会话处理后语篇水平变化的测量

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q1 LINGUISTICS Topics in Language Disorders Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1097/TLD.0000000000000243
G. Dede, Elizabeth Hoover
{"title":"会话处理后语篇水平变化的测量","authors":"G. Dede, Elizabeth Hoover","doi":"10.1097/TLD.0000000000000243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This article reviews four discourse measures and examines whether they are sensitive to impairments in people with both mild and severe aphasia. We also ask whether these measures were sensitive to effects of conversation treatment in two case examples. Method: Two people with aphasia, one mild and fluent and the other severe and nonfluent, served as case studies. Both case studies had participated in conversation treatment, in which individualized goals were targeted in the context of naturalistic conversation-based interactions. Picture descriptions were analyzed using three discourse measures: core lexicon, words per minute, and correct information units. In addition, words per minute and conversation turns were examined in personal narratives produced by the individual with severe nonfluent aphasia in a conversational context. Results: For the individual with mild aphasia, both words per minute and core lexicon were sensitive to the presence of aphasia and treatment changes. For the individual with severe aphasia, all measures were sensitive to the presence of aphasia, but only words per minute and number/type of conversation turns were sensitive to effects of treatment. Discussion/Conclusions: Discourse measures capture relevant aspects of communication that may not be seen on standardized measures of discrete language skills. Given different aphasia profiles and individual communication goals, clinicians need to choose the most relevant, reliable, and informative measures.","PeriodicalId":51604,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Language Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Change at the Discourse-Level Following Conversation Treatment\",\"authors\":\"G. Dede, Elizabeth Hoover\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/TLD.0000000000000243\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: This article reviews four discourse measures and examines whether they are sensitive to impairments in people with both mild and severe aphasia. We also ask whether these measures were sensitive to effects of conversation treatment in two case examples. Method: Two people with aphasia, one mild and fluent and the other severe and nonfluent, served as case studies. Both case studies had participated in conversation treatment, in which individualized goals were targeted in the context of naturalistic conversation-based interactions. Picture descriptions were analyzed using three discourse measures: core lexicon, words per minute, and correct information units. In addition, words per minute and conversation turns were examined in personal narratives produced by the individual with severe nonfluent aphasia in a conversational context. Results: For the individual with mild aphasia, both words per minute and core lexicon were sensitive to the presence of aphasia and treatment changes. For the individual with severe aphasia, all measures were sensitive to the presence of aphasia, but only words per minute and number/type of conversation turns were sensitive to effects of treatment. Discussion/Conclusions: Discourse measures capture relevant aspects of communication that may not be seen on standardized measures of discrete language skills. Given different aphasia profiles and individual communication goals, clinicians need to choose the most relevant, reliable, and informative measures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Topics in Language Disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Topics in Language Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000243\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Language Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000243","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

目的:本文综述了四种话语测量方法,并考察它们是否对轻度和重度失语症患者的障碍敏感。我们还询问,在两个案例中,这些措施是否对谈话治疗的影响敏感。方法:两名失语症患者,一名轻度流利,另一名重度不流利,作为个案研究。这两个案例研究都参与了对话治疗,在基于自然对话的互动背景下,针对个性化目标。图片描述采用三种话语测量方法进行分析:核心词汇、每分钟单词数和正确信息单元。此外,研究了严重非流畅性失语症患者在会话环境中产生的个人叙事中每分钟的单词数和会话转折。结果:对于轻度失语症患者,每分钟单词数和核心词汇对失语症的存在和治疗变化都很敏感。对于患有严重失语症的患者,所有测量指标都对失语症存在敏感,但只有每分钟的单词数和会话次数/类型对治疗效果敏感。讨论/结论:话语测量捕捉了交际的相关方面,而这些方面在离散语言技能的标准化测量中可能看不到。鉴于失语症的特点和个人沟通目标不同,临床医生需要选择最相关、最可靠、最有信息的测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Measuring Change at the Discourse-Level Following Conversation Treatment
Purpose: This article reviews four discourse measures and examines whether they are sensitive to impairments in people with both mild and severe aphasia. We also ask whether these measures were sensitive to effects of conversation treatment in two case examples. Method: Two people with aphasia, one mild and fluent and the other severe and nonfluent, served as case studies. Both case studies had participated in conversation treatment, in which individualized goals were targeted in the context of naturalistic conversation-based interactions. Picture descriptions were analyzed using three discourse measures: core lexicon, words per minute, and correct information units. In addition, words per minute and conversation turns were examined in personal narratives produced by the individual with severe nonfluent aphasia in a conversational context. Results: For the individual with mild aphasia, both words per minute and core lexicon were sensitive to the presence of aphasia and treatment changes. For the individual with severe aphasia, all measures were sensitive to the presence of aphasia, but only words per minute and number/type of conversation turns were sensitive to effects of treatment. Discussion/Conclusions: Discourse measures capture relevant aspects of communication that may not be seen on standardized measures of discrete language skills. Given different aphasia profiles and individual communication goals, clinicians need to choose the most relevant, reliable, and informative measures.
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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Topics in Language Disorders (TLD) is a double-blind peer-reviewed topical journal that has dual purposes: (1) to serve as a scholarly resource for researchers and clinicians who share an interest in spoken and written language development and disorders across the lifespan, with a focus on interdisciplinary and international concerns; and (2) to provide relevant information to support theoretically sound, culturally sensitive, research-based clinical practices.
期刊最新文献
Implementing Strategy-Based Instruction for Struggling Writers via Telepractice Effects of Integrating Different Types of Physical Activity Into Virtual Rapid Word Learning Instruction for Children Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing Innovations in Language and Literacy for Children and Adolescents With Language Disorders Using Multiliteracies to Target Critical Media Literacy for Adolescents With Language Learning Disabilities Coordinating Multiple Language Levels in Writing
×
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