ArticleAphasiology2020
Main concepts for two picture description tasks: An addition to.
Article in Aphasiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute-Phase Machine Learning Prediction of 12-Month Aphasia and Discourse Recovery.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Large Language Models' Ability to Assess Main Concepts in Story Retelling: A Proof-of-Concept Comparison of Human Versus Machine Ratings.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2025Article
- Reliability of the Brief Assessment of Transactional Success in Communication in Aphasia.Aphasiology · 2025Article
- To be or not to be aphasic: use of story retelling as a marker in subclinical aphasia.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Age-related changes in connected speech production: evidence from eye-tracking in the culturally adapted picture description task.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Clinical Guidelines for Eliciting Discourse Using the RHDBank Protocol.American journal of speech-language pathology · 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
- Moving Toward Non-transcription based Discourse Analysis in Stable and Progressive Aphasia.Seminars in speech and language · 2020Article
- Using AphasiaBank for Discourse Assessment.Seminars in speech and language · 2020Article
- A Large-Scale Comparison of Main Concept Production Between Persons With Aphasia and Persons Without Brain Injury.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2019Article
- Development and Real-Time Clinical Application of New Transcription-Less Discourse Assessment Approaches for Arabic Speakers With Aphasia.International journal of language & communication 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
backgroundProposition analysis of the discourse of persons with aphasia has a long history, yielding important advancements in our understanding of communication impairments in this population. Recently, discourse measures have been considered primary outcome measures, and multiple calls have been made for improved psychometric properties of discourse measures.
aimsTo advance the use of discourse analysis in persons with aphasia by providing Main Concept Analysis checklists and descriptive statistics for healthy control performance on the analysis for the Cat in the Tree and Refused Umbrella narrative tasks utilized in the AphasiaBank database protocol. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Ninety-two control transcripts, stratified into four age groups (20-39 years; 40-59; 60-79; 80+), were downloaded from the AphasiaBank database. Relevant concepts were identified, and those spoken by at least one-third of the control sample were considered to be a main concept. A multi-level coding system was used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the main concepts produced by control speakers. OUTCOMES &
resultsMain concept checklists for two discourse tasks are provided. Descriptive statistics are reported and examined to assist readers with evaluation of the normative data.
conclusionsThese checklists provide clinicians and researchers with a tool to reliably assess the discourse of persons with aphasia. They also help address the gap in available psychometric data with which to compare persons with aphasia to healthy controls.
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.