Nicholas L E, Brookshire R H
Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, USA.
J Speech Hear Res. 1995 Feb;38(1):145-56. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3801.145.
A standard rule-based system was used to evaluate the presence, accuracy, and completeness of main concepts in the connected speech of 20 non-brain-damaged adults and 20 adults with aphasia. Main concepts form a skeletal outline of the most important information (or "gist") in a message. The interjudge and intrajudge reliability of the main concept scoring system and the test-retest stability of scores were acceptable. The non-brain-damaged group produced significantly more Accurate/complete main concepts, and significantly fewer Accurate/incomplete, Inaccurate, and Absent main concepts than the group with aphasia. However, when the performance of individual subjects was evaluated, what best discriminated the performance of subjects with aphasia from that of non-brain-damaged subjects was not the number of main concepts they failed to mention but the accuracy and completeness of the main concepts they did produce. Measures of main concept production may be a clinically useful complement to other measures of communicative informativeness and efficiency.
使用一个标准的基于规则的系统来评估20名非脑损伤成年人和20名失语症成年人的连贯言语中主要概念的存在、准确性和完整性。主要概念构成了一条信息中最重要信息(或“要点”)的框架轮廓。主要概念评分系统的评判者间和评判者内信度以及分数的重测稳定性是可接受的。与失语症组相比,非脑损伤组产生的准确/完整的主要概念明显更多,而准确/不完整、不准确和缺失的主要概念明显更少。然而,当评估个体受试者的表现时,最能区分失语症受试者和非脑损伤受试者表现的不是他们未提及的主要概念的数量,而是他们确实产生的主要概念的准确性和完整性。主要概念产生的测量方法可能是对其他沟通信息性和效率测量方法的一种临床有用补充。