2019
DOI: 10.1044/2018_ajslp-17-0151
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Follow-Up on the Story Goodness Index for Characterizing Discourse Deficits Following Traumatic Brain Injury

Abstract: Findings from this study were inconsistent with those of Lê and colleagues. The studies did not use identical SGI protocols; specifically, different picture stimuli were used to elicit the story retells. Therefore, this study cannot be considered a replication. The story used by Lê and colleagues was judged to be more complex, requiring more inference for story interpretation. Future studies should interpret findings within the context of the story stimuli presented.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While most previous studies individually examined a specific narrative type, such as story-telling (e.g. Coelho & Flewellyn, 2003;Lindsey et al, 2018) or picture descriptions (e.g. Galetto et al, 2013), the present investigation have considered a range of elicitation tasks with reference to AphasiaBank protocol.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…While most previous studies individually examined a specific narrative type, such as story-telling (e.g. Coelho & Flewellyn, 2003;Lindsey et al, 2018) or picture descriptions (e.g. Galetto et al, 2013), the present investigation have considered a range of elicitation tasks with reference to AphasiaBank protocol.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…lexical, phonological, and syntactic aspects of words and sentences production) and macro-linguistic features (e.g. story completeness; Lindsey, Hurley, Mozeiko, & Coelho, 2018, or cohesion, coherence, and story grammar analysis to reflect how conceptual and pragmatic organization of spoken output is maintained; Andreetta, Cantagallo, & Marini, 2012;Glosser & Deser, 1990).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The pertinent professional literature continues to abound across fields, including special education, school psychology, social work, and pediatrics, although not necessarily within them (e.g., Smith & Canto, 2015). The foci of these various articles include characteristics and incidence (e.g., Blankenship & Canto, 2018), symptomology (e.g., Rees, 2016); instrumentation (e.g., Cohen et al, 2019;Lindsey, Hurley, Mozeiko, & Coelho, 2019); teacher training (e.g., Davies, Fox, Glang, Ettel, & Thomas, 2013;Ettel, Glang, Todis, & Davies, 2016), treatment (e.g., Kelly, Dunford, Forsyth, & Kavcic, 2019), and, especially, interventions (e.g., Canto & Eftaxas, 2018;Chavez-Arana et al, 2018;Jantz, Davies, & Bigler, 2014;Utley, Obiakor, & Obi, 2019) of ABI.…”
Section: Students With Acquired Brain Injury: a Legal Update Perry Zimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CCDs resulting from TBI commonly reflect shifts in cognitive processes such as attention, memory and executive functioning (Lindsey et al., 2019; Marini et al., 2016; Strauss Hough & Barrow, 2003). These processes support linguistic functioning and are integral to effective and efficient communication (College of Audiologists and Speech–Language Pathologists, 2015; Larkins, 2007; Togher et al., 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Individuals with a CCD after TBI can, for example, display a variety of impaired communicative profiles. They may present with disorganized discourse that lacks critical content and contains superfluous information (Lê et al., 2011; Lindsey et al., 2019; Marini et al., 2017; Snow & Douglas, 2000; Strauss Hough & Barrow, 2003). They may also display poor pragmatic skills, speak impulsively and fail to acknowledge social cues (Body et al., 1999; Douglas et al., 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%