“Speaking for” behaviours in spouses of people with aphasia: A descriptive study of six couples in an interview situation

Croteau, Claire; Vychytil, Anne‐Marie; Larfeuil, Céline; Dorze, Guylaine Le

doi:10.1080/02687030344000616

Cited by 32 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Others may perceive the person with aphasia differently, for example more difficult to talk to, less likable, less interested in achievement, less capable of endurance with less capacity to care for others (Croteau & Le Dorze, 2001). Partners often become the primary carers with additional responsibilities (Hammell, 2001) and new behaviours such as overprotectiveness and assuming the speaker role in conversation may develop thereby excluding the person with aphasia (Croteau, Vychytil, Larfeuil, & Le Dorze, 2004;Halle, Duhamel, & Le Dorze, 2011;Purves, 2009). Personal relationships and social networks may gradually decline for both the person with aphasia and family members resulting in increased isolation and disconnection (Cruice, Worrall, Hickson, & Murison, 2003;Northcott & Hilari, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing the long-term impacts of aphasia: how far does the Conversation Partner Programme go?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing the long-term impacts of aphasia: how far does the Conversation Partner Programme go?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ahlse´n (1993) also found that relatives often spoke for individuals with aphasia, a practice that was classified by Le Dorze and Brassard (1995) as a coping behavior aimed at protecting the individual, but a source of frustration among persons with aphasia. This ''speaking for'' behavior, defined by Croteau, Vychytil, Larfeuil, and Le Dorze (2004) as ''answering for the person with aphasia when a question is addressed to him/her'' (p. 292), is not, however, always negative and can be an adaptive strategy that indicates fruitful co-operation between partners, including spouses. In order to co-construct meaning and have messages conveyed, people with aphasia can collaborate with others and use contextual resources (Goodwin, 1995;SimmonsMackie, Kingston & Schultz, 2004).…”

Section: Communication Support From Relatives Friends and Other Supmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Swedish speech interpretation service: An exploratory study of a new communication support provided to people with aphasia

Larsson

Thorén-Jönsson

2007

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until recently, people with complex communication needs have had no access to professional interpreters. The Swedish Speech Interpretation Service (SSIS) is attempting to address this problem. This qualitative study reports on how 12 persons with aphasia experienced the services of a professional interpreter from the SSIS. The results are presented in two themes: (a) The purpose of using an interpreter, which addresses issues relating to autonomy, privacy, and burden on family members; and (b) perceptions of quality of service, which addresses issues relating to the skills and professionalism of and accessibility to interpreters. Results highlight the ongoing need for the SSIS and its importance to the participants. The professional interpreter as an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) "tool" that could be used to enhance the participation of people with aphasia in the community-at-large, is also discussed; as is whether relatives and other non-professionals or professional interpreters should interpret for people with aphasia.

show abstract

“…He or she can clarify the problem in collaboration with the aphasic person and then interpret the result for the others, or he or she can speak for the person with aphasia. The latter can be frustrating for the aphasic person (Le Dorze & Brassard, 1995) but apparently it is a natural reaction of the speaking partner to the difficulties of the aphasic partner (Croteau, Vychytil, Larfeuil, & Le Dorze, 2004). It is a way to support the aphasic person in difficult situations and to help him or her save face in front of the others.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Some aphasic people even ask the partner to speak for them. If this leads to a situation where the aphasic person withdraws completely from the discussion both parties should be advised to avoid such behaviour (Croteau et al, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Partners' self-perceptions of the use of different communication strategies during total communication intervention

Rautakoski

2011

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Collaboration between people with aphasia and their communication partners is needed to achieve success in communication. Some of the partners change their own behaviour spontaneously and start to use different strategies to ensure that conversations are successful, but many require training to do so. Aims: The aim of the present study was to examine to what extent communication partners perceive they use different strategies to support the conversation and if they perceive changes in the use of these strategies during an intervention concentrating on total communication. Methods & Procedures:The data were collected during regular rehabilitation courses, which were carried out in two parts (8 + 4 days) with a 3-month interval. People with aphasia participated in the whole course and the partners joined in for the last 2 days of the first part and the whole of the second part (2 + 4 days). The aim of the intervention was to encourage people with aphasia to use total communication and to guide the communication partners to facilitate the use of total communication and to support the conversation. A total of 43 communication partners participated in the present study: 33 participated in a course with their aphasic partners, but 10 did not and formed the control group. Before the first and second parts of the course and 6 months after the course the partners completed a questionnaire comprising 20 questions concerning different communication strategies. Outcomes & Results: Before the intervention both the participating partners and the control group perceived that they quite often used different strategies to support the conversation. The means of the 20 questions were 62.9/100 and 58.9/100 respectively. Both groups perceived an increase in the use of different strategies after the first part of the course but the change was statistically significant only in the participating group, F(1, 32) = 8.025, p = .016. The participating group perceived a significant increase in the use of strategies supporting verbal comprehension and production after the first part of the course, F(1, 32) = 6.925, p = .026, but perceived a decrease in the use of them when measured 6 months after the course. Conclusions: Communication partners perceive that they often use different strategies to support communication. The self-assessment method can make the partners more

show abstract

“Speaking for” behaviours in spouses of people with aphasia: A descriptive study of six couples in an interview situation

Cited by 32 publications

References 0 publications

Addressing the long-term impacts of aphasia: how far does the Conversation Partner Programme go?

Addressing the long-term impacts of aphasia: how far does the Conversation Partner Programme go?

The Swedish speech interpretation service: An exploratory study of a new communication support provided to people with aphasia

Partners' self-perceptions of the use of different communication strategies during total communication intervention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About