Why is measuring communication difficult? A critical review of current speech pathology concepts and measures

References

• Adams, C. (2002). Practitioner review: The assessment of language pragmatics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 43, 973–987. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00226
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, C., Gaile, J., Freed, J., & Lockton, E. (2010). Targeted Observation of Pragmatics in Children’s Conversation (TOPICC). Retrieved from https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:83594
   Google Scholar
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2016). Scope of practice in speech-language pathology [Scope of Practice]. Available from www.asha.org/policy/
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, N. A., & Shames, G. H. (eds.). (2006). Human communication disorders: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston MA: Pearson Education Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, E. (2005). Language disorder: A functional linguistic perspective. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 19, 137–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong, E. (in press). The challenges of consensus and validity in establishing core outcome sets. Aphasiology. doi:10.1080/02687038.2017.1398804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong, E. M., & Ferguson, A. (2010). Language, meaning, context, and functional communication. Aphasiology, 24, 480–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, S. (2014). Managing intersubjectivity in aphasia. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47, 130–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, S. E., & Ferguson, A. (2013). Conversation analysis applied to disordered speech and language. In N. Müller & M. J. Ball (Eds.), Research methods in clinical linguistics and phonetics: A practical guide (pp. 126–145). Chichester, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Bastiaanse, R. (2013). Why reference to the past is difficult for agrammatic speakers. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 27, 244–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baylor, C., Yorkston, K., Eadie, T., Kim, J., Chung, H., & Amtmann, D. (2013). The Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB): Item Bank calibration and development of a disorder-generic short form. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 1190–1208. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0140
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beeke, S., et al. (2015). Conversation focused aphasia therapy: Investigating the adoption of strategies by people with agrammatism. Aphasiology, 29, 355–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beeke, S., Wilkinson, R., & Maxim, J. (2007). Individual variation in agrammatism: A single case study of the influence of interaction. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 42, 629–647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). The Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC-2) (2nd Ed). London: The Psychological Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, D. V. M. (2017). Why is it so hard to reach agreement on terminology? The case of developmental language disorder (DLD). International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 52, 671–680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop, D. V. M., Snowling, M. J., Thompson, P. A., & Greenhalgh, T.; The Catalise Consortium. (2017). CATALISE: A multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development. Phase 2. Terminology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58, 1068–1080.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloch, S., & Tuomainen, J. (2017). Progressive dysarthria and augmentative and alternative communication in conversation: Establishing the reliability of the Dysarthria‐in‐Interaction Profile. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders., 52, 3–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botting, N., & Marshall, C. (2017). Domain‐specific and domain‐general approaches to developmental disorders. In L. C. Centifani & D. M. Willians (eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Developmental Psychopathology (pp. pp.139–159). London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bryant, L., Ferguson, A., & Spencer, E. (2016). Linguistic analysis of discourse in aphasia: A review of the literature. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 30, 489–518. doi:10.3109/02699206.2016.1145740
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buntinx, W. H. E., & Schalock, R. L. (2010). Models of disability, quality of life, and individualized supports: Implications for professional practice in intellectual disability. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 7, 283–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caplan, D. (2006). Aphasic deficits in syntactic processing. Cortex, 42, 797–804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collis, J., & Bloch, S. J. (2012). Survey of UK speech and language therapists’ assessment and treatment practices for people with progressive dysarthria. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 47, 725–737. doi:10.1111/j.1460-6984.2012.00183.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, B., Worrall, L., & Hickson, L. (2003). Identifying the communication activities of older people with aphasia: Evidence from naturalistic observation. Aphasiology, 17, 243–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denes, P. B., & Pinson, P. B. (1963). The speech chain. New York, USA: Bell Telephone Laboratories.
   Google Scholar
• Dingemanse, M., Blythe, J., & Dirksmeyer, T. (2014). Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages: An exercise in pragmatic typology. Studies in Language, 38, 5–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, J., Bracy, C., & Snow, P. (2007). Measuring perceived communicative ability after traumatic brain injury: Reliability and validity of the La Trobe Communication Questionnaire. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 22, 31–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dykstra, A., Hakel, M. E., & Adams, S. G. (2007). Application of the ICF in reduced speech intelligibility in dysarthria. Seminars in Speech and Language, 28, 301–311. doi:10.1055/s-2007-986527
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Enfield, N. (2013). Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. (2014). Natural causes of language: Frames, biases and cultural transmission. Berlin: Language Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• Enfield, N., & Sidnell, J. (2017). The concept of action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–492. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, A. J. (2008). Expert practice: A critical discourse. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Frattali, C. M., Thompson, C. K., Holland, A. L., Wohl, C. B., & Ferkectic, M. M. (1995). American Speech-Language Hearing Association Functional Assessment of Communication Skills for Adults (ASHA FACS). Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language Hearing Association.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littefield Publishers, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2003). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 90–116). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 8–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley, S. D., & Wirz, S. L. (2002). Development of a ‘communication disability model’ and its implication on service delivery in low-income countries. Social Science & Medicine, 54, 1543–1557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawksley, R., Buttimer, H., Ludlow, F., & Bloch, S. J. (2017). Communication disorders in palliative care: Investigating the views, attitudes and beliefs of speech and language therapists. International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 23, 543–551. doi:10.12968/ijpn.2017.23.11.543
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herbert, R., Best, W., Hickin, J., Howard, D., & Osborne, F. (2013). Profile of word errors and retrieval in speech (POWERS). London, UK: JR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Higginbotham, D., & Engelke, C. (2013). A primer for doing talk-in-interaction research in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29, 3–19. doi:10.3109/07434618.2013.767556
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horton, S., Clark, A., Barton, G., Lane, K., & Pomeroy, V. (2016). Methodological issues in the design and evaluation of supported communication for aphasia training: A cluster-controlled feasibility study. BMJ Open, 6, E011207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Izaryk, K., & Skaris-Doyle, E. (2017). Using the Delphi Technique to explore complex concepts in speech-language pathology: An illustrative example from children’s social communication. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26, 1225–1235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Justice, L. M., & Redle, E. E. (2014). Communication sciences and disorders: An evidence-based approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Kagan, A., Winckel, J., Black, S., Duchan, J. F., Simmons-Mackie, N., & Square, P. (2004). A set of observational measures for rating support and participation in conversation between adults with aphasia and their conversation partners. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 11, 67–83.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kalinyak-Fliszar, M., Kohen, F., & Martin, N. (2011). Remediation of language processing in aphasia: Improving activation and maintenance of linguistic representations in (verbal) short-term memory. Aphasiology, 25, 1095–1131. doi:10.1080/02687038.2011.577284
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krummheuer, A. L., Klippi, A., Raudaskoski, P. L., & Samuelsson, C. (2016). Participating with limited communication means: Conversation analytical perspectives on the interactional management of participation structures. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 30, 721–729. doi:10.1080/02699206.2016.1225124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication: Origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 6–14. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lind, C. (2013). Conversation repair: Ecological validity of outcome measures in acquired hearing impairment. Cochlear Implants International., 14(SUPPL. 4), 48–51. doi:10.1179/1467010013Z.000000000135
   Google Scholar
• Ma, E. P. M., Threats, T., & Worrall, L. E. (2008). An introduction to the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) for speech-language pathology: Its past, present and future. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 2–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, S. (2017). Introducing the model of cognitive-communication competence: A model to guide evidence-based communication interventions after brain injury. Brain Injury, 31, 1760–1780.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLeod, S., & McCormack, J. (2007). Application of the ICF and ICF-Children and Youth in children with speech impairment. Seminars in Speech and Language, 28, 254–264. doi:10.1055/s-2007-986522
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O’Halloran, R., & Larkins, B. (2008). The ICF activities and participation related to speech-language pathology. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 18–26. doi:10.1080/14417040701772620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Halloran, R., Worrall, L., Toffolo, D., Code, C., & Hickson, L. (2004). The Inpatient Functional Communication Interview (IFCI). Oxon: Speechmark.
   Google Scholar
• Parr, S. (2007). Living with severe aphasia: Tracking social exclusion. Aphasiology, 21, 98–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry, A., & Skeat, J. (2004). AusTOMs for speech pathology. Melbourne, Victoria: La Trobe University.
   Google Scholar
• Prutting, C., & Kirchner, D. (1987). A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 105–119.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rasmussen, G. (2016). The International Classification of Disability, Functioning and Health (ICF): An example of research methods and language in describing ‘social functioning’ in medical research. Pragmatics and Society, 7, 217–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organisation of conversational interaction (pp. 7–57). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 26, 99–128.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language and the arena in which culture is enacted. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 70–96). London, UK: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Schindler, A., Ruoppolo, G., & Barillari, U. (2010). Communication and its disorders: Definition and taxonomy from a phoniatric perspective. Audiological Medicine, 8, 163–170. doi:10.3109/1651386X.2010.530023
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Speech Pathology Australia. (2008). Criteria for the analysis of speech pathology terms: Challenges and a methodology. Melbourne, Australia: The Speech Pathology Association of Australia Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Speech Pathology Australia. (2015). Scope of practice in speech pathology. Melbourne, Australia: The Speech Pathology Association of Australia Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., et al. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10587–10592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35, 367–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Togher, L., Power, E., Tate, R., McDonald, S., & Rietdijk, R. (2010). Measuring the social interactions of people with traumatic brain injury and their communication partners: The Adapted Kagan Scales. Aphasiology, 24, 914–927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Togher, L. S., et al. (2014). INCOG recommendations for management of cognition following traumatic brain injury, Part IV: Cognitive communication. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 29, 353–368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., & Le Dorze, G. (2017). Which treatment outcomes are most important to aphasia clinicians and managers? An international e-Delphi consensus study. Aphasiology, 31, 643–673. doi:10.1080/02687038.2016.1186265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, R. (2011). Looking at the ICF and human communication through the lens of classification theory. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13, 348–359. doi:10.3109/17549507.2011.550690
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westby, C., & Washington, K. N. (2017). Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in assessment and intervention of school-aged children with language impairments. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48, 137–152. doi:10.1044/2017_LSHSS-16-0037
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R., Beeke, S., & Maxim, J. (2003). Adapting to conversation: On the use of linguistic resources by speakers with fluent aphasia in the construction of turns at talk. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 59–89). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (2013). The interactional organization of aphasia naming testing. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 27, 805–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Worrall, L. E., & Hickson, L. (2008). The use of the ICF in speech-language pathology research: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 72–77. doi:10.1080/17549500701852148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiong, T., Bunning, K., Horton, S., & Hartley, S. (2011). Assessing and comparing the outcome measures for the rehabilitation of adults with communication disorders in randomised controlled trials: An International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health approach. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33, 2272–2290. doi:10.3109/09638288.2011.568666
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar