Semin Speech Lang 2022; 43(05): 378-390
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1749432
Data-Based Research Articles

Evaluating the Accuracy of Self-Ratings of Language in Adults with Aphasia and Non-Brain Injured Adults: A Pilot Study

Sarah Arnett
1   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Connecticut, North Windham, Connecticut
,
Jennifer Mozeiko
1   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Connecticut, North Windham, Connecticut
› Author Affiliations Funding This research was supported by the IDEA grant program affiliated with the University of Connecticut's Office of Undergraduate Research and by a New Century Scholars Research grant from the American Speech-Language Hearing Foundation.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Rating scales are frequently used in research and clinical practice with people with aphasia (PWA) to characterize communication in the home environment. However, it remains unclear whether responses provided on rating scales accurately reflect the communication that occurs. We aim to evaluate the accuracy of PWA's self-perceptions of verbal language use as measured by a rating scale and determine whether this accuracy is different from that of non–brain-injured (NBI) participants. Four PWA and four NBI participants completed a rating scale estimating their amount of verbal language production as compared with their communication partner. Audio recordings from participants' home environments were analyzed for proportion of words and conversational turns contributed by the participant, which were compared with rating scale estimates. Perceptions of verbal language output among both PWA and NBI participants showed variable accuracy, with discrepancies between estimates and objective data across both groups. The reliability of rating scales in quantifying language output appears questionable, suggesting they may not accurately represent naturalistic language environments of PWA. Additional research with larger sample sizes is warranted to investigate whether this trend is consistent across a larger population of individuals with aphasia.

Keywords

aphasia - rating scales - home environment - self-perception

Recognition of Assistance

This work was made possible by the work of three undergraduate research assistants to manually transcribe recorded sections of conversation. We thank Andrea Polin, Shivani Padhi, and Areej Sayeed for their investment of time and dedication.




Publication History

Article published online:
07 June 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Meinzer M, Djundja D, Barthel G, Elbert T, Rockstroh B. Long-term stability of improved language functions in chronic aphasia after constraint-induced aphasia therapy. Stroke 2005; 36 (07) 1462-1466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Crockett DJ. A comparison of empirically derived groups of aphasic patients on the Neurosensory Center Comprehensive Examination for Aphasia. J Clin Psychol 1977; 33 (1, S1) 194-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hilari K, Wiggins R, Roy P, Byng S, Smith S. Predictors of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in people with chronic aphasia. Aphasiology 2003; 17 (04) 365-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lomas J, Pickard L, Bester S, Elbard H, Finlayson A, Zoghaib C. The communicative effectiveness index: development and psychometric evaluation of a functional communication measure for adult aphasia. J Speech Hear Disord 1989; 54 (01) 113-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Frattali C, Thompson CK, Holland AL, Wohl CB, Ferketic M. Functional Assessment of Communication Skills for Adult. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Kertesz A. The Western Aphasia Battery. New York: Grune & Stratton; 1982
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Spreen O, Risser AH. Assessment of Aphasia. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Prins R, Bastiaanse R. Analyzing the spontaneous speech of aphasic speakers. Aphasiology 2004; 18 (12) 1075-1091
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Paul DR, Frattali CM, Holland AL, Thompson CK, Caperton CJ, Slater SC. ASHA Quality of Communication Life Scale (QCL). Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 10 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
  • 11 Grande M, Hussmann K, Bay E. et al. Basic parameters of spontaneous speech as a sensitive method for measuring change during the course of aphasia. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2008; 43 (04) 408-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Fox S, Armstrong E, Boles L. Conversational treatment in mild aphasia: a case study. Aphasiology 2009; 23 (7–8): 951-964
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Jacobs BJ. Social validity of changes in informativeness and efficiency of aphasic discourse following linguistic specific treatment (LST). Brain Lang 2001; 78 (01) 115-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Raymer AM, McHose B, Smith KG, Iman L, Ambrose A, Casselton C. Contrasting effects of errorless naming treatment and gestural facilitation for word retrieval in aphasia. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2012; 22 (02) 235-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gillespie A, Murphy J, Place M. Divergences of perspective between people with aphasia and their family caregivers. Aphasiology 2010; 24 (12) 1559-1575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Horowitz A, Goodman CR, Reinhardt JP. Congruence between disabled elders and their primary caregivers. Gerontologist 2004; 44 (04) 532-542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Walters K, Iliffe S, Tai SS, Orrell M. Assessing needs from patient, carer and professional perspectives: the Camberwell Assessment of need for Elderly people in primary care. Age Ageing 2000; 29 (06) 505-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Williamson DS, Richman M, Redmond SC. Applying the correlation between aphasia severity and quality of life measures to a life participation approach to aphasia. Top Stroke Rehabil 2011; 18 (02) 101-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hilari K, Owen S, Farrelly SJ. Proxy and self-report agreement on the stroke and aphasia quality of life scale-39. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2007; 78 (10) 1072-1075
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Crockford C, Lesser R. Assessing functional communication in aphasia: clinical utility and time demands of three methods. Eur J Disord Commun 1994; 29 (02) 165-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wilson SM, Eriksson DK, Schneck SM, Lucanie JM. A quick aphasia battery for efficient, reliable, and multidimensional assessment of language function. PLoS One 2018; 13 (02) e0192773
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Brookshire RH, Nicholas LE. Discourse Comprehension Test. Communication Skill Builders. ; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 23 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
  • 24 Burckhardt CS, Anderson KL. The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS): reliability, validity, and utilization. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1 (01) 60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Li L, Vikani AR, Harris GC, Lin FR. Feasibility study to quantify the auditory and social environment of older adults using a digital language processor. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35 (08) 1301-1305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Wang Z, Pan X, Miller KF, Cortina KS. Automatic classification of activities in classroom discourse. Comput Educ 2014; 78: 115-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Wang Z, Miller K, Cortina K. Using the LENA in teacher training: promoting student involvement through automated feedback. Unterrichswissenschaft. 2013; 4: 290-305
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ramírez-Esparza N, García-Sierra A, Kuhl PK. Look who's talking: speech style and social context in language input to infants are linked to concurrent and future speech development. Dev Sci 2014; 17 (06) 880-891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 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
  • 30 Fridriksson J, Nettles C, Davis M, Morrow L, Montgomery A. Functional communication and executive function in aphasia. Clin Linguist Phon 2006; 20 (06) 401-410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 van der Stelt CM, Fama ME, Mccall JD, Snider SF, Turkeltaub PE. Intellectual awareness of naming abilities in people with chronic post-stroke aphasia. Neuropsychologia 2021; 160: 107961
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Fischler I. Attention, resource allocation, and language. . In: Aphasia and Language: Theory to Practice. The Science and Practice of Neuropsychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2000: 348-371
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Murray LL. Review attention and aphasia: theory, research and clinical implications. Aphasiology 1999; 13 (02) 91-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar