The Relationship between Objective Measures and Listeners' Judgments of the Communicative Informativeness of the Connected Discourse of Adults with Aphasia

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 53-60

  Doyle, Patrick J ^a   Tsironas, Dina ^a,b   Goda, Amy J ^a   Kalinyak, Michelene ^a,c  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Nova Care Inc

^c Charlotte Inst of Rehabilitation

Author keywords

Aphasic discourse; Communicative handicap; Communicative informativeness; Perceptual judgments

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030502251     PISSN: 10580360     EISSN: 15589110     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1058-0360.0503.53     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Annette, M. (1970). A classification of hand preference by association analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 303-321.
2. Brookshire, R. H., & Nicholas, L. E. (1994). Speech sample size and test-retest stability of connected speech measures for adults with aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 399-407.
3. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1982). Applied regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
4. Doyle, P. J., Goda, A. J., & Spencer, K. A. (1995). The communicative informativeness and efficiency of connected discourse by adults with aphasia under structured and conversational sampling conditions. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 4(4), 130-134.
5. Goodglass, H., & Kaplan, E. (1983). Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination. Boston: Lea & Febiger.
6. Kearns, K. P. (1985). Response elaboration training for patient initiated utterances. Clinical Aphasiology, 15, 196-204.
7. Kertesz, A. (1982). The Western Aphasia Battery. New York: Grime & Stratton.
8. Nicholas, L. E., & Brookshire, R. H. (1993). A system for quantifying the informativeness and efficiency of the connected speech of adults with aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 338-350.
9. Nicholas, L. E., & Brookshire, R. H. (1995). The presence, completeness, and accuracy of main concepts in the connected speech of non brain damaged adults and adults with aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 145-156
10. Schiavetti, N., Metz, D. E., & Sitler, R. W. (1981). Construct validity of direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling: Evidence from a study of hearing impaired. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 441-445.
11. Schiavetti, N., Sacco, P. R., Metz, D. E., & Sitler, R. W. (1983). Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of stuttering severity. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 26, 568-573.
12. Stevens, S. S. (1971). Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological Review, 78, 426-450.
13. Stevens, S. S. (1974). Perceptual magnitude and its measurement. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.
14. Stevens, S. S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural and social prospects. New York: Wiley.
15. Wilson, R. S., Rosenbaum, G., & Brown, G. (1979). The problem of premorbid intelligence in neuropsychological assessment. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 1, 49-53.
16. Yorkston, K. M., & Beukelman, D. R. (1977). A system for quantifying verbal output of high-level aphasie patients. In R. H. Brookshire (Ed.), Clinical Aphasiology Conference Proceedings (pp. 175-180). Minneapolis, MN: BRK Publishers.
17. Yorkston, K. M., & Beukelman, D. R. (1980). An analysis of connected speech samples of aphasie and normal speakers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 45, 27-36.