Psychometric properties of discourse measures in aphasia: acceptability, reliability, and validity

Pritchard, Madeleine; Hilari, Katerina; Cocks, Naomi; Dipper, Lucy

doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12420

Cited by 48 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further research by Pritchard et al . (2018) identified story grammar, topic coherence, reference chains and predicate argument structure as being psychometrically robust. Time is a pervasive influential factor that warrants careful consideration in developing and advocating any such protocol.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

UK speech and language therapists’ views and reported practices of discourse analysis in aphasia rehabilitation

Cruice

Botting

Marshall

et al. 2020

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Discourse assessment and treatment in aphasia rehabilitation is a priority focus for a range of stakeholder groups. However, a significant majority of speech and language therapists (SLTs) infrequently conduct discourse analysis, and do not feel competent in doing so. Known barriers identified in other countries, specifically a lack of time, training, expertise and resources, affect use of discourse analysis in clinical practice. Aims: To investigate UK SLTs' reported practices and views of discourse analysis, barriers and facilitators, and clinical feasibility in aphasia rehabilitation. Methods & Procedures:An online survey of 52 questions adapted from existing research and incorporating behaviour change literature was created for the study and piloted. UK SLTs working in aphasia rehabilitation for at least 6 months were invited to participate. Potential participants were contacted through national and local clinical excellence networks, a National Health Service (NHS) bespoke e-mail list, and national magazine advertisement, and the study was also advertised on social media (Twitter). Therapists read an online participant information sheet and submitted individual electronic consent online; then progressed to the Qualtrics survey. Descriptive, correlational and inferential statistical analyses were conducted, and content analysis was carried out on the questions requiring text. Outcomes & Results: A total of 211 valid responses were received from primarily female SLTs, aged 20-40 years, working full-time in the NHS in England, in community, inpatient and acute/subacute multidisciplinary settings. A total of 30% SLTs collected discourse analysis often, were mostly very experienced, and working part-time in community settings. Years of experience was predictive of use. Discourse was most often collected using standardized picture descriptions and recounts during initial assessment. Samples were infrequently recorded, and typically transcribed in real-time. Most SLTs (53-95%) reported making clinical judgements or manually counted words, sentences, communication of ideas and errors, and were confident in doing so. Barriers included time constraints; lack of expertise, confidence, training, resources and equipment; and patient severity. Discourse 'super-users' were distinguished by significantly higher professional motivation for discourse and workplace opportunity than other SLTs, and 'non-users' were distinguished by significantly less knowledge and skills in discourse analysis than other SLTs. SLTs reported a desire and need for training, new/assistive tools and time to do more discourse analysis in practice.Conclusions & Implications: Clinicians were highly engaged and relatively active in at least some aspects of discourse analysis practice. Interventions that target individual clinicians as well as organizations and systems are needed to improve the uptake of discourse analysis in practice. 418Madeline Cruice et al. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subject? r Discourse in aphasia r...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

UK speech and language therapists’ views and reported practices of discourse analysis in aphasia rehabilitation

Cruice

Botting

Marshall

et al. 2020

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…are becoming more frequent and urgent. 11,14 We have demonstrated the utility of MCA, CoreLex, and efficiency measures to differentiate individuals with stable and progressive aphasia from healthy controls, as well as preliminary results of these measures for treatment outcomes. We have provided additional tools that can be used alongside MCA checklists and norms, 6,57,64 CoreLex checklists and norms, 65,68 and the AphasiaBank protocol 47,48 to sensitively and reliably assess discourse.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…2,3 Subsequently, investigations have sought to develop informative measures [4][5][6][7][8] and establish and/or characterize psychometric strengths and weaknesses. [9][10][11] Importantly, treatment studies are more frequently investigating the impact of interventions on discourse outcomes in stable, strokeinduced aphasia. [12][13][14] Comparatively less attention has been paid to treatment outcomes, including discourse, in primary progressive aphasia (PPA).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Toward Non-transcription based Discourse Analysis in Stable and Progressive Aphasia

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurement of communication ability at the discourse level holds promise for predicting how well persons with stable (e.g., stroke-induced), or progressive aphasia navigate everyday communicative interactions. However, barriers to the clinical utilization of discourse measures have persisted. Recent advancements in the standardization of elicitation protocols and the existence of large databases for development of normative references have begun to address some of these barriers. Still, time remains a consistently reported barrier by clinicians. Non-transcription based discourse measurement would reduce the time required for discourse analysis, making clinical utilization a reality. The purpose of this article is to present evidence regarding discourse measures (main concept analysis, core lexicon, and derived efficiency scores) that are well suited to non-transcription based analysis. Combined with previous research, our results suggest that these measures are sensitive to changes following stroke or neurodegenerative disease. Given the evidence, further research specifically assessing the reliability of these measures in clinical implementation is warranted.

show abstract

“…For the individual picture stimuli from the AphasiaBank stimuli, she found poor test-retest reliability for measures of word retrieval errors; however, combined analysis of the different narrative tasks yielded some relatively stable measures (e.g., semantic and phonological errors). Relatedly,Pritchard et al (2018) provided select psychometric information,…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardizing assessment of spoken discourse in aphasia: A working group with deliverables

Stark¹,

Dutta²,

Murray³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The heterogeneous nature of measures, methods, and analyses reported in the aphasia spoken discourse literature precludes comparison of outcomes across studies (e.g., meta-analyses) and inhibits replication. Furthermore, funding and time constraints significantly hinder collecting test-retest data on spoken discourse outcomes. This research note describes the development and structure of a working group, designed to address major gaps in the spoken discourse aphasia literature, including a lack of standardization in methodology, analysis, and reporting, as well as nominal data regarding the psychometric properties of spoken discourse outcomes.Method: The initial initiatives for this working group are to: 1) propose recommendations regarding standardization of spoken discourse collection, analysis, and reporting in aphasia, based on the results of an international survey and a systematic literature review; and, 2) create a database of test-retest spoken discourse data from individuals with and without aphasia. The survey of spoken discourse collection, analysis, and interpretation procedures was distributed to clinicians and researchers involved in aphasia assessment and rehabilitation September – November 2019. We will publish survey results and recommend standards for collecting, analyzing, and reporting spoken discourse in aphasia. A multisite endeavor to collect test-retest spoken discourse data from individuals with and without aphasia will be initiated. This test-retest information will be contributed to a central site for transcription and analysis, and data will be subsequently openly curated.Conclusion: The goal of the working group is to create recommendations for field-wide standards in methods, analysis and reporting of spoken discourse outcomes, as has been done across other related disciplines (e.g., CONSORT, EQUATOR, COBIDAS). Additionally, the creation of a database through our multi-site collaboration will allow the identification of psychometrically sound outcome measures and norms that can be used by clinicians and researchers to assess spoken discourse abilities in aphasia.

show abstract

Psychometric properties of discourse measures in aphasia: acceptability, reliability, and validity

Cited by 48 publications

References 39 publications

UK speech and language therapists’ views and reported practices of discourse analysis in aphasia rehabilitation

UK speech and language therapists’ views and reported practices of discourse analysis in aphasia rehabilitation

Moving Toward Non-transcription based Discourse Analysis in Stable and Progressive Aphasia

Standardizing assessment of spoken discourse in aphasia: A working group with deliverables

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About