Brain impairment : a multidisciplinary journal of the Australian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment · 2025
Social-legal knowledge in adults with and without traumatic brain injury.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wszalek Joseph A, Church Macayla N, Turkstra Lyn S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To characterise social-legal knowledge in adults with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI).
METHOD: Participants, 19 adults with TBI and 21 uninjured comparison peers, completed a social-legal knowledge interview to discuss their understanding of laws and legal systems. We used grounded theory to define thematic content within participants' self-reported knowledge.
RESULTS: Social-legal knowledge in both groups comprised five thematic categories. Three categories (normative rules, legal procedures, and structural characteristics) described the legal system itself, whereas two categories (personal anecdotes and uncertainty) described the participants' relationship to the law. Participants' social-legal knowledge was often technical and complex, defining a clear 'arrest-trial-jail' schema and well-defined roles for legal actors; however, participants often struggled to expand knowledge or to answer follow-up questions, and participants tended to frame the structural characteristics and their personal anecdotes negatively. Post-hoc analysis of total coded items showed no between-group differences in any of the five thematic categories.
CONCLUSION: Adults with moderate-to-severe TBI articulated complex, albeit superficial, social-legal knowledge, with no thematic differences to the knowledge of adults without TBI. The results identify key thematic content areas that comprise social-legal knowledge in adults with and without TBI and highlight areas of relative strength and relative weakness within lay persons' internal understanding of laws and legal systems.
METHOD: Participants, 19 adults with TBI and 21 uninjured comparison peers, completed a social-legal knowledge interview to discuss their understanding of laws and legal systems. We used grounded theory to define thematic content within participants' self-reported knowledge.
RESULTS: Social-legal knowledge in both groups comprised five thematic categories. Three categories (normative rules, legal procedures, and structural characteristics) described the legal system itself, whereas two categories (personal anecdotes and uncertainty) described the participants' relationship to the law. Participants' social-legal knowledge was often technical and complex, defining a clear 'arrest-trial-jail' schema and well-defined roles for legal actors; however, participants often struggled to expand knowledge or to answer follow-up questions, and participants tended to frame the structural characteristics and their personal anecdotes negatively. Post-hoc analysis of total coded items showed no between-group differences in any of the five thematic categories.
CONCLUSION: Adults with moderate-to-severe TBI articulated complex, albeit superficial, social-legal knowledge, with no thematic differences to the knowledge of adults without TBI. The results identify key thematic content areas that comprise social-legal knowledge in adults with and without TBI and highlight areas of relative strength and relative weakness within lay persons' internal understanding of laws and legal systems.