Patterns of narrative discourse in early recovery following severe Traumatic Brain Injury

References

• Ghajar J. 2000. Traumatic brain injury. Lancet. 356(9233):923–29. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02689-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maas AIR, Stocchetti N, Bullock R. 2008. Moderate and severe traumatic brain injury in adults. Lancet Neurol. 7(8):728–41. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70164-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponsford JL, Olver JH, Curran C. 1995. A profile of outcome: 2 years after traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 9(1):1–10. doi:10.3109/02699059509004565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corrigan JD, Smith-Knapp K, Granger CV. 1998. Outcomes in the first 5 years after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 79(3):298–305. doi:10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90010-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pastorek NJ, Hannay HJ, Contant CS. 2004. Prediction of global outcome with acute neuropsychological testing following closed-head injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 10(6):807–17. doi:10.1017/S1355617704106012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyder AA, Wunderlich CA, Puvanachandra P, Gururaj G, Kobusingye OC. The impact of traumatic brain injuries: a global perspective. NeuroRehabilitation. 2007;22(5):341–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Knowledge and skills needed by speech-language pathologists providing services to individuals with cognitive-communication disorders. 2005. doi:10.1044/policy.KS2005-00078. Available from: https://www.asha.org/policy/KS2005-00078/
   Google Scholar
• Schultz R, Tate RL. 2013. Methodological issues in longitudinal research on cognitive recovery after traumatic brain injury: evidence from a systematic review. Brain Impairment. 14(3):450–74. doi:10.1017/BrImp.2013.24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marini A, Zettin M, Bencich E, Bosco FM, Galetto V. Severity effects on discourse production after TBI. J Neurolinguistics. 2017;44:91–106. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.03.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coelho CA, Grela B, Corso M, Gamble A, Feinn R. 2005. Microlinguistic deficits in the narrative discourse of adults with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 19(13):1139–45. doi:10.1080/02699050500110678.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen M, Togher L. 2009. Narrative after traumatic brain injury: A comparison of monologic and jointly-produced discourse. Brain Inj. 23(9):727–40. doi:10.1080/02699050903133954.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrlich JS. Selective characteristics of narrative discourse in head-injured and normal adults. J Commun Disord. 1988;21(1):1–9. doi:10.1016/0021-9924(88)90006-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liles BZ, Coelho CA, Dufffy RJ, Zalagens MR. Effects of elicitation procedures on the narratives of normal and closed head-injured adults. J Speech Hear Disord. 1989;54:356–66.doi:10.1044/jshd.5403.356.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marini A, Galetto V, Zampieri E, Vorano L, Zettin M, Carlomagno S. 2011. Narrative language in traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychologia. 49(10):2904–10. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.06.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stout CE, Yorkston KM, Pimentel JI. Discourse production following mild, moderate, and severe traumatic brain injury. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 2000;8(1):15–25.
   Google Scholar
• Matsuoka K, Kotani I, Yamasato M. Correct information unit analysis for determining the characteristics of narrative discourse in individuals with chronic traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2012;26(13–14):1723–30. doi:10.3109/02699052.2012.698789.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley LL, Jensen PJ. Narrative and procedural discourse after closed head injury. Brain Inj. 1991;5(3):267–85. doi:10.3109/02699059109008097.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peach RK. 2013. The cognitive basis for sentence planning difficulties in discourse after traumatic brain injury. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 22(2):S285–S97. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2013/12-0081).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coelho CA, Liles BZ, Duffy RJ. 1995. Impairments of discourse abilities and executive functions in traumatically brain-injured adults. Brain Inj. 9(5):471–77. doi:10.3109/02699059509008206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley LL, Jensen PJ. Three discourse profiles of closed-head-injury speakers: theoretical and clinical implications. Brain Inj. 1992;6(3):271–81. doi:10.3109/02699059209029669.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davis GA, Coelho CA. Referential cohesion and logical coherence of narration after closed head injury. Brain Lang. 2004;89(3):508–23. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2004.01.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lê K, Coelho C, Mozeiko J, Grafman J. Measuring goodness of story narratives. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(1):118–26. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0022).
   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 Inj. 1997;11(5):319–29. doi:10.1080/026990597123476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkstra LS, Coelho C, Ylvisaker M. The use of standardized tests for individuals with cognitive-communication disorders. Semin Speech Lang. 2005;26(4):215–22. 10.1055/s-2005-922101.
   Google Scholar
• Coelho C, Ylvisaker M, Turkstra LS. 2005. Nonstandardized assessment approaches for individuals with traumatic brain injuries. Semin Speech Lang. 26(4):223–41. doi:10.1055/s-2005-922102.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coelho CA. 2007. Management of discourse deficits following traumatic brain injury: progress, caveats, and needs. Semin Speech Lang. 28(2):122–35. doi:10.1055/s-2007-970570.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coelho CA, Liles BZ, Duffy RJ. The use of discourse analyses for the evaluation of higher level traumatically brain-injured adults. Brain Inj. 1991;5(4):381–92. doi:10.3109/02699059109008111.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Biddle KR, McCabe A, Bliss LS. 1996. Narrative skills following traumatic brain injury in children and adults. J Commun Disord. 29(6):447–69. doi:10.1016/0021-9924(95)00038-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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 Inj. 1998;12(9):769–82. doi:10.1080/026990598122160.
   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 Inj. 1998;12(11):911–35. doi:10.1080/026990598121981.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coelho CA. Story narratives of adults with closed head injury and non-brain-injured adults: influence of socioeconomic status, elicitation task, and executive functioning. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45(6):1232. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2002/099).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coelho CA, Liles BZ, Duffy RJ. Discourse analyses with closed head injured adults: evidence for differing patterns of deficits. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1991;72(7):465–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodglass H, Kaplan E. The Boston diagnostic aphasia examination. Boston: Lea & Febiger; 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Cupit J, Rochon E, Leonard C, Laird L. 2010. Social validation as a measure of improvement after aphasia treatment: its usefulness and influencing factors. Aphasiology. 24(11):1486–500. doi:10.1080/02687031003615235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doyle PJ, Goda AJ, Spencer KA. The communicative informativeness and efficiency of connected discourse by adults with aphasia under structured and conversational sampling conditions. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1995;4(4):130–34. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0404.130.
   Google Scholar
• Ross KB, Wertz RT. Comparison of impairment and disability measures for assessing severity of, and improvement in, aphasia. Aphasiology. 1999;13:113–24.doi:10.1080/026870399402235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherratt S. 2007. Multi‐level discourse analysis: A feasible approach. Aphasiology. 21(3–4):375–93. doi:10.1080/02687030600911435.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday MA, Hasan R. Cohesion in English. London: Longman; 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Merritt DD, Liles BZ. Story grammar ability in children with and without language disorder: story generation, story retelling, and story comprehension. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1987;30(4):539–52. doi:10.1044/jshr.3004.539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elbourn E, Togher L, Kenny B, Power E. Strengthening the quality of longitudinal research into cognitive-communication recovery after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2016;17:1–16. doi:10.1080/17549507.2016.1193896.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow PC, Douglas JM, Ponsford JL. Narrative discourse following severe traumatic brain injury: a longitudinal follow-up. Aphasiology. 1999;13(7):529–51. doi:10.1080/026870399401993.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stubbs E, Togher L, Kenny B, Fromm D, Forbes M, MacWhinney B, McDonald S, Tate R, Turkstra L, Power E. Procedural discourse performance in adults with severe traumatic brain injury at 3 and 6 months post injury. Brain Inj. 2018;32(2):167–81. doi:10.1080/02699052.2017.1291989.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sim P, Power E, Togher L. 2013. Describing conversations between individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and communication partners following communication partner training: using exchange structure analysis. Brain Inj. 27(6):717–42. doi:10.3109/02699052.2013.775485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Disability in Australia: acquired brain injury. Bulletin no. 55. Cat no. AUS 96. 2007 [accessed 2018 Jan 14]. Available from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442453666.
   Google Scholar
• Meulenbroek P, Turkstra LS. 2016. Job stability in skilled work and communication ability after moderate-severe traumatic brain injury. Disabil Rehabil. 38(5):452–61. doi:10.3109/09638288.2015.1044621.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponsford JL, Olver JH, Curran CK. Prediction of employment status 2 years after traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 1995;9(1):11–20. doi:10.3109/02699059509004566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherer M, Struchen MA, Yablon SA, Wang Y, Nick TG. 2008. Comparison of indices of traumatic brain injury severity: glasgow Coma Scale, length of coma and post-traumatic amnesia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 79(6):678–85. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2006.111187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trewin D, Pink BN. ANZSCO: Australian and New Zealand standard classification of occupations. Canberra, ACT: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Elbourn E, Kenny B, Power E, Honan C, McDonald S, Tate R, Holland A, MacWhinney B, Togher L. Discourse recovery after severe traumatic brain injury: exploring the first year. Brain Inj. 2019;33(2):143–59. doi:10.1080/02699052.2018.1539246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacWhinney B, Fromm D, Forbes M, Holland A. 2011. AphasiaBank: methods for studying discourse. Aphasiology. 25(11):1286–307. doi:10.1080/02687038.2011.589893.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aphasiabank [Internet]. Mahwah (NJ); 2014 Aug 10. [accessed 2017 Dec 12]. https://aphasia.talkbank.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholas LE, Brookshire RH. A system for quantifying the informativeness and efficiency of the connected speech of adults with aphasia. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1993;36(2):338–50. doi:10.1044/jshr.3602.338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacWhinney B. The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk. 3rd ed. Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Barrie-Blackey S, Musselwhite RC, Rogister SH. Clinical oral language sampling. A handbook for students and clinicians. Danville (IL): The Interstate Printers & Publishers Inc; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• MacWhinney B. CLAN manual. Mahwah (NJ); 2014 Jul 17. [accessed 2015 Jan 20]. https://talkbank.org/manuals/CLAN.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Stein NL, Glenn CG. An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In: Freedle RO, editor. New directions in discourse processing. Norwood (NJ): Ablex Publishing Corporation; 1979. p. 53–120.
   Google Scholar
• Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sussex: SAGE Publications; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Littell R, Millikenm G, Stroup W, Wolfinger R, Schabenberger O. SAS for mixed models. 2nd ed. Cary: SAS Institute Inc; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Coelho CA, Liles BZ, Duffy RJ. Contextual influences on narrative discourse in normal young adults. J Psycholinguist Res. 1990;19(6):405–20. doi:10.1007/BF01068887.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calamia M, Markon K, Tranel D. 2012. Scoring higher the second time around: meta-analyses of practice effects in neuropsychological assessment. Clin Neuropsychol. 26(4):543–70. doi:10.1080/13854046.2012.680913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Temkin NR, Heaton RK, Grant I, Dikmen SS. 1999. Detecting significant change in neuropsychological test performance: A comparison of four models. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 5(4):357–69. doi:10.1017/S1355617799544068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Despins EH, Turkstra LS, Struchen MA, Clark AN. Sex-based differences in perceived pragmatic communication ability of adults with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(2):S26–S32. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.06.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar