Overprotection, “speaking for”, and conversational participation: A study of couples with aphasia

This research was supported by a grant from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The participants are gratefully acknowledged. We would like to also thank the speech‐language pathologists and the associations of people with aphasia who referred us many participants.

Abstract

Background: Spouses play a major role in adaptation following the onset of their partner's aphasia. Sometimes, overprotection can occur in the relationship and this may be a disadvantage in adapting to aphasia. Overprotection from spouses can manifest itself in conversation when the spouse “speaks for” the person with aphasia and this could affect his or her participation in conversation.

This research was supported by a grant from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The participants are gratefully acknowledged. We would like to also thank the speech‐language pathologists and the associations of people with aphasia who referred us many participants.

Aim: The aim of the present research was to study the phenomenon of overprotection, “speaking for” behaviours in conversation as well as the person with aphasia's participation in conversation.

Methods & Procedures: A total of 18 couples, each including one person with aphasia, participated in this study. The perceptions of overprotection by persons with aphasia and their spouses were measured with the Overprotection Scale for Adults (Thompson & Sobolew‐Shubin, 1993) and the Questionnaire on Resources and Stress for Families with Chronically Ill or Handicapped Members (Holroyd, 1987). The participants were also videotaped in an interview situation where they answered questions on a systematic turn‐by‐turn basis. “Speaking for” behaviours, defined as the conversational turns in which the non‐aphasic spouse expressed an opinion or added information when the person with aphasia was clearly talking with the interviewer, were measured. Participation was measured by tabulating the number of contributive turns produced by the person with aphasia and the spouse in the nine turns following the “speaking for” behaviour. Participation of the aphasic person was considered “minor” if the number of those turns was fewer than those produced by the spouse.

Outcomes & Results: Results showed that overprotection reported by spouses was positively associated with “speaking for” behaviours produced by spouses. “Speaking for” behaviours were positively related to minor participation in conversation. Aphasia severity and motor disability were also associated to minor participation of persons with aphasia in conversation.

Conclusions: More research on overprotection and its effects on conversation is needed to further our understanding about the links between communication and psychosocial aspects of aphasia. In rehabilitation, attention should be given to overprotection and “speaking for” behaviours on the part of the spouse. In fact, the person with aphasia and the rehabilitation team's efforts to improve language and communication could be labour in vain if overprotection and “speaking for” behaviours on the part of the spouse develop and persist.

Notes

This research was supported by a grant from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The participants are gratefully acknowledged. We would like to also thank the speech‐language pathologists and the associations of people with aphasia who referred us many participants.