Social Validity of Changes in Informativeness and Efficiency of Aphasic Discourse Following Linguistic Specific Treatment (LST)

Using voice recognition software to improve communicative writing and social participation in an individual with severe acquired dysgraphia: an experimental single-case therapy study

“…This was measured using social validity judgments (Jacobs et al, 2001) by raters who were blinded to assessment time point, and showed that emails written post-therapy were significantly more effective, informative, grammatically correct, and comfortable to read. Thus there is now growing evidence that, at least for individuals with superior spoken output, VRS can vastly improve both writing efficiency and communicative effectiveness.…”

“…Quality was measured using social validity judgments (Jacobs et al, 2001). Emails were rated by three speech and language therapy students who had no previous involvement in the study and who were blind to assessment time point.…”

“…Communicative effectiveness of emails was evaluated using social validity judgments (Jacobs et al, 2001). Ratings were analysed using a Friedman's test to identify change.…”

Aphasic speech with and withoutSentenceShaper®: Two methods for assessing informativeness

“…The definition of informativeness in such studies has ranged from simply "amount of information conveyed" (Campbell & Dollaghan, 1992) to "amount of correct information" given about a topic (Jacobs, 2001) to "how accurately and completely" a discourse sample reflects a picture or procedure (Doyle, Tsironas, Goda, & Kalinyak, 1996). Similar to Doyle et al (1996), Bartlett et al (2007) defined informativeness as the "accuracy and completeness" of a functional narrative.…”

“…We chose CIU analysis because it has been shown to have high inter-rater scoring reliability and to be useful with a range of aphasic speech (Nicholas & Brookshire, 1993). Moreover, there is a small literature comparing CIU analysis and listener ratings (e.g., Doyle et al, 1996;Jacobs, 2001). The Doyle et al (1996) study is noteworthy for having demonstrated strong correlations between CIU measures and DME judgements of informativeness (for % CIUs and informativeness ratings, r = .81).…”