Conversational treatment in mild aphasia: A case study

Fox, Sarah; Armstrong, Elizabeth; Boles, Larry

doi:10.1080/02687030802669526

Cited by 44 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The unique contexts and characteristics of participants are considered, and individuality is often preserved during analysis and dissemination (Johansson, Carlsson, & Sonnander, 2012). Mixed method approaches have combined quantitative and qualitative measures to explore psychosocial and communication outcomes of conversation interventions ( e.g., Fox, Armstrong, & Boles, 2009;Hickey, Bourgeois, & Olswang, 2004). There are also several examples of case study designs using multiple methods in this area (Barnes, Candlin, & Ferguson, 2013;Bronken, Kirkevold, Martinsen, & Kvigne, 2012;Cunningham & Ward, 2003).…”

Section: Evaluating Conversation Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The current literature describes a global appraisal of conversation training approaches (Fox et al, 2009;Jagoe & Roseingrave, 2011;McVicker et al, 2009) In Phase 2 engaging representatives from all stakeholder groups in participatory dialogue using PLA techniques was a challenging task. It was difficult to negotiate and find times that suited representatives from all groups for face-to-face PLA sessions.…”

Section: R MC Menamin Et Al 2015mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“Who decides what criteria are important to consider in exploring the outcomes of conversation approaches? A participatory health research study”

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOne of the most devastating consequences of aphasia is the disruption to normal conversation. The Conversation Partner Programme emphasises communicative competence and life participation. Currently there is no recognised system for evaluating this intervention. Following policy imperatives for patient and public involvement, it is important to include service users in the development of evaluation criteria. However, people with aphasia are often excluded from such research and service development initiatives because of their communication disability. This study was designed to include people with aphasia and other key stakeholders as co-researchers in the development of evaluation criteria for a Conversation Partner Programme. AimsTo describe the multi-perspectival co-generation of Conversation Partner Programme evaluation criteria using a participatory research approach. Methods & ProceduresFollowing a pilot study, the generation and analysis of qualitative data involved a Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) approach based on the interpretive paradigm. Using purposeful sampling participants (n = 20) included: people with aphasia (n = 5); speech and language therapists (n = 5); speech and language therapy graduates and undergraduates (n = 9) and university coordinator (n = 1). Through (n = 18) individual and interstakeholder data generation episodes (PLA focus groups and interviews) using participatory techniques (Flexible Brainstorming, Card Sort, Direct Ranking, Seasonal Calendar), evaluation criteria were identified. The R. Mc Menamin et al. 2015principles of thematic analysis guided the co-analysis of data with participants. Data generated in Ireland were presented to an international inter-stakeholder group at Connect, UK, for preliminary exploration of transferability of findings. Outcomes & ResultsConversation Partner Programme evaluation criteria agreed and prioritised by co-researchers in order of importance included: (1) shared understanding of structure, (2) clarity about the programme, (3) agreed evaluation mechanism, (4) linking with other organisations, and (5) feedback. "Shared Understanding of Structure" was ranked the most important criterion and related to the nature and number of participants, opportunities for group meetings, socialising, and stakeholder interaction."Feedback", the criterion ranked least important, detailed responsibilities about summarising programme experiences and sharing this information between stakeholders. ConclusionsPeople with aphasia and other key stakeholders were meaningfully involved in the identification of evaluation criteria for a Conversation Partner Programme. The outcomes of this collaborative work bridge the gap between policy imperatives around involvement and actual practice and will impact the design, delivery, and evaluation of the programme for all stakeholders. Findings will be of interest to professionals in this clinical area and to those exploring innovative methodologies to include marginalised service users, especially pe...

show abstract

Section: Evaluating Conversation Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: R MC Menamin Et Al 2015mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Who decides what criteria are important to consider in exploring the outcomes of conversation approaches? A participatory health research study”

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers have applied methods to evaluate discourse in adults with aphasia to better characterise their communication impairments (e.g., for review see Armstrong, 2000;Olness, Metteson, & Stewart, 2010;Stark, 2010;Ulatowska, Reyes, & Santos, 2010). Researchers have also investigated different methods for quantifying meaningful change in communication abilities of adults with aphasia that are often not detectable by standardised aphasia test batteries (e.g., Fox, Armstrong, & Boles, 2009;Goral & Kempler, 2009;Peach & Reuter, 2010). The purpose of this special issue of Aphasiology is to highlight current research in discourse in aphasia.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discourse in aphasia: An introduction to current research and future directions

Wright

2011

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, an approach to working with conversational dyads that is now referred to as Couples Therapy is rooted in principles of marital and relationship counselling as well as knowledge of linguistics and communication (Boles and Lewis , Fox et al . ). In a somewhat different orientation, Sorin‐Peters () describes conversational work with couples based on counselling and adult learning theory.…”

Section: Results: Taxonomy Of Conversation Therapymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…For example, Fox et al . () and Wilkinson et al . () asked judges to identify pre‐ versus post‐treatment video recordings.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Conversation therapy for aphasia: a qualitative review of the literature

Simmons‐Mackie

Savage

Worrall

2014

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A diverse literature addresses elements of conversation therapy in aphasia including intervention rooted in conversation analysis, partner training, group therapy and behavioural intervention. Currently there is no resource for clinicians or researchers that defines and organizes this information into a coherent synopsis describing various conversation therapy practices. Aims: To organize information from varied sources into a descriptive overview of conversation therapy for aphasia. Methods & Procedures:Academic search engines were employed to identify research articles published between 1950 and September 2013 reporting on conversation therapy for aphasia. Thirty articles met criteria for review and were identified as primary sources for the qualitative review. Using qualitative methodology, relevant data were extracted from articles and categories were identified to create a descriptive taxonomy of conversation therapy for aphasia. Main Contribution: Conversation interventions were divided into descriptive categories including: treatment participants (person with aphasia, partner, dyad), primary guiding orientation (conversation analysis, social model, behavioural, relationship centred), service delivery (individual, group), focus of intervention (generic/individualized; problem/solution oriented; compensatory), training methods (explicit/implicit; external/embedded), activities or tasks, and outcomes measured. Finally, articles were categorized by research design. There was marked variation in conversation therapy approaches and outcome measures reported and a notable gap in information about one-on-one conversation therapy for individuals with aphasia. Conclusions & Implications:This review provides a description of various conversation therapy approaches and identified gaps in the existing literature. Valid measures of natural conversation, research on one-on-one conversation approaches for individuals with aphasia, and a systematic body of evidence consisting of high quality research are needed.

show abstract

Conversational treatment in mild aphasia: A case study

Cited by 44 publications

References 19 publications

“Who decides what criteria are important to consider in exploring the outcomes of conversation approaches? A participatory health research study”

“Who decides what criteria are important to consider in exploring the outcomes of conversation approaches? A participatory health research study”

Discourse in aphasia: An introduction to current research and future directions

Conversation therapy for aphasia: a qualitative review of the literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About