Can teenagers with traumatic brain injury use Internet chatrooms A systematic review of the literature and the Internet

Brain Injury

Volumn 24, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1135-1172

  Kilov, Andrea M ^a   Togher, Leanne ^a   Power, Emma ^a   Turkstra, Lyn ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Brain injury; Chatroom; Communication; Computer; Internet; Teenager

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; COGNITION; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; REVIEW; SOCIAL INTERACTION; SOCIAL ISOLATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY; WEB BROWSER;

EID: 77955906575     PISSN: 02699052     EISSN: 1362301X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/02699052.2010.490511     Document Type: Review

References (83)

1. Paterson J, Stewart J. Adults with acquired brain injury: Perceptions of their social world. Rehabilitation Nursing 2002;27:13-18.
2. Togher L, McDonald S, Code C, Grant S. Training communication partners of people with traumatic brain injury: A randomised controlled trial. Aphasiology 2004;18:313-335.
3. Wiseman-Hakes C, Stewart ML, Wasserman R, Schuller R. Peer group training of pragmatic skills in adolescents with acquired brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 1998;13:23-38.
4. Turkstra LS, McDonald S, DePompei R. Social information processing in adolescents: Data from normally developing adolescents and preliminary data from their peers with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 2001;5:469-483.
5. Lash M, DePompei R. Questions about speech and communication after brain injury. TBI Challenge! 2000;4:3.
6. Valkenburg PM, Peter J, Schouten AP. Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents' well-being and social self-esteem. Cyberpsychology and Behavior 2006;9: 584-590.
7. Taylor GH. Research on outcomes of pediatric traumatic brain injury: Current advances and future directions. Developmental Neuropsychology 2004;25:199-225.
8. Conoley J, Sheridan S. Pediatric traumatic brain injury: Challenges and interventions for families. Journal of Learning Disabilities 1996;29:662-669.
9. Farmer JE, Clippard DS, Luehr-Wiemann Y, Wright E, Owings S. Assessing children with traumatic brain injury during rehabilitation: Promoting school and community reentry. Journal of Learning Disabilities 1996;29:532-548.
10. Ylvisaker M. Traumatic brain injury rehabilitation: Children and adolescents. 2nd ed. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1998.
11. Hellawell DJ, Taylor R, Pentland B. Cognitive and psycho-social outcome following moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 1999;13:489-504.
12. Lash MD, R. Questions about speech and communication after brain injury. TBI Challenge! 2000;4:3.
13. Marsh NV, Knight RG. Relationship between cognitive deficits and social skill after head injury. Neuropsychology 1991;5:107-117.
14. Magnan SS, editor. Mediating discourse online. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2008.
15. Greenfield PM, Subrahmanyam K. Online discourse in a teen chatroom: New codes and new modes of coherence in a visual medium. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2003;24:713-738.
16. Merchant G. Teenagers in cyberspace: An investigation of language use and language change in internet chatrooms. Journal of Research in Reading 2001;24:293-306.
17. Discourse analysis of chatroom talk. Available online at: www.neuage.org/neuage-view/bus.html , accessed.
18. Vaccaro M, Hart T, Whyte J, Buchhofer R. Internet use and interest among individuals with traumatic brain injury: A consumer survey. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 2007;2:85-95.
19. Ehlhardt LA, Sohlberg MM, Glang A, Albin R. TEACH-M: A pilot study evaluating an instructional sequence for persons with impaired memory and executive functions. Brain Injury 2005;19:569-583.
20. Godfrey HPD, Shum D. Executive functioning and the application of social skills following traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology 2000;14:433-444.
21. Todis B, Sohlberg M, Fickas S, Hood D. Making electronic email accessible: Perspectives of people with acquired cognitive impairments, caregivers and professionals. Brain Injury 2005;19:389-401.
22. Egan J, Worrall L, Oxenham D. Accessible internet training package helps people with aphasia cross the digital divide. Aphasiology 2004;18:265-280.
23. Egan J, Worrall L, Oxenham D. An internet training intervention for people with traumatic brain injury: Barriers and outcomes. Brain Injury 2005;19:555-568.
24. Wanner A. Mediating discourse online. In: Magnan SS, editor. AILA Applied Linguistics Series 3. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2008, p 128.
25. Tynes B. Internet safety gone wild? Sacrificing the educational and psychosocial benefits of online sociale. Journal of Adolescent Research 2007;22:575-584.
26. Young Canadians in a wired world. Available online at: safe-passage-parents/chatrooms-safety-p.cfm
27. Online safety tips for kids ages 13 to 17. Available online at: kidtips13-17.mspx
28. Gross EF. Logging on, bouncing back: An experimental investigation of online communication following social exclusion. PhD. Dissertation. Los Angeles: University of California; 2006.
29. Jacobs G. "ur a part of it": Portfolio people and adolescent use of instant messaging. PhD. New York: University of Rochester; 2005.
30. Jacobs GE. Wel what we do: Developing a repertoire of writing practices in an instant messaging world. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 2008;52:203-211.
31. Howell-Richardson C, Mellar H. A methodology for the analysis of patterns of participation within computer mediated communication courses. Instructional Science 1996;24:47-69.
32. Fraas M, Balz MA. Expressive electronic journal writing: Freedom of communication for survivors of acquired brain injury. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2008;37: 115-124.
33. Ehlhardt LA, Sohlberg MM, Glang A, Albin R. TEACH-M: A pilot study evaluating an instructional sequence for persons with impaired memory and executive functions. Review, 43 refs. Brain Injury 2005;19:569-583.
34. Mortensen L. Written discourse and acquired brain impairment: Evaluation of structural and semantic features of personal letters from a Systemic Functional Linguistic perspective. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 2005;19: 227-247.
35. Wilson B, Proctor A. Written discourse of adolescents with closed head injury. Brain Injury 2002;16:1011-1024.
36. Yorkston KM, Jaffe KM, Polissar NL, Liao S, Fay GC. Written language production and neuropsychological function in children with traumatic brain injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1997;78:1096-1102.
37. Kim IH, Anderson RC, Nguyen-Jahiel K, Archodidou A. Discourse patterns during children's collaborative online discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2007;16: 333-370.
38. Maness JM. A linguistic analysis of chat reference conversations with 18-24 year-old college students. Journal of Academic Librarianship 2008;34:31-38.
39. Hartsell T. Who's talking online? A descriptive analysis of gender and online communication. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education 2005;1:42-54.
40. Moisey S, van de Keere R. Inclusion and the internet: Teaching adults with mild developmental disabilities to use information and communication technology. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin 2007;35:72-102.
41. Nelson BD, Potts B, Carey A. Job-related social networks and communication technology. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2006;22:1-9.
42. Peter J, Valkenburg PM, Schouten AP. Precursors of adolescents' use of visual and audio devices during online communication. Computers in Human Behavior 2007;23: 2473-2487.
43. Sohlberg MM, Ehlhardt LA, Fickas S, Sutcliffe A. A pilot study exploring electronic (or e-mail) mail in users with acquired cognitive-linguistic impairments. Brain Injury 2003;17:609-629.
44. Thayer S, Ray S. Online communication preferences across age, gender, and duration of Internet use. CyberPsychology and Behavior 2006;9:432-440.
45. Valkenburg PM, Peter J. Preadolescents' and adolescents' online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology 2007;43:267-277.
46. Valkenburg PM, Peter J. Online communication and adolescent well-being: Testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis. Computer-Mediated Communication 2007;12:1169-1182.
47. van den Eijnden RJ, Meerkerk GJ, Vermulst AA, Spijkerman R, Engels RC. Online communication, compulsive Internet use, and psychosocial well-being among adolescents: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology 2008;44:655-665.
48. Verburg G, Borthwick B, Bennett B, Rumney P. Online support to facilitate the reintegration of students with brain injury: Trials and errors. Neurorehabilitation 2003;18: 113-123.
49. Birch D. Identifying sources of social support. Journal of School Health 1993;68:159-161
50. Caverly D, MacDonald L. Techtalk: Acess to distance education. Journal of Developmental Education 2002;26: 38-39.
51. Dave L, Edyburn D. Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children 2000;32: 1-23.
52. Holmes ME. A conversational analysis of computer-mediated discourse. 73rd Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association. Boston, MA 1987.
53. Subrahmanyam K, Greenfield P. Online communication and adolescent relationships. Future of Children 2008;18: 119-146.
54. Valkenburg PM, Peter J. Social consequences of the Internet for adolescents: A decade of research. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2009;18:1-5.
55. Norton-Meier LA. A technology user's bill of rights: Lessons learned in chat rooms. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 2004;47:606-608.
56. Garrison DR, Cleveland-Innes M, Koole M, Kappelman J. Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. Internet and Higher Education 2006;9:1-8.
57. Zook B, Luken K. Building technology bridges for brain injury support groups. Parks and Recreation 2001;36:82-88.
58. Mazur J. Conversation analysis for educational technologists: Theoretical and methodological issues for researching the structures, processes, and meaning of on-line talk. In: Onassen DH, editor. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2004. pp 1073-1098.
59. Herring SC. Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In: Barab SA, Kling R, Gray JH, editors. Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press; 2004. pp 338-376.
60. Reynolds R, Woods R, Baker JD. Handbook of research on electronic surveys and measurements; 2007.
61. Justice M, Espinoza S. Online communication-building learning communities. In: Al JPE, editor. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference. Chesapeake: AACE; 1999. pp 1854-1859.
62. Rossler P. Content analysis in online communication: A challenge for traditional methodology. In: Batinic B, editor. U-DRaMB. Online social sciences. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber; 2002. pp 291-307.
63. Wood AF, Smith MJ. Online communication: Linking technology, identity, and culture. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2005.
64. Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center of Seattle. Majority of teens discuss risky behaviors on MySpace, studies conclude. Entertainment Newsweekly 2009;166.
65. Monfore D. Resource guide on traumatic brain injury. Preventing School Failure 2005;49:58-62.
66. Adams P. Cybertalk in rural Alberta: What adolescents are saying. ATA 2008;89:18-21.
67. Thomas-Stonell N, Johnson P, Schuller R, Jutai J. Evaluation of a computer-based program for remediation of cognitive-communication skills. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 1994;9:25-37.
68. Making the Internet family friendly. Available online at: Brian/dp/0785275681, accessed.
69. Assessing computer-mediated communication discourse of a traumatic brain injury survivor. Available online at: http:// wvuscholar.wvu.edu:8881//exlibris/ dtl/d3-1/apache-media/, accessed.
70. Brain injury resources on the Internet: A brief guide for professional, patients, and families. Available online at: www.angelfire.com/va/MFMartelliPhD/ Netsurf-TBI.pdf accessed.
71. Linguistic aspects of synchronous chat discourse (sketches for reflection). Available online at: http://www.genderstudie-s.info/english/eng- text13.php, accessed.
72. Computer mediated communication and foreign language education: Pedagogical features. Available online at: http:// www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec-08/ article02.htm , accessed.
73. THE INTERNET: Accessing human particpants and/or data. Available online at: c6/03/25/85/ethics-internet.pdf, accessed.
74. Wang AY, Newlin H. Predictors of cyber-student. University of Central Florida.
75. The chat room phenomenon: Reciprocal communication in cyberspace. Available online at: . com/doi/abs/10.1089/109493100316003?cookieSet = 1&journalCode = cpb, accessed.
76. Internet chatting inside out. Available online at: http:// www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL02/DOC/KacmarovaFINAL . doc, accessed.
77. Raclaw J. Two patterns for conversational closings ini message discourse. Colorado Research in Linguistics 2008;21:1-21.
78. Bowker F, Tuffin K. Dicing with deception: People with disabilities' strategies for managing safety and identity online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2003;8(2).
79. Kramer ADI, Fussell SR, Setlock LD. Text analysis as a tool for analyzing conversation in online support groups. CHI 2004:1485-1488.
80. Discourse structure analysis of chat communication. Available online at: cles/2008/1633, accessed.
81. Kilov A, Togher L, Grant S. Problem solving with friends: Discourse participation and performance of individuals with and without traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology 2009;23:584-605.
82. Hwang B, Hughes C. The effects of social interactive training on early social communication skills of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 2000;30: 331-343.
83. Hemmeter ML. Classroom-based interventions: Evaluating the past and looking towards the future. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 2000;20: 56-61.