PDF herunterladen
Semin Speech Lang 2020; 41(01): 001-009
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3401029
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Choosing Discourse Outcome Measures to Assess Clinical Change

Mary Boyle
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Montclair State University, Bloomfield, New Jersey
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
23. Dezember 2019 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Surveys of speech-language pathologists who work with people with aphasia indicate that they view the large number of existing measures to be a barrier to using discourse analysis in their practice. This article provides a process that can help determine whether a particular discourse outcome measure might be useful with a particular client. The process involves answering questions about the client, the treatment, the work setting, and the psychometric properties of the discourse outcome measure in question. By following this systematic process, clinicians can eliminate outcome measures that are not likely to provide useful data and can focus on those that can help them demonstrate treatment-related change.

Keywords

aphasia - discourse - outcomes

Disclosures

Financial: Mary Boyle receives a salary from Montclair State University. Her current work on discourse is supported by grants from the Aphasia Center of California Research Fund and from the Stroke Association.


Nonfinancial: No relevant nonfinancial relationships exist.


 

  • References

  • 1 Davidson B, Worrall L, Hickson L. Identifying the communication activities of older people with aphasia: evidence from naturalistic observation. Aphasiology 2003; 17: 243-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bryant L, Ferguson A, Spencer E. Linguistic analysis of discourse in aphasia: a review of the literature. Clin Linguist Phon 2016; 30 (07) 489-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bryant L, Spencer E, Ferguson A. Clinical use of linguistic discourse analysis for the assessment of language in aphasia. Aphasiology 2017; 31: 1105-1126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Linnik A, Bastiaanse R, Höhle B. Discourse production in aphasia: a current review of theoretical and methodological challenges. Aphasiology 2016; 30: 765-800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dietz A, Boyle M. Discourse measurement in aphasia research: have we reached the tipping point?. Aphasiology 2018; 32: 459-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pritchard M, Hilari K, Cocks N, Dipper L. Reviewing the quality of discourse information measures in aphasia. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2017; 52 (06) 689-732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Evidence-based practice. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Available at: https://www.asha.org/research/ebp/evidence-based-practice/ . Accessed August 10, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Armstrong E. Aphasic discourse analysis: the story so far. Aphasiology 2000; 14: 875-892
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nicholas LE, Brookshire RH. A system for quantifying the informativeness and efficiency of the connected speech of adults with aphasia. J Speech Hear Res 1993; 36 (02) 338-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Boyle M. Semantic feature analysis treatment for anomia in two fluent aphasia syndromes. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2004; 13 (03) 236-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Edmonds LA, Babb M. Effect of verb network strengthening treatment in moderate-to-severe aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2011; 20 (02) 131-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Rochon E, Saffran EM, Berndt RS, Schwartz MF. Quantitative analysis of aphasic sentence production: further development and new data. Brain Lang 2000; 72 (03) 193-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Andreetta S, Marini A. The effect of lexical deficits on narrative disturbances in fluent aphasia. Aphasiology 2015; 29: 705-723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Coelho CA, Liles B, Duffy R, Clarkson J, Elia D. Longitudinal assessment of narrative discourse in a mildly aphasic adult. Clin Aphasiol 1994; 17: 145-155
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Whitworth A. Using narrative as a bridge: linking language processing models with real-life communication. Semin Speech Lang 2010; 31 (01) 64-75
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Savage MC, Donovan NJ, Hoffman PR. Preliminary results from conversation therapy in two cases of aphasia. Aphasiology 2014; 28: 616-636
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Nicholas LE, Brookshire RH. Presence, completeness, and accuracy of main concepts in the connected speech of non-brain-damaged adults and adults with aphasia. J Speech Hear Res 1995; 38 (01) 145-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Richardson JD, Dalton SG. Main concepts for three different discourse tasks in a large non-clinical sample. Aphasiology 2016; 30 (01) 45-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Richardson JD, Dalton SG. Main concepts for two picture description tasks: an addition to Richardson and Dalton, 2016. Aphasiology 2019; DOI: 10.1080/02687038.2018.1561417.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Barak S, Duncan PW. Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke. NeuroRx 2006; 3 (04) 505-524
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kagan A, Simmons-Mackie N, Rowland A. , et al. Counting what counts: a framework for capturing real-life outcomes of aphasia intervention. Aphasiology 2008; 22: 258-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hula WD, Doyle PJ, Stone CA. , et al. The aphasia communication outcome measure (ACOM): dimensionality, item bank, calibration, and initial validation. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2015; 58 (03) 906-919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kagan A, Simmons-Mackie N, Victor J. , et al. Assessment for Living with Aphasia (ALA), —2nd ed. Toronto, ON: Aphasia Institute; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Hilari K, Byng S, Lamping DL, Smith SC. Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39): evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity. Stroke 2003; 34 (08) 1944-1950
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Babbitt EM, Cherney LR. Communication confidence in persons with aphasia. Top Stroke Rehabil 2010; 17 (03) 214-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hula WD, McNeil MR, Doyle PJ, Rubinsky HJ, Fossett TRD. The inter-rater reliability of the story retell procedure. Aphasiology 2003; 17: 523-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Dalton SG, Hubbard HI, Richardson JD. Moving toward non-transcription based discourse analysis in stable and progressive aphasia. Seminars in Speech and Language 2020; 41: 32-44
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Davis GA. Aphasia and Related Cognitive-Communicative Disorders. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Jerosch-Herold C. An evidence-based approach to choosing outcome measures: a checklist for the critical appraisal of validity, reliability, and responsiveness studies. Br J Occup Ther 2005; 68: 347-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cherney LR, Babbitt EM, Semik P, Heinemann AW. Psychometric properties of the communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia (CCRSA): phase 1. Top Stroke Rehabil 2011; 18 (04) 352-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Babbitt EM, Heinemann AW, Semik P, Cherney LR. Psychometric properties of the Communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia (CCRSA): Phase 2. Aphasiology 2011; 25: 727-725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Doyle PJ, McNeil MR, Spencer K, Goda AJ, Cotrell K, Lustig AP. The effects of concurrent picture presentations on retelling of orally presented stories by adults with aphasia. Aphasiology 1998; 12: 561-574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Doyle PJ, McNeil MR, Park G. , et al. Linguistic validation of four parallel forms of a story retelling procedure. Aphasiology 2000; 14: 537-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 McNeil MR, Doyle PJ, Fossett TRD, Park GH, Goda AJ. Reliability and concurrent validity of the information unit scoring metric for the story retelling procedure. Aphasiology 2001; 15: 991-1006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 McNeil MR, Doyle PJ, Park GH, Fossett TRD, Brodsky MB. Increasing the sensitivity of the Story Retell Procedure for the discrimination of normal elderly subjects from persons with aphasia. Aphasiology 2002; 16: 815-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 McNeil MR, Sung JE, Yang D. , et al. Comparing connected language elicitation procedures in persons with aphasia: concurrent validation of the Story Retell Procedure. Aphasiology 2007; 21: 775-790
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Dietz A, Boyle M. Discourse measurement in aphasia: consensus and caveats. Aphasiology 2018; 32: 487-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Johnston I. I'll Give You a Definite Maybe: An Introductory Handbook on Probability, Statistics, and Excel. Available at: https://johnstoi.web.viu.ca/maybe/maybe4.htm . Accessed January 11, 2010
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2 (14) i-iv , 1–74
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Brookshire RH, Nicholas LE. Speech sample size and test-retest stability of connected speech measures for adults with aphasia. J Speech Hear Res 1994; 37 (02) 399-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Herbert R, Hickin J, Howard D, Osborne F, Best W. Do picture-naming tests provide a valid assessment of lexical retrieval in conversation in aphasia?. Aphasiology 2008; 22: 184-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15 (02) 155-163
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Donoghue D, Stokes EK. ; Physiotherapy Research and Older People (PROP) group. How much change is true change? The minimum detectable change of the Berg Balance Scale in elderly people. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41 (05) 343-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Stratford PW. Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can 2004; 56: 27-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Cook CE. The minimal clinically important change score (MCID): a necessary pretense?. J Man Manip Ther 2008; 16: E82-E83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar