Exploration of a quantitative method for measuring behaviors in conversation

Croteau, Claire; McMahon-Morin, Paméla; Dorze, Guylaine Le; Power, Emma; Fortier-Blanc, Julie; Davis, G. Albyn

doi:10.1080/02687038.2017.1350629

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Croteau et al. (2018) explore a quantitative method to measure CPT outcomes applying a transcription‐less method using video analysis software (Croteau et al., 2018). In a later study, the authors report the quantitative results arising from this analysis to provide precise and specific information regarding conversations (McMahon‐Morin et al., 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Development of automated aphasia-specific analysis (e.g., Chatzoudis et al, 2022;Dalton et al, 2022;Hsu & Thompson, 2018;Le et al, 2018), is a work-in-progress and faces some specific challenges, albeit very promising. For example, Croteau et al (2018) explore a quantitative method to measure CPT outcomes applying a transcription-less method using video analysis software (Croteau et al, 2018). In a later study, the authors report the quantitative results arising from this analysis to provide precise and specific information regarding conversations (McMahon-Morin et al, 2022).…”

Section: Implications and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of education, concept knowledge, work setting and clinical experience in communication partner training: A survey of Flemish speech and language therapists

Barberis,

Vandermosten

2023

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAphasia can affect the communication between the person with aphasia (PWA) and the communication partner (CP). It is therefore necessary to support both the PWA and their CPs. Communication partner training (CPT) focuses on training communication between dyads of whom one person has aphasia. Although there is increasing evidence supporting CPT as an effective intervention to improve communication and reduce the psychosocial consequences of stroke, implementation in clinical practice remains limited.AimTo understand the mechanisms behind the practice–evidence gap currently hindering CPT implementation, this study investigated the role of (1) education, (2) concept knowledge, (3) work setting and (4) clinical experience in CPT.Methods & ProceduresFlemish speech and language therapists (SLTs) clinically involved in aphasia rehabilitation were surveyed online regarding CPT. Statistical analyses include descriptive statistics to report survey results and non‐parametric group comparisons to investigate the role of the four variables on CPT.Outcomes & ResultsIn this study 72 SLTs were included, of whom 73.61% indicated they deliver CPT but of whom only 43.10% indicated CP presence during therapy. The most frequently identified barriers to CPT delivery were lack of time and CPT‐specific knowledge. Other barriers were lack of resources, work setting dependent factors, PWA or CP dependent factors, individual therapy to the PWA being of higher priority, existing CPT methods and interventions being perceived as unclear and feeling uncertain about CPT delivery. Concerning the role of the four variables on CPT delivery, neither education nor concept knowledge had a significant effect on CPT delivery. Work setting and clinical experience did, however, influence CPT delivery. More specifically, CPT delivery and CP presence were higher in the private practice (chronic phase) compared to the other three settings and experienced SLTs deliver CPT more often compared with less experienced SLTs.Conclusions & ImplicationsTo reduce the practice–evidence gap, we suggest prioritising the two most frequently identified barriers, that is, lack of time and CPT‐specific knowledge. To overcome the time barrier in CPT, we propose implementing automated natural speech analysis to reduce the workload. To enhance CPT‐specific knowledge, speech and language therapy curricula should provide more in‐depth theory and hands‐on practice for CPT. In addition, increased awareness about CPT‐specific methods is needed to further support clinical practice.WHAT THIS PAPER ADDSWhat is already known on the subject Communication partner training (CPT) is an effective intervention to improve communication and reduce the psychosocial consequences of stroke. Despite this evidence base, a current practice–evidence gap exists.What this study adds This is the first study to characterise CPT delivery in a Flemish cohort of speech and language therapists (SLTs). In addition, on a more international perspective, few studies have investigated the role of education, concept knowledge, work setting and clinical experience in CPT. We found that neither education nor concept knowledge has a significant effect on CPT delivery. CPT delivery and communication partner presence are significantly higher in the private practice compared to the hospital, rehabilitation centre or nursing home settings. Experienced SLTs deliver CPT more often compared with less‐experienced SLTs. The two most prominent reported barriers include lack of time and CPT‐specific knowledge.What are the clinical implications of this work? This study suggests reducing the practice–evidence gap by alleviating the main barriers identified, that is, lack of time and CPT‐specific knowledge. Time‐barriers can be addressed by implementing automated natural speech analyses. We additionally advocate for more in‐depth theory and hands‐on practice for CPT in speech and language therapy curricula.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of education, concept knowledge, work setting and clinical experience in communication partner training: A survey of Flemish speech and language therapists

Barberis,

Vandermosten

2023

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• Any analyses that required specialised software such as automatic speech recognition (e.g., Croteau et al, 2018;Dalton et al, 2022;Qin et al, 2020). These were excluded since they either would not be widely accessible by clinicians, required transcription, or were very time intensive.…”

Section: Selection and Appraisal Of Documentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A scoping review of transcription-less practices for analysis of aphasic discourse and implications for future research

Stark¹,

Dalton²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluating spoken discourse in aphasia has gained considerable traction over the last thirty years (Bryant et al., 2016). The field has defined spoken discourse in a variety of ways. We use the description of spoken discourse provided by Armstrong (2000): language beyond a single simple clause used for a specific purpose. There are several reasons that aphasic discourse assessment and analysis has received considerable focus in the past three decades: Individuals with aphasia cite improving their ability to converse – a type of discourse – as a top priority (Worrall et al., 2011); Researchers and clinicians agree that assessing and analyzing discourse enables comprehensive characterization of language and its use (Dipper et al., 2021; Stark et al., 2021);Analyzing discourse may provide the most sensitive and accurate portrayal of language ability in individuals with mildest aphasia (Fromm et al., 2017);Because of the variety of elicitation methods that exist for discourse (e.g., narrative [fictional, personal], picture description or exposition), evaluating discourse also enables evaluating the interaction of language with other cognitive processes, such as executive function and long-term memory, and how language changes when the topic becomes more salient (or “tellable”) for the individual (H. Ulatowska & Bond Chapman, 1989; H. K. Ulatowska et al., 1983; H. K. Ulatowska & Olness, 2004);Characterizing discourse in acquired and progressive neurological disorders can improve specificity and modification of treatment and goal-setting, e.g., how some treatments generalize to discourse and the mechanisms of generalization (Boyle, 2011, 2020);Discourse, compared with language tested in isolation (e.g., naming), may provide a means of understanding how language is influenced by culture and other important variables, such as ethnicity and geographic location (Olness et al., 2002; H. K. Ulatowska et al., 2003); Enables evaluation of multimodal communication components, such as manual gesture, which is known to be more prevalent in people with aphasia and used to supplement (add, disambiguate, replace) speech (de Beer et al., 2019, 2020; Lanyon & Rose, 2009; Sekine & Rose, 2013; van Nispen et al., 2017);While assessing and analyzing discourse carry a large number of benefits (again highlighted by a variety of recent survey studies: Bryant et al., 2017; Cruice et al., 2020; Stark et al., 2021), there are considerable barriers in both research and clinical settings (Bryant et al., 2017, 2019; Cruice et al., 2020; Dietz & Boyle, 2018b, 2018a; Stark et al., 2021; Wright, 2011). These barriers include:Outdated assessments, which at best have lead to decrease tellability (a tellable event/elicitation method/set of instructions likely enhances many aspects of the discourse, like global coherence (Olness & Ulatowska, 2011) and at worst, perpetuate longstanding stereotypes and biases (Berube et al., 2019);Limited time, because of the timeliness it takes to transcribe speech (some estimate 10-15 minutes to transcribe per 1 minute of aphasic speech; CITE), analyze, and interpret data (Stark et al., 2021);Limited tools, which interacts with limited training and professional development, in that clinicians and researchers both note that tools to analyze aphasic discourse can be difficult to acquire / learn / use (Stark et al., 2021) and that existing tools may be limited in their psychometric properties, such as limited evidence regarding validity, reliability, and feasibility (CITE);Here, we provide a narrative review of the current state of transcription-less analysis (sometimes called “judgment-based” analysis, perceptual analysis, subjective analysis, “without transcription” analysis), which is a highly desired tool because it has the potential to address the barriers of time and tool availability.

show abstract

“…Attempts have been made to control the context of the assessed samples by focusing on information transaction, for example, letting the PWA describe pictures or events not known to the CP (Hopper, Holland, & Rewega, 2002;Nykänen, Nyrkkö, Nykänen, Brunou, & Rautakoski, 2013). Another type of controlled task is to let the person with communication disorder and the CP discuss a specific, predetermined topic such as discussing recommendations meant for other people on where to go on holidays (Togher, Power, Tate, McDonald, & Rietdijk, 2010) or problem-solving tasks (Croteau et al, 2018). Still, these types of tasks and pre-set topics may form a context quite different from everyday natural interaction.…”

Section: Outcome Measures In the Dyad-focused Communication Partner Training Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity in measuring outcomes after communication partner training: alignment between goals of intervention and methods of evaluation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Researchers are currently discussing the need for consensus on a core set of outcome measures to assess interventions in aphasia. For indirect, environmental approaches to aphasia intervention, such as communication partner training (CPT), the roadmap to obtaining consensus on core outcome measures seems especially complex. While the purpose of CPT is to improve communication for people with communication disorders, the intervention is aimed at the communication partner. There is also a variety of goals, activities, and possible settings for CPT. This complexity increases the risk of a mismatch between the goals and content of the intervention and measures used to evaluate the outcome. Aims: The purpose of this paper is to describe the complexity of measuring outcomes from CPT. The aim is to enable clinicians and researchers to reflect on the outcomes to be measured and also on how different types of measures may or may not be aligned with the goals and content of a specific CPT intervention. Main contribution: The current proliferation of outcome measures used in CPT is considered in the light of a survey of general factors to be considered in evaluating intervention outcomes. The complexity of measuring outcomes in CPT is illustrated and the importance of alignment of main objectives, intervention tasks, and projected outcomes is exemplified by referencing two common types of CPT approaches. Objectives relating to knowledge of aphasia, interactional behaviour, and feelings and attitudes are considered in relation to specific outcome measurements. It is suggested that both study-specific and more general measures are needed for capturing and comparing outcomes. The measurement of relevant outcome in CPT is discussed along with implications for future research and clinical practice. Conclusions: Different CPT approaches share the same purpose of facilitating communication in aphasia, but their application in research studies or in the clinic, is specific to the particular context. Special care must thus be taken in both clinical practice and research to safeguard the alignment between objectives, tasks, and projected intervention outcomes and the actual measures ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Exploration of a quantitative method for measuring behaviors in conversation

Cited by 10 publications

References 44 publications

The role of education, concept knowledge, work setting and clinical experience in communication partner training: A survey of Flemish speech and language therapists

The role of education, concept knowledge, work setting and clinical experience in communication partner training: A survey of Flemish speech and language therapists

A scoping review of transcription-less practices for analysis of aphasic discourse and implications for future research

Complexity in measuring outcomes after communication partner training: alignment between goals of intervention and methods of evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About