Measuring conversations after acquired brain injury in 30 minutes or less: a comparison of two pragmatic rating scales

ABSTRACT

Primary objective: This study compared the reliability, validity and feasibility of the Pragmatics Rating Scale (PRS) to the Profile of Pragmatic Impairment in Communication (PPIC). It was hypothesized that the PRS would have equivalent reliability and validity and superior feasibility.

Research design: A correlational pilot study design was implemented.

Methods and procedures: Participants were 15 adults with a history of ABI, who provided two conversation samples each, and 15 adults with no history of ABI, who provided one conversation sample each. Two clinicians used the PRS and PPIC to rate each conversation sample.

Main outcomes and results: The results of the PRS showed good discriminative validity between the ABI and non-ABI group, adequate construct validity with the PPIC and the La Trobe Communication Questionnaire, superior interrater reliability to the PPIC, and good test-retest reliability. Also, the PRS demonstrated higher clinical feasibility than the PPIC as measured by mean completion time per sample and ratings on a clinical feasibility survey.

Conclusions: These results supported our hypotheses that the PRS is sensitive to aspects of social communication often impaired by ABI, without the feasibility drawbacks of a more complex rating scale.

KEYWORDS:

• Social communication
• conversation
• pragmatics
• assessment
• acquired brain injury

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. This work was supported by an internal grant for graduate student researchers awarded to the first author by the College of Education at the University of Oregon.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Evelyn H. Bullock Fund for Communication Disorders & Science Research.