of Three Discourse Elicitation Methods in Aphasia and Age-Matched Adults: Implications for Language Assessment and Outcome.
复制标题
失语症和年龄匹配成人的三种话语诱发方法的比较：对语言评估和结果的影响。
DOI：
10.1044/2019_ajslp-18-0265
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Stark,BrielleC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stark,BrielleC
目的语篇分析常被用于评估失语症患者的语言能力和评估失语症干预后的语言变化。本研究的目的是确定在不同的话语任务在一个大的失语症组和一个年龄和教育匹配的对照group.Methodfour结构化的话语任务，在3个话语类型（说明文，叙事和程序）进行了评估，在一组成年人失语症（n= 90）和年龄匹配的对照组（n= 84）从失语症银行。CLAN软件被用来提取主要的语言变量（平均话语长度，命题密度，类型标记比，每分钟的单词，开闭类单词比，名词动词比，和标记），作为代理的各种语言能力。使用一系列重复测量的协方差分析，与显着相关的人口统计学和描述性变量作为协变量，话语类型的主要影响进行了评估。对照组产生的总体输出显著更多），在两组中，话语类型对大多数主要语言变量都有主要影响，这表明，在有语言障碍和没有语言障碍的成年人中，每种话语类型都在不同程度上对口语系统的组成部分产生了影响。事后测试充实了这些结果，证明，例如，叙事话语产生的语音最高的命题density.ConclusionEach话语类型税的语言系统以不同的方式，验证使用几个话语任务和选择最敏感的话语任务的重要性时，评估特定的语言能力和结果。
PurposeDiscourse analysis is commonly used to assess language ability and to evaluate language change following intervention in aphasia. The purpose of this study was to identify differences in language produced during different discourse tasks in a large aphasia group and an age- and education-matched control group.MethodFour structured discourse tasks across 3 discourse types (expositional, narrative, and procedural) were evaluated in a group of adults with aphasia (n= 90) and an age-matched control group (n= 84) drawn from AphasiaBank. CLAN software was used to extract primary linguistic variables (mean length of utterance, propositional density, type–token ratio, words per minute, open–closed class word ratio, noun–verb ratio, and tokens), which served as proxies for various language abilities. Using a series of repeated-measures analyses of covariance, with significantly correlated demographic and descriptive variables as covariates, main effects of discourse type were evaluated.ResultsDespite an impoverished output from the aphasia group (i.e., the control group produced significantly more overall output), there was a main effect of discourse type on most primary linguistic variables in both groups, suggesting that, in adults with and without language impairments, each discourse type taxed components of the spoken language system to varying extents. Post hoc tests fleshed out these results, demonstrating that, for example, narrative discourse produced speech highest in propositional density.ConclusionEach discourse type taxes the language system in different ways, verifying the importance of using several discourse tasks and selecting the most sensitive discourse tasks when evaluating specific language abilities and outcomes.