Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42825224›Full record

ArticleTopics in language disorders

Measuring Change at the Discourse-Level Following Conversation Treatment: Examples From Mild and Severe Aphasia.

Gayle DeDe, Elizabeth Hoover

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Topics in language disorders. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Gayle DeDeDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Elizabeth HooverDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

A comparison of the effects of dosage and group dynamics on discourse outcomes in aphasiaR21DC015859 · NIDCD · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI HOOVER, ELIZABETH L · 2017 to 2019
$499k
NIDCD NIH HHS R21 DC015859
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

aphasiaconversationdiscourse measurementoutcome measurementtreatment

Identifiers

PMID42825224
PMCPMC13629616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.