Discourse-Level Communication Success in Aphasia: Unveiling Its Significance through Observer's Ratings.

IF 1 4区医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY

Seminars in Speech and Language Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-03 DOI:10.1055/s-0044-1789622

Amy E Ramage, Abigail L Rowe, Kathryn J Greenslade

{"title":"Discourse-Level Communication Success in Aphasia: Unveiling Its Significance through Observer's Ratings.","authors":"Amy E Ramage, Abigail L Rowe, Kathryn J Greenslade","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1789622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Audrey Holland (1982) compared test scores to observers' ratings of conversational communicative success in people with aphasia (PWA). This springboarded a body of evidence employing observers to rate discourse. We review the utility of those ratings for assessing PWA's communication success. A traditional literature review identified 16 articles involving naive or trained raters assessing PWAs' communicative success across discourse genres. Another 10 articles reported ratings over time. Collectively, these studies evaluated 349 PWAs. Four studies utilized observers to rate the success of PWA's conversations. Eight studies that reported observers' ratings on other discourse genres found that multimodal communication and facilitative contexts improved success, and ratings of informativeness and comfort related to objective discourse analysis measures. Nine of 10 studies examining treatment effects found that communicative success ratings captured improvements. Observers' ratings provide social validity by reliably assessing the discourse-level communicative success of PWA. Ratings correlated with standardized diagnostic and objective discourse metrics but provided a window into factors that affect communicative success, including the degree to which communication is interactive, multimodal, and contextual. Integrating observers' ratings of discourse success at pretreatment may help identify supports or barriers to successful communication, facilitate individualization of treatments, and offer social validity of change.</p>","PeriodicalId":48772,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Speech and Language","volume":" ","pages":"381-400"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Speech and Language","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1789622","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Audrey Holland (1982) compared test scores to observers' ratings of conversational communicative success in people with aphasia (PWA). This springboarded a body of evidence employing observers to rate discourse. We review the utility of those ratings for assessing PWA's communication success. A traditional literature review identified 16 articles involving naive or trained raters assessing PWAs' communicative success across discourse genres. Another 10 articles reported ratings over time. Collectively, these studies evaluated 349 PWAs. Four studies utilized observers to rate the success of PWA's conversations. Eight studies that reported observers' ratings on other discourse genres found that multimodal communication and facilitative contexts improved success, and ratings of informativeness and comfort related to objective discourse analysis measures. Nine of 10 studies examining treatment effects found that communicative success ratings captured improvements. Observers' ratings provide social validity by reliably assessing the discourse-level communicative success of PWA. Ratings correlated with standardized diagnostic and objective discourse metrics but provided a window into factors that affect communicative success, including the degree to which communication is interactive, multimodal, and contextual. Integrating observers' ratings of discourse success at pretreatment may help identify supports or barriers to successful communication, facilitate individualization of treatments, and offer social validity of change.

查看原文本刊更多论文

失语症患者话语层面的交流成功率：通过观察者的评分揭示其重要性。

Audrey Holland（1982 年）将失语症患者（PWA）的测试分数与观察者对对话交流成功率的评分进行了比较。这为采用观察者对对话进行评级提供了大量证据。我们回顾了这些评分对评估 PWA 沟通成功率的实用性。通过传统的文献综述，我们发现了 16 篇文章，这些文章涉及天真的或训练有素的评定者对 PWA 在各种话语类型中的交流成功率进行评估。另有 10 篇文章报告了随时间变化的评分。这些研究共对 349 名 PWA 进行了评估。四项研究利用观察者对 PWA 会话的成功率进行评分。八项研究报告了观察者对其他话语类型的评分，发现多模态交流和促进性语境提高了成功率，对信息量和舒适度的评分与客观话语分析测量相关。在对治疗效果进行研究的 10 项研究中，有 9 项研究发现，对交流成功率的评分反映了交流成功率的提高。观察者的评分能可靠地评估 PWA 在话语层面的交流成功率，从而提供社会有效性。评分与标准化诊断和客观话语指标相关，但提供了一个了解影响交际成功因素的窗口，包括交际的互动程度、多模态和语境。综合观察者在治疗前对交流成功率的评分，可能有助于识别成功交流的支持或障碍，促进治疗的个性化，并提供改变的社会有效性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Seminars in Speech and Language AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION

CiteScore

2.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Seminars in Speech and Language is a topic driven review journal that covers the entire spectrum of speech language pathology. In each issue, a leading specialist covers diagnostic procedures, screening and assessment techniques, treatment protocols, as well as short and long-term management practices in areas such as apraxia, communication, stuttering, autism, dysphagia, attention, phonological intervention, memory as well as other disorders.