Interaction and language test performance involving persons with dementia

Karin Myrberg, Christina Samuelsson, L. Hydén
{"title":"Interaction and language test performance involving persons with dementia","authors":"Karin Myrberg, Christina Samuelsson, L. Hydén","doi":"10.1558/jircd.20366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Dementia has a significant impact on language and communication. In this study, the aim was to compare the organization of interaction between persons with dementia (PWDs) and speech and language pathologists (SLPs) in two types of conversation, a test conversation and an informal conversation. A further aim was to relate interactional abilities to the PWDs’ performance on an aphasia test battery.\nMethod: Ten PWDs participated in the two types of conversations. In the test conversation, a standardized aphasia test battery was used. All dyads were audio- and video-recorded. Analyses were informed by interaction analytical approaches, such as conversation analysis (CA), combined with quantitative measurements.\nResults: The results demonstrated that there was a larger number of turns, words, and topic initiations made by the PWDs in the informal conversations. The frequency of occurrence of repair instances was the same in the two conditions, but repairs in the test conversations were mostly resolved within one turn, whereas repairs stretching over several turns were more frequent in the informal conversations. Many of the repairs were initiated with a clarification request or a request for confirmation. Even though a majority of the PWDs demonstrated a rather robust turn-taking ability in the informal conversations, several of them struggled with the aphasia test assignments, in some cases due to visual perception problems.\nDiscussion and conclusion: The results indicate that a thorough analysis of informal conversations is important in assessing language in PWDs. The ecological validity of standardized language tests needs to be discussed, and the results of such tests should be handled carefully. ","PeriodicalId":52222,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.20366","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: Dementia has a significant impact on language and communication. In this study, the aim was to compare the organization of interaction between persons with dementia (PWDs) and speech and language pathologists (SLPs) in two types of conversation, a test conversation and an informal conversation. A further aim was to relate interactional abilities to the PWDs’ performance on an aphasia test battery. Method: Ten PWDs participated in the two types of conversations. In the test conversation, a standardized aphasia test battery was used. All dyads were audio- and video-recorded. Analyses were informed by interaction analytical approaches, such as conversation analysis (CA), combined with quantitative measurements. Results: The results demonstrated that there was a larger number of turns, words, and topic initiations made by the PWDs in the informal conversations. The frequency of occurrence of repair instances was the same in the two conditions, but repairs in the test conversations were mostly resolved within one turn, whereas repairs stretching over several turns were more frequent in the informal conversations. Many of the repairs were initiated with a clarification request or a request for confirmation. Even though a majority of the PWDs demonstrated a rather robust turn-taking ability in the informal conversations, several of them struggled with the aphasia test assignments, in some cases due to visual perception problems. Discussion and conclusion: The results indicate that a thorough analysis of informal conversations is important in assessing language in PWDs. The ecological validity of standardized language tests needs to be discussed, and the results of such tests should be handled carefully. 
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
痴呆症患者的互动和语言测试表现
目的:痴呆症对语言和交流有重大影响。在这项研究中,目的是比较痴呆症患者(PWD)和言语和语言病理学家(SLP)在两种类型的对话(测试对话和非正式对话)中的互动组织。另一个目的是将互动能力与残疾人在失语症测试中的表现联系起来。方法:10名残疾人参与两种类型的对话。在测试对话中,使用了标准化失语症测试组。所有二人组都进行了音频和视频录制。分析采用互动分析方法,如会话分析(CA),结合定量测量。结果:研究结果表明,残疾人在非正式会话中有较多的转折、话语和话题启动。在这两种情况下,修复实例的发生频率相同,但测试对话中的修复大多在一个转弯内解决,而在非正式对话中,超过几个转弯的修复更频繁。许多维修都是通过澄清请求或确认请求启动的。尽管大多数残疾人在非正式对话中表现出相当强大的转向能力,但他们中的一些人在失语症测试任务中遇到了困难,在某些情况下是由于视觉感知问题。讨论和结论:研究结果表明,深入分析非正式对话对评估残疾人的语言很重要。标准化语言测试的生态有效性需要讨论,并且应该仔细处理这些测试的结果。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders
Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊最新文献
Adapting educational speech-language pathology services during a pandemic Integrating the HBM and the PEN-3 model to explain the health behavior of persons with DLD Discourse repetition and phonetic reduction in a person with dysarthria secondary to Parkinson’s disease Association between the degree of autism and permissiveness of pragmatic impairments in Japanese-speaking adults with and without autism spectrum disorder Diagnostic accuracy of current assessment measures for developmental language disorders in bilingual children
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1