Casual conversations between individuals with traumatic brain injury and their friends

References

• Hyder AA, Wunderlich CA, Puvanachandra P, Gururaj G, Kobusingye OC. The impact of traumatic brain injuries: A global perspective. Neurorehabilitation 2007; 22: 341–353
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tate RL, McDonald S, Lulham JM. Incidence of hospital‐treated traumatic brain injury in an Australian community. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 1998; 22: 419–423
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langlois JA, Rutland‐Brown W, Wald MM. The epidemiology and impact of traumatic brain injury: A brief overview. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 2006; 21: 375–378
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coelho CA. Management of discourse deficits following traumatic brain injury: Progress, caveats, and needs. Seminars in Speech and Language 2007; 28: 122–135
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McDonald S, Togher L, Code C. Communication disorders following traumatic brain injury. Psychology Press, HoveUK 1999
   Google Scholar
• Kalpakjian CZ, Lam CS, Toussaint LL, Hansen Merbitz NK. Describing quality of life and psychosocial outcomes after traumatic brain injury. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2004; 83: 255–265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponsford JL, Olver JH, Curran CK. Prediction of employment status 2 years after traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 1995; 9: 11–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olver JH, Ponsford JL, Curran CA. Outcome following traumatic brain injury: A comparison between 2 and 5 years after injury. Brain Injury 1996; 10: 841–848
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond F, Godfrey HPD. Conversation with traumatically brain injured individuals: A controlled study of behavioural changes and their impact. Brain Injury 1997; 11: 319–329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shames J, Treger I, Ring H, Giaquinto S. Return to work following traumatic brain injury: Trends and challenges. Disability and Rehabilitation 2007; 29: 1387–1395
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander MP, Benson DF, Stuss DT. Frontal lobes and language. Brain and Language 1989; 37: 656–691
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley LL, Jensen PJ. Narrative and procedural discourse after closed head injury. Brain Injury 1991; 5: 267–285
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hartley LL, Jensen PJ. Three discourse profiles of closed‐head‐injury speakers: Theoretical and clinical implications. Brain Injury 1992; 6: 271–281
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McDonald S. Pragmatic language skills after closed head injury: Ability to meet the informational needs of the listener. Brain and Language 1993; 44: 28–46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flanagan S, McDonald S, Togher L. Evaluating social skills following traumatic brain injury: The BRISS as a clinical tool. Brain Injury 1995; 9: 321–338
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow P, Douglas J, Ponsford J. Conversational discourse abilities following severe traumatic brain injury: A follow‐up study. Brain Injury 1998; 12: 911–935
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday MAK. An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd. Edward Arnold, London 1994
   Google Scholar
• Togher L, Hand L, Code C. Analysing discourse in the traumatic brain injury population: Telephone interactions with different communication partners. Brain Injury 1997; 11: 169–190
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poynton C. Language and gender: Making the difference. Deakin University Press, Waurn Ponds 1985
   Google Scholar
• Togher L. Giving information: The importance of context on communicative opportunity for people with traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology 2000; 14: 365–390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Togher L, Hand L, Code C. A new perspective on the relationship between communication impairment and disempowerment following head injury in information exchanges. Disability and Rehabilitation 1996; 18: 559–566
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Togher L, Taylor C, Aird V, Grant S. The impact of varied speaker role and communication partner on the communicative interactions of a person with traumatic brain injury: A single case study using systemic functional linguistics. Brain Impairment 2006; 7: 190–201
   Google Scholar
• Jorgensen M, Togher L. Narrative after traumatic brain injury: A comparison of monologic and jointly‐produced discourse. Brain Injury 2009; 23: 727–740
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomsen IV. Late outcome of very severe blunt head trauma: A 10–15 year second follow‐up. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1984; 47: 260–268
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godfrey HPD, Shum D. Executive functioning and the application of social skills following traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology 2000; 14: 433–444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowlands A. Understanding social support and friendship: Implications for intervention after acquired brain injury. Brain Impairment 2000; 1: 151–164
   Google Scholar
• Larkins B, Worrall LE, Hickson LMH. Everyday communication activities of individuals with traumatic brain injury living in New Zealand. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing 1999; 4: 183–191
   Google Scholar
• Coelho C, Youse K, Le K, Feinn R. Narrative and conversational discourse of adults with closed head injuries and non‐brain‐injured adults: A discriminant analysis. Aphasiology 2003; 17: 499–510
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coelho C, Ylvisaker M, Turkstra LS. Nonstandardized assessment approaches for individuals with traumatic brain injuries. Seminars in Speech and Language 2005; 26: 223–241
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ventola E. The structure of casual conversation in English. Journal of Pragmatics 1979; 3: 267–298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prutting CA, Kirchner DM. A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 1987; 52: 105–119
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Adamovich B, Henderson J. Scales of cognitive ability for traumatic brain injury. The Riverside Publishing Company, Chicago, IL 1992
   Google Scholar
• Hunt KW. Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 1970; 35: 3–67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice, 3rd. Prentice‐Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ 2009
   Google Scholar
• Argyrous G. Statistics for research with a guide to SPSS. Sage Publications, , London 2005
   Google Scholar
• Perneger TV. What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. British Medical Journal 1998; 316: 1236–1238
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SPSS, Inc. SPSS Statistics Release 17.0.1. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ 2008
   Google Scholar
• Coelho CA, KM Y, Le KN. Conversational discourse in closed‐head‐injured and non‐brain‐injured adults. Aphasiology 2002; 16: 659–672
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Togher L, Hand L, Code C. Analysing discourse in the traumatic brain injury population: Telephone interactions with different communication partners. Brain Injury 1997; 11: 169–189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Leer E, Turkstra L. The effect of elicitation task on discourse coherence and cohesion in adolescents with brain injury. Journal of Communication Disorders 1999; 32: 327–349
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tannen D. Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Oxford University Press, New York 2005
   Google Scholar
• Friendland D, Miller N. Conversation analysis of communication breakdown after closed head injury. Brain Injury 1998; 12: 1–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown P, Levinson SC. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987
   Google Scholar
• Togher L, Hand L. Use of politeness markers with different communication partners: An investigation of five subjects with traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology 1998; 12: 755–770
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong E. Variation in the discourse of non‐brain‐damaged speakers on a clinical task. Aphasiology 2002; 16: 647–658
   Google Scholar
• Boles L, Bombard T. Conversational discourse analysis: Appropriate and useful sample sizes. Aphasiology 1998; 12: 547–560
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Correll A, van Steenbrugge W, Scholten I. Judging conversation: How much is enough?. Aphasiology 2010; 24: 612–622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Togher L, McDonald S, Tate R, Power E, Rietdijk R. Training communication partners of people with TBI: Reporting the protocol for a clinical trial. Brain Impairment 2009; 10: 188–204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar