Department of Biobehavioral Sciences, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2019 Mar 11;28(1S):359-372. doi: 10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0148.
Purpose The aim of this study was to determine if people with aphasia demonstrate differences in microlinguistic skills and communicative success in unstructured, nontherapeutic conversations with a home communication partner (Home-P) as compared to a speech-language pathologist communication partner (SLP-P). Method Eight persons with aphasia participated in 2 unstructured, nontherapeutic 15-minute conversations, 1 each with an unfamiliar SLP-P and a Home-P. Utterance-level analysis evaluated communicative success. Two narrow measures of lexical relevance and sentence frame were used to evaluate independent clauses. Two broad lexical and morphosyntactic measures were used to evaluate elliptical and dependent clauses and to evaluate independent clauses for errors beyond lexical relevance and sentence frame (such as phonological and morphosyntactic errors). Utterances were further evaluated for presence of behaviors indicating lexical retrieval difficulty (pauses, repetitions, and false starts) and for referential cohesion. Results No statistical differences occurred for communicative success or for any of the microlinguistic measures between the SLP-P and Home-P conversation conditions. Four measures (2 of lexical retrieval and 1 each of communicative success and grammaticality) showed high correlations across the 2 conversation samples. Individuals showed variation of no more than 10 percentage points between the 2 conversation conditions for 46 of 56 data points. Variation greater than 10 percentage points tended to occur for the measure of referential cohesion and primarily for 1 participant. Conclusions Preliminary findings suggest that these microlinguistic measures and communicative success have potential for reliable comparison across Home-P and SLP-P conversations, with the possible exception of referential cohesion. However, further research is needed with a larger, more diverse sample. These findings suggest future assessment and treatment implications for clinical and research needs. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.7616312.
目的 本研究旨在确定与不熟悉的言语语言病理学家沟通伙伴(SLP-P)和家庭沟通伙伴(Home-P)进行非结构化、非治疗性 15 分钟对话时,失语症患者在微观语言技能和沟通成功率方面是否存在差异。 方法 8 名失语症患者参与了 2 次非结构化、非治疗性的 15 分钟对话,每次对话各与一位不熟悉的 SLP-P 和一位 Home-P 进行。话语层面的分析评估了沟通的成功率。使用 2 个狭义的词汇相关性和句子框架测量标准来评估独立子句。使用 2 个广义的词汇和形态句法测量标准来评估省略和从属子句,并评估超出词汇相关性和句子框架的独立子句的错误(例如语音和形态句法错误)。进一步评估话语是否存在表示词汇检索困难的行为(停顿、重复和起始错误)以及指代衔接。 结果 在 SLP-P 和 Home-P 对话条件下,沟通成功率或任何微观语言测量均未出现统计学差异。有 4 项测量指标(2 项词汇检索和 1 项沟通成功率和语法)在 2 个对话样本中具有高度相关性。在 56 个数据点中,有 46 个数据点的个体在 2 个对话条件之间的变化不超过 10 个百分点。变化大于 10 个百分点的趋势主要出现在指代衔接的测量指标上,并且主要发生在 1 名参与者身上。 结论 初步研究结果表明,这些微观语言测量指标和沟通成功率可能具有在 Home-P 和 SLP-P 对话之间进行可靠比较的潜力,可能除了指代衔接之外。然而,还需要进一步研究更大、更多样化的样本。这些发现为临床和研究需求提供了未来评估和治疗的启示。 补充材料 https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.7616312.