An interaction-focused intervention approach to training everyday communication partners: a single case study

Saldert, Charlotta; Johansson, Charlotte; Wilkinson, Ray

doi:10.1080/02687038.2014.948803

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The authors suggest that Conversation Analysis (CA) -a methodology which has a long history of use in aphasiology (e.g. Milroy & Perkins 1992;Damico et al 1999;Saldert et al 2015) with its principles often underlying conversation-focussed therapy studies -could aid in this way, as it has for other kinds of medical interactions (see e.g. Heritage & Robinson 2006, Robinson 2003, Stivers 2005a.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Problems of Acceptability Through High Rise-Fall Repetitions

Benjamin

Walker

2013

Discourse Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is scope for additional research into the specific linguistic and sequential structures used in speech and language therapist-led therapeutic conversations with people with aphasia. Whilst there is some evidence that SLTs use different conversational strategies than the partners of PWA (Lindsay & Wilkinson 1999), research to date has focussed mainly on measuring the effects of conversationbased therapies -not on analysing therapeutic conversations taking place between SLTs and PWA.Aims: This paper presents an analysis of the use of oh-prefacing by some PWA during therapeutic supported conversations with SLTs. Methods & Procedures: Normally-occurring therapeutic conversations betweenSLTs and PWA after stroke were qualitatively analysed using Conversation Analysis (CA). Interactions with five people with aphasia were video-recorded, involving three different specialist stroke SLTs. Outcomes & Results:The analysis revealed a difference in the way some PWA use turns that display understanding (e.g., oh right) vs those that continue the conversation, merely claiming understanding (e.g., right). This use of oh-prefacing is similar to that described in typical conversations by Heritage (1984). In our data, SLTs are shown to treat oh-prefaced turns differently from non-oh-prefaced turns, by pursuing the topic in the latter, and progressing on to a new topic in the former. Conclusions:At least some PWA use oh-prefacing in the same way as non-languageimpaired adults to display understanding of information, vs. merely claiming to understand. The SLTs in our data are shown to treat non-oh-prefaced turns as mere claims of understanding by providing the PWA with additional information, using supported conversation techniques (Kagan 1998), and pursuing additional same-topic talk, whereas oh-prefaced turns are treated as displays of understanding by being confirmed, and leading to changes of topic. This study is a first step in providing SLTs with a clearer understanding of the ways in which they are assessing the understanding of PWA, which may in turn help them better support non-therapy staff.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Problems of Acceptability Through High Rise-Fall Repetitions

Benjamin

Walker

2013

Discourse Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A fourth behaviour produced by the significant other, the use of dismissive language to the PWA, showed a reduction, with no occurrences evident in the postintervention sample. Saldert et al (2014) discuss this pattern of results and the implications of the study for communication-partner training and for the adoption of this type of intervention approach within clinical practice.…”

Section: Interaction-focused Intervention For Aphasiamentioning

confidence: 75%

“…In each case, the type of participants involved in the intervention differed. In one study, the significant other of the PWA was the target for intervention (Saldert, Johannson, & Wilkinson, 2014). Targeting the significant other alone has been a relatively common practice in CA-informed aphasia intervention studies (e.g., Booth & Perkins, 1999;Booth & Swabey, 1999;Lesser & Algar, 1995) and ties in well with work more generally in the area of Communication Partner Training in aphasia (Simmons-Mackie, Raymer, Armstrong, Holland, & Cherney, 2010).…”

Section: Interaction-focused Intervention For Aphasiamentioning

confidence: 96%