Social validation as a measure of improvement after aphasia treatment: Its usefulness and influencing factors

Cupit, Jennifer; Rochon, Elizabeth; Léonard, Carol; Laird, Laura

doi:10.1080/02687031003615235

Cited by 20 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Kagan and colleagues (2008) reported that policy makers and funding sources recommend the use of patient-reported outcomes when assessing the effects of treatment. Cupit, Rochon, Leonard, and Laird (2010) suggest that social validation measures may serve as proxy measurements for participants' success in interacting with community members. Both forms of outcome measures have the potential to provide information about the impact of treatment on the everyday life of participants with aphasia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Discourse treatment for word retrieval impairment in aphasia: The story so far

Boyle

2011

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Impairment-focused aphasia treatment has an ultimate goal of improving language production in connected speech and communication in daily life. Although impairment-based treatment has typically been carried out in words or sentences, investigations have begun to explore the efficacy of treatment during discourse production. Focusing treatment on an impaired linguistic process during discourse production is a complex and challenging endeavour. Aims: This paper aims to review investigations of discourse treatment for word retrieval impairment in aphasia in order to identify and discuss variables that emerge as being important considerations in clinical practice and continued research. Main Contribution: Seven investigations that applied treatments during structured discourse production to improve word retrieval in participants with aphasia were reviewed. Treatment methods used in the investigations included phonologic and orthographic cues, semantic feature analysis, contingency-based cueing hierarchies, and repeated conversational engagement. The discourse contexts used for treatment were structured conversations or structured narrative discourse. All investigations reported positive outcomes for improved word retrieval abilities. Although treated vocabulary items did not improve in all cases, improvements in general processes of word retrieval were reported. Focusing treatment on the linguistic process of word retrieval resulted in changes to discourse macrostructure, at least in terms of the informativeness of the discourse. When attitudes and perceptions of the participants with aphasia or of naïve judges were assessed, the outcomes were generally favourable. One investigation provided evidence that treatment in structured discourse was related to improved word retrieval in real-life conversations.Conclusions: There are several promising discourse treatment approaches for word retrieval impairments in aphasia. Systematic analysis of changes in the macrolinguistic processes of discourse, in real-life conversations, and in the attitudes and perceptions of participants with aphasia and others in future discourse treatment studies would enhance our insights about their efficacy.There has been a great deal of activity in the past two decades in developing treatments at the discourse level for people with aphasia. These investigations reflect a variety of orientations to aphasia treatment. A review of the literature reveals two

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Discourse treatment for word retrieval impairment in aphasia: The story so far

Boyle

2011

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…B. Ross & Wertz, 1999), suggesting they are consistent with person-centered frameworks. MCA has also been reported to correlate well with formal measures of overall severity (Kong, 2011;Kong et al, 2016), microlinguistic measures (Dalton & Richardson, 2015), confrontation naming (Richardson et al, 2018), listener perceptions (Cupit et al, 2010;K. B. Ross & Wertz, 1999), and conversational informativeness (Doyle, Goda, & Spencer, 1995).…”

Section: Discourse Informativeness Measuresmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…MCA is sensitive to differences between control speakers and individuals with aphasia (Kong, 2009;Kong, Whiteside, & Bargmann, 2016;Nicholas & Brookshire, 1995), as well as between individuals with fluent and nonfluent aphasia (Kong et al, 2016). Informativeness measures (CIUs, propositions, % accurate/complete [AC] MCs) may be useful for capturing treatment response (Albright & Purves, 2008;Avent & Austermann, 2003;Coelho, McHugh, & Boyle, 2000;Cupit, Rochon, Leonard, & Laird, 2010;Stark, 2010) and are correlated with listener perceptions (Cupit et al, 2010;K. B. Ross & Wertz, 1999), suggesting they are consistent with person-centered frameworks.…”

Section: Discourse Informativeness Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Large-Scale Comparison of Main Concept Production Between Persons With Aphasia and Persons Without Brain Injury

Dalton

Richardson

2019

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purposes of this study are to provide clinicians and researchers with introductory psychometric data for the main concept analysis (MCA), a measure of discourse informativeness, and specifically, to provide descriptive and comparative statistical information about the performance of a large sample of persons not brain injured (PNBIs) and persons with aphasia (PWAs) on AphasiaBank discourse tasks. Method Transcripts of 5 semi-spontaneous discourse tasks were retrieved from the AphasiaBank database and scored according to detailed checklists and scoring procedures. Transcripts from 145 PNBIs and 238 PWAs were scored; descriptive statistics, median tests, and effect sizes are reported. Results PWAs demonstrated overall lower informativeness scores and more frequent production of statements that were inaccurate and/or incomplete. Differences between PNBIs and PWAs were observed for all main concept measures and stories. Comparisons of PNBIs and aphasia subtypes revealed significant differences for all groups, although the pattern of differences and strength of effect sizes varied by group and discourse task. Conclusions These results may improve the investigative and clinical utility of the MCA by providing descriptive and comparative information for PNBIs and PWAs for standardized discourse tasks that can be reliably scored. The results indicate that the MCA is sensitive to differences in discourse as a result of aphasia. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.7485647

show abstract

“…Crucially, AC efficiency and CoreLex scores are sensitive enough to detect differences between healthy controls and those who score above the cut-off for a diagnosis of aphasia, consistent with Fromm and colleagues. 58 Combined with previous research reporting changes in similar informativeness measures in response to treatment, [81][82][83][84][85] and their relationship to measures of quality of life, 62,81 these results suggest that MCA, CoreLex, and derived efficiency scores are informative discourse measures with standardized administration and accompanying normative data 6,32,40,56,57,[59][60][61]64,65 that may be appropriate for use as primary clinical outcomes as defined by Brady et al 2 Primary Progressive Aphasia This is the first study to examine discourse informativeness, typicality, and efficiency in adults with PPA. Individuals with PPA produce discourse that is less informative and efficient, with fewer typical lexical items than healthy controls.…”

Section: Stable Aphasiamentioning

confidence: 85%

Moving Toward Non-transcription based Discourse Analysis in Stable and Progressive Aphasia

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurement of communication ability at the discourse level holds promise for predicting how well persons with stable (e.g., stroke-induced), or progressive aphasia navigate everyday communicative interactions. However, barriers to the clinical utilization of discourse measures have persisted. Recent advancements in the standardization of elicitation protocols and the existence of large databases for development of normative references have begun to address some of these barriers. Still, time remains a consistently reported barrier by clinicians. Non-transcription based discourse measurement would reduce the time required for discourse analysis, making clinical utilization a reality. The purpose of this article is to present evidence regarding discourse measures (main concept analysis, core lexicon, and derived efficiency scores) that are well suited to non-transcription based analysis. Combined with previous research, our results suggest that these measures are sensitive to changes following stroke or neurodegenerative disease. Given the evidence, further research specifically assessing the reliability of these measures in clinical implementation is warranted.

show abstract

Social validation as a measure of improvement after aphasia treatment: Its usefulness and influencing factors

Cited by 20 publications

References 24 publications

Discourse treatment for word retrieval impairment in aphasia: The story so far

Discourse treatment for word retrieval impairment in aphasia: The story so far

A Large-Scale Comparison of Main Concept Production Between Persons With Aphasia and Persons Without Brain Injury

Moving Toward Non-transcription based Discourse Analysis in Stable and Progressive Aphasia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About