Review
Review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/02687030444000534
复制
发表时间：
2004-12
期刊：
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
R. Prins;R. Bastiaanse
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Prins;R. Bastiaanse
背景：失语症对言语产生有非常严重的后果，因此，对日常生活中的交流。然而，在标准的诊断程序和临床实践中，日常生活中的言语产生的分析通常被忽视，或仅限于评分量表上的一个或多个变量的评分。在过去的几十年里，人们发展了许多描述和分析语篇产出的方法，这些方法的目的不同，侧重于不同的语言层面。目的：本文旨在对目前用于失语症患者自发言语（“话语”）分析的各种方法进行批判性回顾。半自发的言语（描述情景图片或讲故事）和“真实的”自发的言语（基于标准化问题的对话或采访）之间有区别。这两种类型的连接语音可以分析两种类型的测量工具：评级量表和量化的语言变量。最常用的语用，会话和语言分析的测量工具的优点和缺点进行了讨论。特别注意的是（生态）的有效性和可靠性的方法。主要贡献：对分析言语产生和交际能力的程序进行评价的一般结果是，有几种方法不符合可靠性和有效性的要求。其他方法非常耗时，或者对临床实践结果的后果提供很少信息。结论：没有一个讨论的程序是完美的，虽然有些比别人更好。大多数方法不提供日常生活中言语产生和交际障碍的治疗指征，并且不适合确定个体患者自发言语的变化。
Background: Aphasia has very serious consequences for speech production and, hence, for communication in daily life. Nevertheless, in the standard diagnostic procedures and in clinical practice, analysis of speech production in daily life is usually ignored or is restricted to the scoring of one or more variables on rating scales. Many methods for describing and analysing discourse production have been developed during the last few decades, with different aims and focusing on different linguistic levels. Aims: The aim of this paper is to present a critical review of the various methods that are currently used for the analysis of spontaneous speech ("discourse") of aphasic patients. A distinction is made between semi-spontaneous speech (description of situational pictures or story telling) and "real" spontaneous speech (conversations or interviews based on standardised questions). Both types of connected speech can be analysed with two types of measuring instruments: rating scales and quantified linguistic variables. The advantages and disadvantages of the measuring instruments most frequently used for pragmatic, conversational, and linguistic analyses are discussed. Special attention is paid to the (ecological) validity and reliability of the methods. Main Contribution: The general outcome of the evaluation of procedures for analysing speech production and communicative abilities is that several methods do not fulfil the requirements for reliability and validity. Other methods are extremely time-consuming or give little information on the consequences of the outcomes for clinical practice. Conclusions: None of the discussed procedures is perfect, although some are better than others. Most methods do not give indications for treatment of speech production and communicative disorders in daily life and are not suitable for determining changes in the spontaneous speech of individual patients.