Treatment of Underlying Forms in a discourse context

Murray, Laura L.; Timberlake, Anne; Eberle, Rebecca

doi:10.1080/02687030601026530

Cited by 24 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(104 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two additional case studies were also located in the literature Murray, Timberlake, & Eberle, 2007), for a total of 14 studies. All studies involved single-participant, multiple-baseline or single-participant case studies.…”

Section: Literature Surveyedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting outcomes for linguistically specific sentence treatment protocols

Dickey

Yoo

2010

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Literature Surveyedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting outcomes for linguistically specific sentence treatment protocols

Dickey

Yoo

2010

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Targeting Sentencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five writing therapy studies aimed to improve written syntax (Jacobs & Thompson, 2000;Mitchum et al, 1993;Murray & Karcher, 2000;Murray et al, 2007;Salis & Edwards, 2010). The syntactic structures targeted included subject-verb (SV; Salis & Edwards, 2010), subject-verb-object (SVO; Mitchum et al, 1993;Murray & Karcher, 2000;Salis & Edwards, 2010), object cleft (Jacobs & Thompson, 2000, p. 6), passive sentences (Jacobs & Thompson, 2000), and object-and subject-extracted embedded who-question sentences (Murray et al, 2007). The studies had either single (4) or multiple (1) case study designs and participants had either nonfluent aphasia (Jacobs & Thompson, 2000;Mitchum et al, 1993;Murray et al, 2007), Wernicke's aphasia (Murray & Karcher, 2000), or both expressive and receptive language impairments (Salis & Edwards, 2010).…”

Section: Targeting Sentencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The syntactic structures targeted included subject-verb (SV; Salis & Edwards, 2010), subject-verb-object (SVO; Mitchum et al, 1993;Murray & Karcher, 2000;Salis & Edwards, 2010), object cleft (Jacobs & Thompson, 2000, p. 6), passive sentences (Jacobs & Thompson, 2000), and object-and subject-extracted embedded who-question sentences (Murray et al, 2007). The studies had either single (4) or multiple (1) case study designs and participants had either nonfluent aphasia (Jacobs & Thompson, 2000;Mitchum et al, 1993;Murray et al, 2007), Wernicke's aphasia (Murray & Karcher, 2000), or both expressive and receptive language impairments (Salis & Edwards, 2010). Salis and Edwards (2010) treated the written production of transitive and intransitive verbs as well as SV and SVO sentences in a participant with moderate-to-severe aphasia and apraxia of speech.…”

Section: Targeting Sentencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retraining writing for functional purposes: a review of the writing therapy literature

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Acquired dysgraphia (impaired writing/spelling skills) can significantly restrict people from participating in social, professional, and educational life. Using writing in order to access the Internet via computers, tablets, and mobile phones has become an important part of everyday life for people of all ages. Improving writing in people with acquired dysgraphia could facilitate communication, reduce isolation, and increase access to information. Aims: This review evaluates the writing therapy literature in terms of its usefulness in guiding clinicians in training writing in adults with acquired dysgraphia generally, with specific reference to functional writing activities. The databases Web of Knowledge and Psychinfo were searched for studies evaluating writing therapies for participants with acquired dysgraphia following brain injury. Studies were categorised according to type of treatment (e.g., impairment-based or assistive technology training) and outcome measures (e.g., single words or sentences). Main Contribution: Sixty-two studies were found. Of these, 54 described impairmentbased writing therapies targeting single words or sentences using either lexical or phonological therapies. A small body of 14 studies evaluated the use of assistive writing technologies either alone or in conjunction with an impairment-based therapy. Although all studies reported positive effects of some kind, only 28 measured the effects of therapy on functional or spontaneous writing and only 21 explicitly encouraged the transfer of writing skills to functional tasks. Conclusions: The writing therapy literature has a dominant tradition of using theoretically motivated treatments to improve single-word writing. It provides limited guidance to clinicians treating functional writing, especially in natural contexts. There may be a specific therapeutic role for assistive technologies which have been as yet largely unexplored in the literature. Furthermore, the cognitive requirements of effective use of assistive technology for dysgraphia warrant research in order to understand which people with dysgraphia may benefit from their use.

show abstract

“…The studies on discourse intervention that we found comprised three distinct approaches to the improvement of discourse (in some studies, more than one approach is used). One approach targets word and sentence production (simple and complex clauses) within discourse [56,[70][71][72][73][74]; another involves massed practice of whole discourses, using AphasiaScripts [75][76][77] and a third focuses on supporting participants to improve their discourse macrostructure using story grammar [56,64,68,78]. Overall, the findings from these studies were positive, with clients' improving in language use, the amount and quality of information conveyed, and how the information was structured, although it was not the case that all three elements improved in every case.…”

Section: Discourse Therapy For Adults With Aphasiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Discourse: Assessment and Therapy

Dipper¹,

Pritchard²

2017

Advances in Speech-Language Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discourse is essential for interaction and for the expression of ideas, feelings and opinions. Telling personal stories, such as talking about your day or recounting what happened in the playground, is essential for communication and establishing relationships. However, due to their language impairments, people with aphasia (PWA) and children with developmental language disorder (DLD) often have problems with everyday discourse which impact on their lives more widely. While improvement in language skills is supported by speech-language pathology (therapy), it tends to focus on smaller linguistic components, such as single words and sentences. This chapter outlines how speakers construct discourse in everyday situations and focuses on the meanings that people use discourse to convey, as well as the lexical and grammatical resources they use to convey these meanings. Current methods for discourse analysis will be outlined and key developments in narrative discourse production therapy will be reviewed.

show abstract

Treatment of Underlying Forms in a discourse context

Cited by 24 publications

References 37 publications

Predicting outcomes for linguistically specific sentence treatment protocols

Predicting outcomes for linguistically specific sentence treatment protocols

Retraining writing for functional purposes: a review of the writing therapy literature

Discourse: Assessment and Therapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About