TRANSCRIPTION-LESS ANALYSIS OF APHASIC DISCOURSE: A ...



TRANSCRIPTION-LESS DISCOURSE ANALYSIS:

A REALISING THE CLINICIAN’S DREAM OR A POSSIBILITYDREAM?Movinging forward discourse analysis as a clinical tool forward in aphasia rehabilitation

L. Armstrong1,2, M. Brady1, C. Mackenzie3 and, J. Norrie4

.

1Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, 2 Speech and Language Therapy Department, Perth Royal Infirmary, Perth,

3 Department of Educational and Professional Studies, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 4 Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen.

Email: linda.armstrong.slt@tpct.scot.nhs.uk

Phone: 01738 473714

Background

Although discourse analysis (DA) has been used in research into aphasia for some time, but as a method it is currently still too time-consuming to have become part of routine clinical practice. as it requires tTranscriptioranscription before analysis.of the discourse sample prior to its interpretation makes this type of analysis particularly lengthy and so unsuitable for use by most clinicians. Some potential for a transcription-less method of DA was indicated by recent research into turn-taking in people with dysarthria (Comrie, Mackenzie and McCall, 2001) and into gesture in people with right hemisphere brain damage (Brady and Mackenzie, 2001). This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of a transcription-less method of DA, based on discourse samples from people with aphasia.

Method

Ten individuals with aphasia were audio- and video-recorded participating in a number of discourse tasks from three different discourse genres (conversation, procedural and picture description). These were free opening and closing conversations, two conversational tasks, two procedural tasks and description of the ‘cookie theft’ picture. The participants’ gesture use, topic use, turn-taking, repair, conversational initiation, topic initiation and concept use were measured by different raters using transcription-based DA and a transcription-less method based on analysis directly from the recordings. The same analytical frameworks were employed for both methods and the resulting data were compared to establish the validity of the transcription-less method. Reliability of both methods was also measured. The four transcription-less raters fed back their experience of this new method via written comments.

Results

Overall the validity of the transcription-less method was established – there were no significant differences on any of the discourse features, when the scores on the measures from the two methods were compared. Gesture use and repair showing some (non-significant) disparity. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of the transcription-based method was acceptable, with no significant differences between analyses or raters. Inter-rater reliability of the transcription-less method was strongest for gesture totals and varied for attributes of turn-taking and repair. For the categorical measurements (topic and conversation initiation, concept analysis) the agreement was very good. The transcription-less raters’ experience of this method will be the focus in this presentation. There was individual variation reported by the raters in the ease/difficulty in the scoring of the various measures. Their comments indicated areas for enhanced training in the transcription-less method and were positive about the potential clinical usefulness of this method.

Discussion

This study has demonstrated the reliability and validity of a transcription-less method of DA using samples from people with aphasia. While in this study a wide range of discourse features and measures were taken, clinicians may focus their DA on one particular feature, according to their assessment of the client. Raters’ comments provided qualitative information about the new method. These will inform future research into the method and the development of training materials so that clinicians can trial transcription-less DA using their own discourse samples. The method should have wider applicability to other client-groups.

Conclusion

This study advanced the use of discourse analysis as a clinical tool in aphasia rehabilitation.

References

Comrie, P., Mackenzie, C., & McCall, J. (2001). The influence of acquired dysarthria on conversational turn taking. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 15, 383-398.

Brady, M. & Mackenzie, C. (2001). Gesture use following right hemisphere brain damage. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 36 (supplement), 35-40.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download