Discourse measurement in aphasia: consensus and caveats

References

• Armstrong, E. (this issue). The challenges of consensus and validity in establishing core outcome sets. Aphasiology.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brookshire, R. H., & Nicholas, L. E. (1994). Test-retest reliability of measures of connected speech in aphasia. Clinical Aphasiology, 22, 119–133.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, C., Snodgrass, T., Kemper, S. J., Herman, R., & Covington, M. A. (2008). Automatic measurement of propositional idea density from part-of-speech tagging. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 540–545. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.2.540
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, L., Ferguson, A., & Spencer, E. (2016). Linguistic analysis of discourse in aphasia: A review of the literature. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 30, 489–518. doi:10.3109/02699206.2016.1145740
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Riesthal, M., & Diehl, S. K. (this issue). Conceptual, methodological, and clinical considerations for a core outcome set for discourse. Aphasiology.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz, A., & Boyle, M. (this issue). Discourse measurement in aphasia: Have we reached the tipping point? Aphasiology.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doyle, P. J., McNeil, M. R., Park, G., Goda, A., Rubenstein, E., Spencer, K., … Szwarc, L. (2000). Linguistic validation of four parallel forms of a story retelling procedure. Aphasiology, 14, 537–549. doi:10.1080/026870300401306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doyle, P. J., Tsironas, D., Goda, A. J., & Kalinyak, M. (1996). The relationship between objective measures and listener’s judgments of the communicative informativeness of the connected discourse of adults with aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 5, 53–60. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0503.53
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, A., Kim, H., Kintz, S., Frisco, N., & Wright, H. H. (2017). Working memory in aphasia: Considering discourse processing and treatment implications. Semin Speech Lang, 38, 040–051. doi:10.1055/s-0036-1597257
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herbert, R., Hickin, J., Howard, D., Osborne, F., & Best, W. (2008). Do picture naming tests provide a valid assessment of lexical retrieval in conversation in aphasia? Aphasiology, 22, 184–203. doi:10.1080/02687030701262613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hula, W. D., Fergadiotis, G., & Doyle, P. J. (2014). A core outcome set for aphasia treatment research: Obstacles, risks, and benefits. Aphasiology, 28, 1396–1399. doi:10.1080/02687038.2014.930264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hula, W. D., McNeil, M. R., Doyle, P. J., Rubinsky, H. J., & Fossett, T. R. D. (2003). The inter-rater reliability of the story retell procedure. Aphasiology, 17, 523–528. doi:10.1080/02687030344000139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintz, S., & Harris Wright, H. (this issue). Response: Discourese measurement in aphasia research. Aphasiology.
   Google Scholar
• Kurland, J., & Stokes, P. (this issue). Let’s talk real talk: An argument to include conversation in a D-COS for aphasia research with an acknowledgement of the challnges ahead. Aphasiology.
   Google Scholar
• Linnik, A., Bastiaanse, R., & Hohle, B. (2016). Discourse production in aphasia: A current review of theoretical and methodological challenges. Aphasiology, 30, 765–800. doi:10.1080/02687038.2015.1113489
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacWhinney, B. (2014). Challenges facing COS development for aphasia. Aphasiology, 28, 1393–1395. doi:10.1080/02687038.2014.930263
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacWhinney, B., Fromm, D., Forbes, M., & Holland, A. (2011). AphasiaBank: Methods for studying discourse. Aphasiology, 25, 1286–1307. doi:10.1080/02687038.2011.589893
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marini, A., Andreetta, S., del Tin, S., & Carlomagno, S. (2011). A multi-level approach to the analysis of narrative language in aphasia. Aphasiology, 25, 1372–1392. doi:10.1080/02687038.2011.584690
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marini, A., Boewe, A., Caltagirone, C., & Carlomagno, S. (2005). Age-related differences in the production of textual descriptions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 439–463. doi:10.1007/s10936-005-6203-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, J. F., Andriacchi, K., & Knockerts, A. (2011). Assessing language production using salt software: A clinician’s guide to language sample analysis. Middletown, WI: SALT Software LLC.
   Google Scholar
• Pritchard, M., Hilari, K., Cocks, N., & Dipper, L. (2017). Reviewing the quality of discourse information measures in aphasia. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson, J. D., & Dalton, S. G. (2016). Main concepts for three different discourse tasks in a large non-clinical sample. Aphasiology, 30, 45–73. doi:10.1080/02687038.2015.1057891
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., & Rose, T. (this issue). A core outcome set…or greater standardization of discourse measures?. Aphasiology.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., & Le Dorze, G. (2014a). A good outcome for aphasia. Aphasiology, 28, 1400–1404. doi:10.1080/02687038.2014.935119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., & Le Dorze, G. (2014b). Measuring outcomes in aphasia research: A review of current practice and an agenda for standardisation. Aphasiology, 28, 1364–1384. doi:10.1080/02687038.2014.930262
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitworth, A. (this issue). The tipping point: Are we nearly there yet?. Aphasiology.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson, P. R., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M., Devane, D., Gargon, E., & Tugwell, P. (2012). Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: Issues to consider. Trials, 13, 132. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-132
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar