中风幸存者失语症患者对识字的见解:混合方法研究。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Elizabeth B Madden, Erin J Bush
{"title":"中风幸存者失语症患者对识字的见解:混合方法研究。","authors":"Elizabeth B Madden, Erin J Bush","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Individuals with aphasia commonly experience reading and writing difficulties, negatively impacting everyday communication and life participation. Using mixed methods, this study aimed to understand literacy experiences described by individuals with aphasia and explore how their perspectives are related to test performance and other demographic factors.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Twenty-one stroke survivors with aphasia completed reading and writing testing and shared their perspectives through a close-ended survey and an open-ended interview about literacy abilities and experiences. Quantitative methods were used to compare pre- and poststroke self-ratings and explore associations between self-ratings and demographic factors. Qualitative methods were used to identify themes in the interviews. The data sets were merged to derive mixed-methods results for a more in-depth view of participants' perspectives.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant decreases in perceived literacy abilities were found; however, there were no differences in literacy importance or enjoyment pre- to poststroke. Reading and writing test scores were correlated with self-rated abilities but not with importance, enjoyment, or frequency of reading and writing. The thematic analysis process identified four main themes: <i>Feelings about literacy</i>, <i>Literacy challenges</i>, <i>Literacy supports</i>, and <i>Literacy goals</i>.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The data indicate that individuals with aphasia highly value reading and writing and are heavily invested, despite recognized challenges, in using and improving these skills. Therefore, assessments and treatments addressing literacy in aphasia are critical, and individuals with aphasia should be invited to share their literacy experiences and goals, allowing for more person-centered clinical resources to be collaboratively constructed.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25893049.</p>","PeriodicalId":49240,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Insights on Literacy From Stroke Survivors With Aphasia: A Mixed-Methods Inquiry.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth B Madden, Erin J Bush\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00360\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Individuals with aphasia commonly experience reading and writing difficulties, negatively impacting everyday communication and life participation. Using mixed methods, this study aimed to understand literacy experiences described by individuals with aphasia and explore how their perspectives are related to test performance and other demographic factors.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Twenty-one stroke survivors with aphasia completed reading and writing testing and shared their perspectives through a close-ended survey and an open-ended interview about literacy abilities and experiences. Quantitative methods were used to compare pre- and poststroke self-ratings and explore associations between self-ratings and demographic factors. Qualitative methods were used to identify themes in the interviews. The data sets were merged to derive mixed-methods results for a more in-depth view of participants' perspectives.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant decreases in perceived literacy abilities were found; however, there were no differences in literacy importance or enjoyment pre- to poststroke. Reading and writing test scores were correlated with self-rated abilities but not with importance, enjoyment, or frequency of reading and writing. The thematic analysis process identified four main themes: <i>Feelings about literacy</i>, <i>Literacy challenges</i>, <i>Literacy supports</i>, and <i>Literacy goals</i>.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The data indicate that individuals with aphasia highly value reading and writing and are heavily invested, despite recognized challenges, in using and improving these skills. Therefore, assessments and treatments addressing literacy in aphasia are critical, and individuals with aphasia should be invited to share their literacy experiences and goals, allowing for more person-centered clinical resources to be collaboratively constructed.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25893049.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00360\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00360","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:失语症患者普遍存在阅读和写作困难,对日常交流和生活参与造成负面影响。本研究采用混合方法,旨在了解失语症患者所描述的读写经验,并探讨他们的观点与测试成绩和其他人口学因素之间的关系:21名患有失语症的中风幸存者完成了阅读和写作测试,并通过封闭式调查和开放式访谈分享了他们对识字能力和经验的看法。采用定量方法比较中风前和中风后的自我评分,并探讨自我评分与人口统计因素之间的关联。定性方法用于确定访谈的主题。合并数据集得出混合方法结果,以便更深入地了解参与者的观点:结果:研究发现,参与者的识字能力明显下降,但识字的重要性和乐趣在中风前和中风后没有差异。读写测试分数与自评能力相关,但与读写的重要性、乐趣或频率无关。主题分析过程确定了四大主题:结论:数据表明,失语症患者非常重视阅读和写作,尽管面临着公认的挑战,但他们仍非常投入地使用和提高这些技能。因此,针对失语症患者读写能力的评估和治疗至关重要,应邀请失语症患者分享他们的读写经验和目标,从而共同构建更多以人为本的临床资源。补充材料:https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25893049。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Insights on Literacy From Stroke Survivors With Aphasia: A Mixed-Methods Inquiry.

Purpose: Individuals with aphasia commonly experience reading and writing difficulties, negatively impacting everyday communication and life participation. Using mixed methods, this study aimed to understand literacy experiences described by individuals with aphasia and explore how their perspectives are related to test performance and other demographic factors.

Method: Twenty-one stroke survivors with aphasia completed reading and writing testing and shared their perspectives through a close-ended survey and an open-ended interview about literacy abilities and experiences. Quantitative methods were used to compare pre- and poststroke self-ratings and explore associations between self-ratings and demographic factors. Qualitative methods were used to identify themes in the interviews. The data sets were merged to derive mixed-methods results for a more in-depth view of participants' perspectives.

Results: Significant decreases in perceived literacy abilities were found; however, there were no differences in literacy importance or enjoyment pre- to poststroke. Reading and writing test scores were correlated with self-rated abilities but not with importance, enjoyment, or frequency of reading and writing. The thematic analysis process identified four main themes: Feelings about literacy, Literacy challenges, Literacy supports, and Literacy goals.

Conclusions: The data indicate that individuals with aphasia highly value reading and writing and are heavily invested, despite recognized challenges, in using and improving these skills. Therefore, assessments and treatments addressing literacy in aphasia are critical, and individuals with aphasia should be invited to share their literacy experiences and goals, allowing for more person-centered clinical resources to be collaboratively constructed.

Supplemental material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25893049.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.50%
发文量
353
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Mission: AJSLP publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on all aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. The journal is an international outlet for clinical research pertaining to screening, detection, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of communication and swallowing disorders across the lifespan as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. Because of its clinical orientation, the journal disseminates research findings applicable to diverse aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. AJSLP seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of speech-language pathology, including aphasia; apraxia of speech and childhood apraxia of speech; aural rehabilitation; augmentative and alternative communication; cognitive impairment; craniofacial disorders; dysarthria; fluency disorders; language disorders in children; speech sound disorders; swallowing, dysphagia, and feeding disorders; and voice disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信