International journal of speech-language pathology · 2024
Assessment and theoretical interpretation of spoken discourse and cognitive skills in two adolescents with acquired brain injury.
СтатьяКлинический случайНазвание 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.
Hill Elizabeth, Whitworth Anne, Boyes Mark, Claessen Mary
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Although discourse assessment is recommended, few tools exist for adolescent acquired brain injury (ABI) and few theories describe the contribution of cognition to discourse impairment. This study explored whether a novel discourse protocol can identify difficulties following ABI and whether a discourse processing model provides a useful account of impairment.
METHOD: Using a case-control design, two adolescent males with moderate ABI (12 and 14 years) were compared to a neurotypical sample on a range of language and cognitive assessments. Patterns in performance were interpreted using a theoretical model. Participants completed a standardised omnibus language assessment, discourse assessment, and battery of cognitive tasks.
RESULT: Analyses revealed significant differences in discourse and cognition between adolescents with and without ABI. No impairment was detected on a standardised language assessment. Patterns in discourse and cognition aligned with a contemporary model of discourse processing.
CONCLUSION: Participants with ABI demonstrated discourse deficits relative to the neurotypical reference sample. The findings demonstrate the value of discourse sampling across multiple genres and analysis of microlinguistic to superstructural features. A structure-building framework (SBF) model, originating in schizophrenia, provides a promising theory with which to interpret discourse impairment and has the potential to inform intervention for discourse in ABI.
METHOD: Using a case-control design, two adolescent males with moderate ABI (12 and 14 years) were compared to a neurotypical sample on a range of language and cognitive assessments. Patterns in performance were interpreted using a theoretical model. Participants completed a standardised omnibus language assessment, discourse assessment, and battery of cognitive tasks.
RESULT: Analyses revealed significant differences in discourse and cognition between adolescents with and without ABI. No impairment was detected on a standardised language assessment. Patterns in discourse and cognition aligned with a contemporary model of discourse processing.
CONCLUSION: Participants with ABI demonstrated discourse deficits relative to the neurotypical reference sample. The findings demonstrate the value of discourse sampling across multiple genres and analysis of microlinguistic to superstructural features. A structure-building framework (SBF) model, originating in schizophrenia, provides a promising theory with which to interpret discourse impairment and has the potential to inform intervention for discourse in ABI.