Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2005; 26(4): 223-241
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-922102
Copyright © 2005 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Nonstandardized Assessment Approaches for Individuals with Traumatic Brain Injuries

Carl Coelho1 , Mark Ylvisaker2 , Lyn S. Turkstra3
  • 1Communication Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
  • 2College of St. Rose, Albany, New York
  • 3Department of Communicative Disorders, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
09 November 2005 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Nonstandardized assessment procedures serve a variety of purposes, including determining competencies in domains for which there are no standardized tests, describing performance in the context of real-world settings and activities, and exploring the effects of systematic changes in communication and cognitive demands and partner supports. This article reviews evidence on the use of nonstandardized procedures for the assessment of individuals with traumatic brain injury and offers recommendations for the use of the procedures that are supported by the available evidence.

KEYWORDS

Traumatic brain injury - assessment - nonstandardized - functional - cognition - communication - discourse - social cognition - pragmatics

REFERENCES

  • 1 Turkstra L, Coelho C, Ylvisaker M. The use of standardized tests for individuals with cognitive-communication disorders.  Semin Speech Lang. 2005;  26 215-222
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lidz C S. Dynamic Assessment: An Interactional Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential. New York; Guilford Press 1987
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Kaplan E. A process approach to neuropsychological assessment. In: Boll T, Bryant BK Clinical Neuropsychology and Brain Function: Research, Measurement, and Practice. Washington, DC; American Psychological Association 1988: 125-167
    Google Scholar
  • 4 World Health Organization .International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Report. Geneva, Switzerland; World Health Organization 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Goodglass H, Kaplan E, Barresi B. Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination. 3rd ed. San Antonio, TX; Psychological Corporation 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Brown M, Gordon W A. Quality of life as a construct in health and disability research.  Mt Sinai J Med. 1999;  66 160-169
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Burgess P W, Alderman N, Evans J, Emslie H, Wilson B A. The ecological validity of tests of executive function.  J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 1998;  4 547-558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Norris G, Tate R L. The Behavioral Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS): concurrent and construct validity.  Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2000;  10 33-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rath J F, Simon D, Langenbahn D M, Sherr R L, Diller L. Measurement of problem-solving deficits in adults with acquired brain damage.  J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2000;  15 724-733
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wilson B A. Goal planning rather than neuropsychological tests should be used to structure and evaluate cognitive rehabilitation.  Brain Impairment. 2003;  4 25-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Anderson S W, Damasio H, Tranel D, Damasio A R. Long-term sequelae of prefrontal cortex damage acquired in early childhood.  Dev Neuropsychol. 2000;  18 281-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ewing-Cobbs L, Fletcher J M, Levin H S, Iovino I, Miner M E. Academic achievement and academic placement following traumatic brain injury in children and adolescents: a two-year longitudinal study.  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1998;  20 769-781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Perrott S B, Taylor H G, Montes J L. Neuropsychological sequelae, familial stress, and environmental adaptation following pediatric head injury.  Dev Neuropsychol. 1991;  7 69-86
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Anderson P J, Anderson V A, Northam E A, Taylor H G. Standardization of the Contingency Naming Test (CNT) for school-aged children: a measure of reactive flexibility.  Clin Neuropsychol Assess. 2000;  1 247-273
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 LeBlanc J E, Hayden M E, Paulman R G. A comparison of neuropsychological and situational assessment for predicting employability after closed head injury.  J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2000;  15 1022-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Starch S, Falltrick E. The importance of a home evaluation for brain injured clients: a team approach.  J Cog Rehabil. 1990;  3 28-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Chaytor N J, Schmitter-Edgecombe M. The ecological validity of neuropsychological tests: a review of the literature on everyday cognitive skills.  Neuropsychol Rev. 2003;  13 181-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Coelho C A, Liles B Z, Duffy R J. The use of discourse analyses for the evaluation of higher level traumatically brain-injured adults.  Brain Inj. 1991;  5 381-392
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Biddle K R, McCabe A, Bliss L S. Narrative skills following traumatic brain injury in children and adults.  J Commun Disord. 1996;  29 447-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Body R, Perkins M R. Validation of linguistic analyses in narrative discourse after traumatic brain injury.  Brain Inj. 2004;  18 707-724
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Brookshire B L, Chapman S B, Song J, Levin H S. Cognitive and linguistic correlates of children's discourse after closed head injury: a three-year follow-up.  J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2000;  6 741-751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chapman S B, Culhane K A, Levin H S et al.. Narrative discourse after closed head injury in children and adolescents.  Brain Lang. 1992;  43 42-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Coelho C A. Story narratives of adults with closed head injury and non-brain injured adults: influence of socioeconomic status, elicitation task, and executive functioning.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;  45 1232-1248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Coelho C, Liles B, Duffy R. Discourse analyses with closed head injured adults: evidence for differing patterns of deficits.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1991;  72 465-468
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Davis G A, Coelho C A. Referential cohesion and logical coherence of narration after closed head injury.  Brain Lang. 2004;  89 508-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Galski T, Tompkins C, Johnston M V. Competence in discourse as a measure of social integration and quality of life in persons with traumatic brain injury.  Brain Inj. 1998;  12 769-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Glosser G, Deser T. Patterns of discourse production among neurological patients with fluent language disorders.  Brain Lang. 1990;  40 67-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hartley L L, Jensen P J. Narrative and procedural discourse after closed head injury.  Brain Inj. 1991;  5 267-285
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Liles B Z, Coelho C A, Duffy R J, Zalagens M R. Effects of elicitation procedures on the narratives of normal and closed head-injured adults.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1989;  54 356-366
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Stout C E, Yorkston K M, Pimentel J I. Discourse production following mild, moderate, and severe traumatic brain injury: a comparison of two tasks.  J Med Speech-Lang Pathol. 2000;  8 15-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Van Leer E, Turkstra L. The effect of elicitation task on discourse coherence and cohesion in adolescents with brain injury.  J Commun Disord. 1999;  32 327-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Mentis M, Prutting C A. Cohesion in the discourse of normal and head-injured adults.  J Speech Hear Res. 1987;  30 88-98
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Snow P, Douglas J, Ponsford J. Procedural discourse following traumatic brain injury.  Aphasiology. 1997;  11 947-967
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Turkstra L S, McDonald S, Kaufmann P M. Assessment of pragmatic communication skills in adolescents after traumatic brain injury.  Brain Inj. 1996;  10 329-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ehrlich J S. Selective characteristics of narrative discourse in head-injured and normal adults.  J Commun Disord. 1988;  21 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Tucker F M, Hanlon R E. Effects of mild traumatic brain injury on narrative discourse production.  Brain Inj. 1998;  12 783-792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 McDonald S. Pragmatic language skills after closed head injury: ability to meet the informational needs of the listener.  Brain Lang. 1993;  44 28-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Coelho C A, Youse K M, Le K N. Conversational discourse in closed-head-injured and non-brain-injured adults.  Aphasiology. 2002;  16 659-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Mentis M, Prutting C A. Analysis of topic as illustrated in a head-injured and a normal adult.  J Speech Hear Res. 1991;  34 583-595
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Coelho C A, Youse K M, Le K N, Feinn R. Narrative and conversational discourse of adults with closed head injuries and non-brain-injured adults: a discriminant analysis.  Aphasiology. 2003;  17 499-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Damico J. Clinical discourse analysis: a functional language assessment technique. In: Simon CS Communication Skills and Classroom Success: Assessment of Language-Learning Disabled Students. San Diego, CA; College-Hill 1985: 125-150
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Prince S, Haynes W O, Haak N J. Occurrence of contingent queries and discourse errors in referential communication and conversational tasks: a study of college students with closed head injury.  J Med Speech-Lang Pathol. 2002;  10 19-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Snow P, Douglas J, Ponsford J. Conversational discourse abilities following severe traumatic brain injury: a follow-up study.  Brain Inj. 1998;  12 911-935
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Prutting C, Kirschner D. A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1987;  52 105-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Ehrlich J, Barry P. Rating communication behaviors in the head-injured adult.  Brain Inj. 1989;  3 193-198
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Milton S B, Prutting C A. Appraisal of Communication Competence in Head Injured Adults. Minneapolis, MN; BRK Publishers 1987
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Bond F, Godfrey H PD. Conversation with traumatically brain-injured individuals: a controlled study of behavioural changes and their impact.  Brain Inj. 1997;  11 319-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Coelho C A, Liles B Z, Duffy R J. Analysis of conversational discourse in head injured adults.  J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1991;  6 92-99
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Wozniak R J, Coelho C A, Duffy R J, Liles B Z. Intonation unit analysis of conversational discourse in closed head injury.  Brain Inj. 1999;  13 191-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Penn C, Cleary J. Compensatory strategies in the language of closed head injured patients.  Brain Inj. 1988;  2 3-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Jordan F, Ward K, Cremona-Meteyard S. Word-finding in the conversational discourse of children with closed head injury.  Aphasiology. 1997;  11 877-888
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Campbell T F, Dollaghan C A. Expressive language recovery in severely brain-injured children and adolescents.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1990;  55 567-581
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Gerber S, Gurland G. Interactive analysis of pragmatic-linguistic abilities in acquired aphasia. Presented at: the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association November 1990 Seattle, WA;
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Halper A S, Cherney L R, Burns M S, Mogil S I. Clinical Management of Right Hemisphere Dysfunction. 2nd ed.  Gaithersburg, MD; Aspen 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 55 Roth F P, Spekman N J. Assessing the pragmatic abilities of children: Part 2. Guidelines, considerations, and specific evaluation procedures.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1984;  49 12-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Roth F P, Spekman N J. Assessing the pragmatic abilities of children: Part 1. Organizational framework and assessment parameters.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1984;  49 2-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Togher L, Hand L, Code C. Measuring service encounters in the traumatic brain injury population.  Aphasiology. 1997;  11 491-505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Togher L, Hand L, Code C. Exchanges of information in the talk of people with traumatic brain injury. In: McDonald S, Togher L, Code C Communication Skills following Traumatic Brain Injury. Hove, UK; Psychology Press 1999: 113-145
    Google Scholar
  • 59 Togher L, Hands L, Code C. Analysing discourse in the traumatic brain injury population: telephone interactions with different communication partners.  Brain Inj. 1997;  11 169-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Baron-Cohen S, Jolliffe T. Another advanced test of theory of mind: evidence from very high functioning adults with autism or Asperger syndrome.  J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1997;  38 813-822
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Happe F. An advanced test of theory of mind: understanding of story characters' thoughts and feelings by able autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal children and adults.  J Autism Dev Disord. 1994;  24 129-154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Baron-Cohen S, O'Riordan M, Stone V, Jones R, Plaisted K. Recognition of faux pas by normally developing children and children with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism.  J Autism Dev Disord. 1999;  29 407-418
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Turkstra L S, McDonald S, DePompei R. Social information processing in adolescents: data from normally developing adolescents and preliminary data from their peers with traumatic brain injury.  J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2001;  16 469-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Flanagan S, McDonald S, Rollins J. The Awareness of Social Inference Test (TASIT). Sydney, Australia; University of New South Wales 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 65 Cuerva A G, Sabe L, Kuzis G, Tiberti C, Dorrego F, Starkstein S E. Theory of mind and pragmatic abilities in dementia.  Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 2001;  14 153-158
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Gregory C, Lough S, Stone V et al.. Theory of mind in patients with frontal variant frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease: theoretical and practical implications.  Brain. 2002;  125 752-764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Happe F, Brownell H, Winner E. Acquired ‘theory of mind’ impairments following stroke.  Cognition. 1999;  70 211-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Rowe A D, Bullock P R, Pokley C E, Morris R G. ‘Theory of mind’ impairments and their relationship to executive functioning following frontal lobe excisions.  Brain. 2001;  124 600-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Ylvisaker M, Feeney T J. Collaborative Brain Injury Intervention: Positive Everyday Routines. San Diego, CA; Singular Publishing Group 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 70 Ylvisaker M, Gioia G. Cognitive assessment. In: Ylvisaker M Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation. 2nd ed. Boston, MA; Butterworth-Heinemann 1998: 159-179
    Google Scholar
  • 71 Vygotsky L S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press 1978
    Google Scholar
  • 72 Feuerstein R. The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device, Theory, Instruments, and Techniques. Baltimore, MD; University Park Press 1979
    Google Scholar
  • 73 Swanson H L, Lassier C M. A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment.  Rev Educ Res. 2001;  71 321-363
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Alberto P, Troutman A. Applied Behavior Analysis for Teachers. 6th ed. Columbus, OH; Merrill Prentice Hall 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 75 Hersen M, Bellack A S. Behavioral Assessment: A Practical Handbook. 2d ed. Elmsford, NY; Pergamon Press 1976
    Google Scholar
  • 76 Ylvisaker M, Szekeres S F, Feeney T. Cognitive rehabilitation: executive functions. In: Ylvisaker M Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation: Children and Adolescents. Revised ed. Boston; Butterworth-Heinemann 1998: 221-269
    Google Scholar
  • 77 Hartley L L. Cognitive-Communicative Abilities following Brain Injury: A Functional Approach. San Diego, CA; Singular Publishing 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 78 Damico J S, Simmons-Mackie N N. Communicative profiling system for aphasia. Biennial International Conference of the British Aphasiology Society September 11-13, 2001 University of Exeter, Exeter, England;
    Google Scholar
  • 79 Ylvisaker M, Sellars C, Edelman L. Rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury in preschoolers. In: Ylvisaker M Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation: Children and Adolescents. Revised ed. Boston; Butterworth-Heinemann 1998: 303-329
    Google Scholar
  • 80 Fivush R. The social construction of personal narratives.  Merrill Palmer Q. 1991;  37 59-81
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Fivush R, Reese E. The social construction of autobiographical memory. In: Conway MA, Rubin DC, Spinnler H, Wagenaar WA Theoretical Perspectives on Autobiographical Memory. The Hague, The Netherlands; Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992: 115-132
    Google Scholar
  • 82 Haden C A, Haine R A, Fivush R. Developing narrative structure in parent-child reminiscing across the preschool years.  Dev Psychol. 1997;  33 295-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Hudson J A. The emergence of autobiographical memory in mother-child conversations. In: Fivush R, Hudson JA Knowing and Remembering in Young Children. New York; Cambridge University Press 1990: 166-196
    Google Scholar
  • 84 McCabe A, Peterson C. Getting the story: a longitudinal study of parental styles in eliciting narratives and developing narrative skills. In: McCabe A, Peterson C New Directions in Developing Narrative Structure. Hillsdale, NJ; Erlbaum 1991: 217-253
    Google Scholar
  • 85 Reese E, Haden C A, Fivush R. Mother-child conversations about the past: relationships of style and memory over time.  Cog Dev. 1993;  8 403-430
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Landry S H, Miller-Loncar C L, Smith K E, Swank P R. The role of early parenting in children's development of executive processes.  Dev Neuropsychol. 2002;  21 15-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Landry S H, Smith K E, Swank P R. The importance of parenting during early childhood for school-age development.  Dev Neuropsychol. 2003;  24 559-591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Blosser J, Neidecker E. School Programs in Speech-Language: Organization and Management. 4th ed. Boston, MA; Allyn & Bacon 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 89 Blosser J L, DePompei R. Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury: Proactive Intervention. Clifton Park, NY; Thompson Learning 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 90 Halliday M AK. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London; Edward Arnold 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 91 Halliday M AK. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London; Edward Arnold 1985
    Google Scholar

Carl CoelhoPh.D. 

Communication Sciences, University of Connecticut, Unit 1085, Storrs, CT 06269-1085

Email: coelho@uconn.edu

      >