Clinical use of linguistic discourse analysis for the assessment of language in aphasia

Bryant, Lucy; Spencer, Elizabeth; Ferguson, Alison

doi:10.1080/02687038.2016.1239013

Cited by 71 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The most relevant of these is the survey conducted by Bryant et al . (2017) of 123 aphasia clinicians in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and the UK regarding their clinical linguistic discourse analysis practices and views. Whilst a significant minority of clinicians (almost 40%) reported using discourse analysis always or usually , almost half the sample used it sometimes or rarely , and a fair proportion (14%) never conducted discourse analysis, citing lack of time, training, expertise and resources as reasons, as well as it not being required by their employer (Bryant et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whilst a significant minority of clinicians (almost 40%) reported using discourse analysis always or usually , almost half the sample used it sometimes or rarely , and a fair proportion (14%) never conducted discourse analysis, citing lack of time, training, expertise and resources as reasons, as well as it not being required by their employer (Bryant et al . 2017). Two‐thirds of clinicians reported that availability of clinical time influenced which discourse genres they sampled in assessment, and a significant minority (40%) cited availability of assessment resources.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conduct of discourse analysis may vary based on geographical location (i.e., country), age of clinician, years of experience and setting (Bryant et al . 2017; Frith et al . 2014), and where relevant these variables should be considered in future research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As there is some indication that experience and stage/continuum of care influence use (Bryant et al . 2017; Frith et al . 2014), we hypothesized that clinicians who were more experienced (> 10 years) and clinicians in community settings would conduct discourse analysis more frequently than those who are less experienced or working in other settings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, because of the known barriers (Bryant et al . 2017), we hypothesized that clinicians who reported available clinical time, available resources, and considered themselves skilled in discourse analysis would conduct discourse analysis more frequently.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

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: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%