Conversational Skills in Closed Head Injury: Part 1

Parsons, Carl; Lambier, Jennifer; Snow, Pamela; Mooney, Diane Couch Lisa

doi:10.3109/asl2.1989.17.issue-2.03

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These have ranged from line drawings, such as the well-known`Cookie Theft ' picture from the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) (Goodglass and Kaplan 1972) (e.g. Ehrlich 1988, Parsons et al 1989, Coppens 1995, to multi-frame cartoon drawings (e.g. Hartley andJensen 1991, Wolfolk et al 1992), ®lmstrips (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Narrative discourse following severe traumatic brain injury: a longitudinal follow-up

Snow

Douglas

Ponsfordoe³

1999

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the narrative discourse abilities of a group of severely traumatically brain injured (TBI) speakers at two intervals post-injury. At initial assessment (between 3 and 6 months post-injury) a group of 26 TBI speakers were assessed using a picture description task. The performance of two control groups was also examined. The ®rst control group was comprised of 26 non-TBI orthopaedically injured speakers and the second control group comprised 26 university students. These control groups were selected in order to examine the possibility that premorbid demographic factors can in¯uence the discourse skills of TBI speakers. Measures of interest included content (number and type of story grammar elements present), communicative e¬ciency (syllables per story grammar element) and pragmatic performance (errors on a modi®ed version of Damico's Clinical Discourse AnalysisÐthe CDA-M). The measure which most clearly separated the performance of the TBI speakers from that of the controls on an initial assessment was the CDA-M. At follow-up, a mean of 2 years 10 months post-injury, 24 of the TBI speakers were seen for review. Results at follow-up revealed signi®cant improvement over time and the performance of the TBI speakers could no longer be diåerentiated from that of the orthopaedic patients included in the initial study. The ®ndings are discussed with respect to the implications for narrative discourse sampling and measurement, in relation to severity and chronicity of brain injury.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Narrative discourse following severe traumatic brain injury: a longitudinal follow-up

Snow

Douglas

Ponsfordoe³

1999

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Few workers have, however, systematically addressed this issue. In the past, university students and/or hospital employees have been included as controls [12], or no controls at all were used [14,28]. In a study where so-called`matched' controls were used, it was not clear how this was achieved [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to these parameters, conversation duration (rounded up or down to the nearest minute) was also measured in this study. The CDA has been used in previous investigations into discourse following TBI in both children [34] and adults [11,14]. Point-by-point inter-rater reliability on each of the CDA error types has previously been reported as ranging between 0´7 and 0´9 [34].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conversational assessment following traumatic brain injury: a comparison across two control groups

Snow

Douglas

Ponsford³

1997

Brain Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although changes in discourse are frequently referred to in the traumatic brain injury (TBI) literature, they are difficult to objectify and measure. It is not always easy, therefore, for clinicians to differentiate between discourse behaviours which may have been present premorbidly, and those which are uniquely associated with TBI. The major aim of this study was to systematically examine and describe the nature of conversational impairment following severe TBI, with particular reference to the premorbid sociolinguistic characteristics of the TBI population. A second aim of the study was to examine the relationship between discourse impairment following TBI and severity of injury. Twenty-six TBI participants were compared with 26 non-brain-injured orthopaedic patients, and 26 university students, using Damico's Clinical Discourse Analysis (CDA). As predicted, global measures derived from the CDA did not differentiate the groups. The TBI group was, however, found to differ significantly from both control groups on a modified measure (CDA-M) which removes discourse errors that occurred with similar frequency across the three groups. Performance on this measure correlated significantly with severity of injury. Further, it was found that there were quantitative and qualitative differences between two seventy subgroups in the TBI group with respect to their CDA-M profiles. While nearly all members of the TBI group made errors associated with information transfer, only the more fundamental 'rules' of conversational interaction. The results are discussed in relation to the psychosocial implications of the findings, together with issues in sampling and measuring conversational discourse in the TBI population.

show abstract

Giving information: The importance of context on communicative opportunity for people with traumatic brain injury

Togher¹

2000

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is one of a series investigating everyday communication skills of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) using communication partners other than speech pathologists or research assistants. The ®rst of these studies examined telephone conversations where subjects were asked to request speci®c information during telephone interactions with a range of communication partners. Results indicated that people with TBI were disadvantaged in some of their interactions on the telephone with community agencies and family members during information-seeking interactions, when compared with matched controls. TBI subjects were given less information than matched controls and were also asked for less information. For example, therapists never asked TBI subjects questions to which they didn't already know the answer. This was in contrast to the control interactions, where subjects were asked for novel information.In the current study seven subjects with TBI were compared with seven matched control subjects across two conditions: a community education information-giving session with two schoolboys, and an information-requesting interaction with the researcher. Exchange structure analysis showed that when placed in an information-giving role, TBI subjects gave similar amounts of information as control subjects. TBI subjects used joke telling as an information -giving device, serving a number of communicative functions, which are discussed. There was no signi®cant diåerence in the amount of information requested or given by TBI and control subjects in the researcher condition ; however there were signi®cant qualitative diåerences in the nature of the requesting. It has been previously emphasized that people with TBI should be evaluated with a number of interlocutors as part of a thorough communication needs assessment (Hartley 1995). Merely varying the interlocutor is not su¬cient, however, as the goal of the interaction and the primary speaking roles of participants are also important, and will determine the language choices available to both speakers. Exchange structure analysis is a useful way to delineate these language choices, as it is interpreted in light of the genre of the interaction and the tenor and communicative purpose of the participants.

show abstract

Conversational Skills in Closed Head Injury: Part 1

Cited by 12 publications

References 10 publications

Narrative discourse following severe traumatic brain injury: a longitudinal follow-up

Narrative discourse following severe traumatic brain injury: a longitudinal follow-up

Conversational assessment following traumatic brain injury: a comparison across two control groups

Giving information: The importance of context on communicative opportunity for people with traumatic brain injury

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About