ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2019
A Large-Scale Comparison of Main Concept Production Between Persons With Aphasia and Persons Without Brain Injury.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Introducing the NEURAL Research Lab Data Set for Studies of Discourse and Gesture in Aphasia and Cognitively Healthy Aging Adults.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025Article
- Discourse Measures From the Modern Cookie Theft Picture Description Are Sensitive to Mild Communication Deficits Not Captured by the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2025Article
- The curious case of the Cat Rescue: can picture narrative description inform visuospatial processing in aphasia?Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Access to context-specific lexical-semantic information during discourse tasks differentiates speakers with latent aphasia, mild cognitive impairment, and cognitively healthy adults.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Analyzing Language in the Picnic Scene Picture and in Conversation: The Type of Discourse Sample We Choose Influences Findings in People With Aphasia.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2023Article
- Reactivity of the triple task on writing processes and product in adults with dyslexia.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Clinical Guidelines for Eliciting Discourse Using the RHDBank Protocol.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2022Article
- Task-Specific Iconic Gesturing During Spoken Discourse in Aphasia.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2022Article
- Assessment of language impairment and function.Handbook of clinical neurology · 2022Review
- Enhancing the Classification of Aphasia: A Statistical Analysis Using Connected Speech.Aphasiology · 2022Article
- Main Concept, Sequencing, and Story Grammar Analyses of Cinderella Narratives in a Large Sample of Persons with Aphasia.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Spectral Resting-State EEG (rsEEG) in Chronic Aphasia Is Reliable, Sensitive, and Correlates With Functional Behavior.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- Macrostructural Analyses of Cinderella Narratives in a Large Nonclinical Sample.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2020Article
- Using AphasiaBank for Discourse Assessment.Seminars in speech and language · 2020Article
- Moving Toward Non-transcription based Discourse Analysis in Stable and Progressive Aphasia.Seminars in speech and language · 2020Article
- Measuring Change at the Discourse-Level Following Conversation Treatment: Examples From Mild and Severe Aphasia.Topics in language disordersArticle
- Making Sense of Right Hemisphere Discourse Using RHDBank.Topics in language disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose The purposes of this study are to provide clinicians and researchers with introductory psychometric data for the main concept analysis (MCA), a measure of discourse informativeness, and specifically, to provide descriptive and comparative statistical information about the performance of a large sample of persons not brain injured (PNBIs) and persons with aphasia (PWAs) on AphasiaBank discourse tasks. Method Transcripts of 5 semi-spontaneous discourse tasks were retrieved from the AphasiaBank database and scored according to detailed checklists and scoring procedures. Transcripts from 145 PNBIs and 238 PWAs were scored; descriptive statistics, median tests, and effect sizes are reported. Results PWAs demonstrated overall lower informativeness scores and more frequent production of statements that were inaccurate and/or incomplete. Differences between PNBIs and PWAs were observed for all main concept measures and stories. Comparisons of PNBIs and aphasia subtypes revealed significant differences for all groups, although the pattern of differences and strength of effect sizes varied by group and discourse task. Conclusions These results may improve the investigative and clinical utility of the MCA by providing descriptive and comparative information for PNBIs and PWAs for standardized discourse tasks that can be reliably scored. The results indicate that the MCA is sensitive to differences in discourse as a result of aphasia. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.7485647.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.