Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2020; 41(01): 083-098
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3400512
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Exploring the Viability of NARNIA with Cognitive–Communication Difficulties: A Pilot Study

Anne Whitworth
1   School of Occupational Therapy, Social Work and Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia
,
Naomi Ng
1   School of Occupational Therapy, Social Work and Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia
,
Lydia Timms
1   School of Occupational Therapy, Social Work and Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia
,
Emma Power
2   Speech Pathology, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Australia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 December 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Everyday discourse is a common context for the difficulties experienced by people with acquired neurogenic communication disorders. While evidence is present for effective manualized interventions that directly improve the discourse skills in aphasia, this remains limited for people with cognitive–communication disorders. This proof of concept study used an in-depth case series approach to trial the NARNIA discourse intervention used successfully in aphasia to explore transferability of the protocol and effectiveness in people with cognitive–communication impairments. Four female participants with mild to moderate cognitive–communication difficulties (mean age: 52.8 years)—two following traumatic brain injury and two following vascular episodes—were recruited. Modifications were made to the protocol to accommodate the participant group. Cognitive-linguistic abilities, self-perceptions of communicative behavior and psychosocial recovery, and repeated discourse measures were assessed pre-, immediately post, and at 4 weeks following intervention, to measure treatment effectiveness. Significant gains were observed in quantity of output, informativeness, and efficiency of information across both everyday and narrative discourse genres for all participants. However, in contrast to previous studies, minimal change was observed in discourse macrostructure elements. Significant improvements were also observed in memory or working memory for two participants. This study provides preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of using an adapted protocol with people with cognitive–communication disorders, highlighting how adaptations may address the cognitive needs of this diverse clinical group.

Keywords

discourse intervention - multilevel intervention - cognitive–communication - aphasia

Disclosures

None.


Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Nickels L. Therapy for naming disorders: revisiting, revising, and reviewing. Aphasiology 2002; 16 (10–11): 935-979
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Whitworth A, Webster J, Howard D. A Cognitive Neuropsychological Approach to Assessment and Intervention in Aphasia. 2nd ed. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Marshall J. Disorders of Sentence Processing in Aphasia. In: Papathanasiou I, Coppens P, Potagas C. , eds. Aphasia and Related Neurogenic Communication Disorders. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2013: 197-216
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Thompson CK, Shapiro LP, Kiran S, Sobecks J. The role of syntactic complexity in treatment of sentence deficits in agrammatic aphasia: the complexity account of treatment efficacy (CATE). J Speech Lang Hear Res 2003; 46 (03) 591-607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Carragher M, Sage K, Conroy P. Preliminary analysis from a novel treatment targeting the exchange of new information within storytelling for people with nonfluent aphasia and their partners. Aphasiology 2014; 29 (11) 1383-1408
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Milman L, Vega-Mendoza M, Clendenen D. Integrated training for aphasia: an application of part-whole learning to treat lexical retrieval, sentence production, and discourse-level communications in three cases of nonfluent aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2014; 23 (02) 105-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Whitworth A. Using narrative as a bridge: linking language processing models with real-life communication. Semin Speech Lang 2010; 31 (01) 64-75
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Green G. Assessment and treatment of the adult with severe aphasia: aiming for functional generalisation. Australian Journal of Human Communication Disorders. 1982; 10 (01) 11-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Holland A. Communicative Abilities in Daily Living: A Test of Functional Communication for Aphasic Adults. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press; 1980
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Worrall L, Yiu E. Effectiveness of functional communication therapy by volunteers for people with aphasia following stroke. Aphasiology 2000; 14 (09) 911-924
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Milman L. An integrated approach for treating discourse in aphasia. Top Lang Disord 2016; 36 (01) 80-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Whitworth A, Leitão S, Cartwright J. , et al. NARNIA: a new twist to an old tale. A pilot RCT to evaluate a multilevel approach to improving discourse in aphasia. Aphasiology 2015; 29 (11) 1345-1382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wall KJ, Cumming TB, Copland DA. Determining the association between language and cognitive tests in poststroke aphasia. Front Neurol 2017; 8: 149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cahana-Amitay D, Albert M. Redefining Recovery from Aphasia. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Levelt W. Speaking: From Intention To Articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1989
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Whitworth A, Cartwright J, Beales A, Leitão S, Panegyres P, Kane R. Taking words to a new level: a preliminary investigation of discourse intervention in primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology 2017; 32 (11) 1284-1309
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 MacDonald S. Introducing the model of cognitive-communication competence: a model to guide evidence-based communication interventions after brain injury. Brain Inj 2017; 31 (13-14): 1760-1780
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 MacDonald S, Togher L, Code C. Social and Communication Disorders Following Traumatic Brain Injury: 2nd Edition (Paperback) - Routledge. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/Social-and-Communication-Disorders-Following-Traumatic-Brain-Injury-2nd/McDonald-Togher-Code/p/book/9781848721357 . Published 2019. Accessed September 7, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Byom L, Turkstra LS. Cognitive task demands and discourse performance after traumatic brain injury. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2017; 52 (04) 501-513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lannin N, Carr B, Allaous J, Mackenzie B, Falcon A, Tate R. A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of handheld computers for improving everyday memory functioning in patients with memory impairments after acquired brain injury. Clin Rehabil 2014; 28 (05) 470-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Chen AJ, Novakovic-Agopian T, Nycum TJ. , et al. Training of goal-directed attention regulation enhances control over neural processing for individuals with brain injury. Brain 2011; 134 (Pt 5): 1541-1554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Braden C, Hawley L, Newman J, Morey C, Gerber D, Harrison-Felix C. Social communication skills group treatment: a feasibility study for persons with traumatic brain injury and comorbid conditions. Brain Inj 2010; 24 (11) 1298-1310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dahlberg CA, Cusick CP, Hawley LA. , et al. Treatment efficacy of social communication skills training after traumatic brain injury: a randomized treatment and deferred treatment controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88 (12) 1561-1573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 McDonald S, Tate R, Togher L. , et al. Social skills treatment for people with severe, chronic acquired brain injuries: a multicenter trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89 (09) 1648-1659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Togher L, McDonald S, Tate R, Power E, Rietdijk R. Training communication partners of people with traumatic brain injury: reporting the protocol for a clinical trial. Brain Impair 2009; 10 (02) 188-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Coelho CA. Management of discourse deficits following traumatic brain injury: progress, caveats, and needs. Semin Speech Lang 2007; 28 (02) 122-135
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Sohlberg MM, Ehlhardt L, Kennedy M. Instructional techniques in cognitive rehabilitation: a preliminary report. Semin Speech Lang 2005; 26 (04) 268-279
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Helm-Estabrooks N. Cognitive Linguistic Quick Test. 1st ed. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment Company; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 29 DeDe G, Ricca M, Knilans J, Trubl B. Construct validity and reliability of working memory tasks for people with aphasia. Aphasiology 2014; 28 (06) 692-712
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Robertson I, Ward T, Ridgeway V, Nimmo-Smith I. The Test of Everyday Attention: TEA. 1st ed. Bury St. Edmunds, UK: Thames Valley Test Company; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Whitworth A, Claessen M, Leitão S, Webster J. Beyond narrative: Is there an implicit structure to the way in which adults organise their discourse?. Clin Linguist Phon 2015; 29 (06) 455-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Loban W. Language Development: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English; 1976
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Beales A, Whitworth A, Cartwright J, Panegyres PK, Kane RT. Determining stability in connected speech in primary progressive aphasia and Alzheimer's disease. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2018; 20 (03) 361-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 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
  • 35 Douglas J, Bracy C, Snow P. Exploring the factor structure of the La Trobe Communication Questionnaire: Insights into the nature of communication deficits following traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology 2007; 21 (12) 1181-1194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Tate R. Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale Version 2 (SPRS-2). Sydney, NSW: University of Sydney; 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Hoffmann T, Glasziou P, Boutron I. , et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014; 348: g1687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kennedy MR, Coelho C. Self-regulation after traumatic brain injury: a framework for intervention of memory and problem solving. Semin Speech Lang 2005; 26 (04) 242-255
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 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