Fromm Davida, Holland Audrey, Armstrong Elizabeth, Forbes Margaret, Macwhinney Brian, Risko Amy, Mattison Nicole
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Aphasiology. 2011;25(11):1431-1447. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2011.608839.
This study examined responses of persons with aphasia (PWAs) to a general question about their speech. The goal was to describe their evaluative responses as positive, negative, or neutral/mixed and determine if responses differed, based on time post-onset, aphasia severity, and aphasia type. METHODS: 71 participants from the AphasiaBank project were included. As part of a larger protocol, investigators asked, "How do you think your speech is these days?" Responses were videotaped and transcribed using CLAN. Two authors coded the evaluative responses and categorized themes in the elaborative content provided by the participants. RESULTS: Positive responses accounted for 59% of all responses, followed by neutral/mixed (18%), and negative (17%). Participants also mentioned specific speech problems (35%), improvement (31%), and therapy (8%) in their responses. Time post-onset and aphasia type were not significantly associated with nature of response. Aphasia severity was significantly associated with nature of response, with higher AQ scores in the positive group and vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: The responses are discussed in the context of self-image and self-expression in PWA and social models in aphasia therapy. Results are also compared with those of others with chronic disabilities and research on resilience, positive affect, and optimism.
本研究调查了失语症患者(PWAs)对一个关于其言语的一般性问题的反应。目标是将他们的评价性反应描述为积极、消极或中性/混合,并根据发病后的时间、失语症严重程度和失语症类型确定反应是否存在差异。方法:纳入了失语症数据库项目的71名参与者。作为一个更大方案的一部分,研究人员询问:“你认为你目前的言语状况如何?”反应被录像,并使用CLAN进行转录。两位作者对评价性反应进行编码,并对参与者提供的详细内容中的主题进行分类。结果:积极反应占所有反应的59%,其次是中性/混合反应(18%)和消极反应(17%)。参与者在回答中还提到了具体的言语问题(35%)、改善情况(31%)和治疗情况(8%)。发病后的时间和失语症类型与反应性质无显著关联。失语症严重程度与反应性质显著相关,积极组的失语症商数(AQ)得分较高,反之亦然。结论:在失语症患者的自我形象和自我表达以及失语症治疗的社会模型背景下对反应进行了讨论。还将结果与其他慢性残疾患者的结果以及关于恢复力、积极情感和乐观主义的研究结果进行了比较。