The impact of dysarthria on everyday communication after traumatic brain injury: A pilot study

References

• Darley FL, Aronson AE, Brown JR. Motor speech disorders. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA 1975
   Google Scholar
• Duffy JR. Motor speech disorders: Substrates, differential diagnosis, and management. Elsevier Mosby, St Louis, MO 2005
   Google Scholar
• Murdoch BE, Theodoros DG. Communication disorders following traumatic brain injury. Communication disorders following traumatic brain injury, S McDonald, L Togher, C Code. Psychology Press, Hove 1999
   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
• Mosenthal AC, Livingston DH, Lavery RF, Knudson MM, Lee S, Morabito D, Manley GT, Nathens A, Jurkovich G, Hoyt DB, et al. The effect of age on functional outcome in mild traumatic brain injury: 6-month report of a prospective multicenter trial. Journal of Trauma: Injury. Infection, and Critical Care 2004; 56: 1042–1048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coelho C, DeRuyter F, Stein M. Treatment efficacy: Cognitive-communicative disorders resulting from traumatic brain injury in adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1996; 39: 5–17
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yorkston KM, Beukelman DR. Assessment of intelligibility of dysarthric speech. Pro-Ed, Austin, TX 1981
   Google Scholar
• Enderby PM. Frenchay dysarthria assessment. Pro-Ed, Austin, TX 1983
   Google Scholar
• Frank EM, Barrineau S. Current speech-language assessment protocols for adults with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Medical Speech Language Pathology 1996; 4: 81–101
   Google Scholar
• Togher L. Discourse sampling in the 21st century. Journal of Communication Disorders 2001; 34: 131–150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hustad KC, Beukelman DR, Yorkston KM. Functional outcome assessment in dysarthria. Seminars in Speech and Language 1998; 19: 291–302
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drummond SS, Boss MR. Functional communication screening in individuals with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 2004; 18: 41–56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International classification of impairments, activities and participation. World Health Organization, Geneva 2001
   Google Scholar
• Larkins BM, Worrall LE, Hickson LMH. Functional communication in cognitive communication disorders following traumatic brain injury. Neurogenic communication disorders: A functional approach, LE Worrall, CM Frattali. Thieme, New York 2000; 206–219
   Google Scholar
• Enderby PM. Assessment and treatment of functional communication in dysarthria. Neurogenic communication disorders: A functional approach, LE Worrall, CM Frattali. Thieme, New York 2000; 247–261
   Google Scholar
• Coelho CA, Youse KM, Le KN, 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
• Stout CE, Yorkston KM, Pimentel JI. Discourse production following mild, moderate, and severe traumatic brain injury: A comparison of two tasks. Journal of Medical Speech–Language Pathology 2000; 8: 15–25
   Google Scholar
• Galski T, Tompkins C, Johnston MV. Competence in discourse as a measure of social integration and quality of life in persons with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 1998; 12: 769–782
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday MAK. An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold, London 1994
   Google Scholar
• Larkins BM, Worrall LE, Hickson LM. Stakeholder opinion of functional communication activities following traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 2004; 18: 691–706
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ylvisaker M, Urbanczyk B, Feeney T. Social skills following traumatic brain injury. Seminars in Speech and Language 1992; 13: 308–321
   Google Scholar
• McGann W, Werven G, Douglas M. Social competence and head injury: A practical approach. Brain Injury 1997; 11: 621–628
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McColl MA, Carlson P, Johnston J, Minnes P, Shue K, Davies D, Karlovits T. The definition of community integration: Perspectives of people with brain injuries. Brain Injury 1998; 12: 15–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ventola E. Revisiting service encounter genre—some reflections. Folia Linguistica 2005; 39: 19–43
   Google Scholar
• Berry M. Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi-layered approach to exchange structure. Studies in discourse analysis, C Coulthard, M Montgomery. RKP, London 1981; 120–145
   Google Scholar
• Ventola E. The structure of social interaction: A systemic approach to the semiotics of service encounters. London, Pinter 1987
   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
• 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
• 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
• Comrie P, Mackenzie C, McCall J. The influence of acquired dysarthria on conversational turn-taking. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 2001; 15: 383–398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brian S, Packman A, Onslow M, Cream A, O’Brian N, Bastock K. Is listener comfort a viable construct in stuttering research?. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 2003; 46: 503–509
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lass NJ, Ruscello DM, Harkins KE, Blankenship BL. A comparative study of adolescents’ perceptions of normal-speaking and dysarthric children. Journal of Communication Disorders 1993; 26: 3–12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lass NJ, Ruscello DM, Lakawicz JA. Listeners’ perceptions of nonspeech characteristics of normal and dysarthric children. Journal of Communication Disorders 1988; 21: 385–391
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehill TL, Ciocca V, Yiu EM-L. Perceptual and acoustic predictors of intelligibility and acceptability in Cantonese speakers with dysarthria. Journal of Medical Speech–Language Pathology 2004; 12: 229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southwood MH, Weismer G. Listener judgements of the bizarreness, acceptability, naturalness and normalcy of the dysarthria associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Journal of Medical Speech–Language Pathology 1993; 1: 151–161
   Google Scholar
• Dagenais PA, Brown GR, Moore RE. Speech rate effects upon intelligibility and acceptability of dysarthric speech. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 2006; 20: 141–148
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dagenais PA, Wilson AF. Acceptability and intelligibility of moderately dysarthric speech by four types of listeners. Investigations in clinical phonetics and linguistics, F Windsor, ML Kelly, N Hewlett. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 2002
   Google Scholar
• Dagenais PA, Watts CR, Turnage LM, Kennedy S. Intelligibility and acceptability of moderately dysarthric speech by three types of listeners. Journal of Medical Speech–Language Pathology 1999; 7: 91–96
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Susca M, Healey EC. Listener perceptions along a fluency-disfluency continuum: A phenomenological analysis. Journal of Fluency Disorders 2002; 27: 135–161
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Susca M, Healey EC. Perceptions of simulated stuttering and fluency. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2001; 44: 61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drager K, Hustad K, Gable K. Telephone communication: Synthetic and dysarthric speech intelligibility and listener preferences. Augmentative & Alternative Communication 2004; 20: 103–112
   Google Scholar
• Russell WR, Smith A. Postraumatic amnesia in closed head injury. Archives of Neurology 1961; 5: 4–17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adamovich B, Henderson J. Scales of cognitive ability for traumatic brain injury. The Riverside Publishing Company. Chicago, IL 1992
   Google Scholar
• Gerratt BR, Kreiman J, Antonanzas-Barroso N, Berke GS. Comparing internal and external standards in voice quality judgements. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1993; 36: 14–20
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kazdin AE. Methodology of applied behaviour analysis. Social and instructional process: Foundations and applications, TA Brigham, AE Catania. John Wiley and Sons, New York 1977
   Google Scholar
• Shrout P, Fleiss J. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 1979; 86: 420–428
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleiss J. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. Wiley, New York 1986
   Google Scholar
• Togher L. Interpersonal communication skills in the traumatic brain injury population. University of Sydney, Sydney 1998
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Transport. Accessible transport action plan for NSW transport, roads and maritime agencies. Sydney, NSW: New South Wales Ministry of Transport;2005
   Google Scholar
• Sewell-Staples WJ, Dalrymple JF, Phipps K. Auditing excellence in call centres: access is a corporate responsibility. Managerial Auditing Journal 2003; 18: 68–75
   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. Measuring service encounters with the traumatic brain injury population. Aphasiology 1997; 11: 491–504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lezak MD. Neuropsychological assessment. Oxford University Press. Oxford, New York 2004
   Google Scholar
• Tate RL. Executive dysfunction and characterological changes after traumatic brain injury: Two sides of the same coin?. Cortex 1999; 35: 39–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zapf D, Isic A, Bechtoldt M, Blau P. What is typical for call centre jobs? Job characteristics, and service interactions in diffierent call centres. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 2003; 12: 311–340
   Google Scholar
• Deery S, Iverson R, Walsh J. Work relationships in telephone call centres: Understanding emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal. Journal of Management Studies 2002; 39: 471–496
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor P, Mulvey G, Hyman J, Bain P. Work organization, control and the experience of work in call centres. Work, Employment & Society 2002; 16: 133–150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holman D, Chissick C, Totterdell P. The effects of performance monitoring on emotional labour and well-being in call centres. Motivation and Emotion 2002; 26: 57–81
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linden MA, Rauch RJ, Crothers IR. Public attitudes towards survivors of brain injury. Brain Injury 2005; 19: 1011–1017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redpath SJ, Linden MA. Attitudes towards behavioural versus organic acquisition of brain injury. Brain Injury 2004; 18: 861–869
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swift TL, Wilson SL. Misconceptions about brain injury among the general public and non-expert health professionals: an exploratory study. Brain Injury 2001; 15: 149–165
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar