Pragmatic communication abilities in children and adults: implications for rehabilitation professionals

References

• Marsh NV, Knight RG. Behavioral assessment of social competence following severe head injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1991;13:729–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald S. Pragmatic language skills after closed head injury: ability to meet the informational needs of the listener. Brain Lang. 1993;44:28–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara P, Durso R. Pragmatic communication skills in patients with Parkinson's disease. Brain Lang. 2003;84:414–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orange J, Kertesz A, Peacock J. Pragmatics in frontal lobe dementia and primary progressive aphasia. J Neurolinguistics 1998;11:153–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driscoll D, Dal Monte O, Grafman J. A need for improved training interventions for the remediation of impairments in social functioning following brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2011;28:319–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbeduto L, Short-Meyerson K. Linguistic influences on social interaction. In: Goldstein H, Kaczmarek L, English KM, editors. Promoting social communication in children and youth with developmental disabilities. Baltimore: Brookes; 2002. p. 27–54.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson J, Adams C, Lockton E, et al. Social communication disorder outside autism? A diagnostic classification approach to delineating pragmatic language impairment, high functioning autism and specific language impairment. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2013;54:1186–1197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saldert C, Ulrika F, Bloch S. Semantic trouble sources and their repair in conversations affected by Parkinson's disease. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2014;49:710–721.
   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 Injury 1998;12:911–935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Struchen MA, Clark AN, Sander AM, et al. Relation of executive functioning and social communication measures to functional outcomes following traumatic brain injury. NeuroRehabilitation 2008;23:185–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks N, McKinlay W, Symington C, et al. Return to work within the first seven years of severe head injury. Brain Injury 1987;1:5–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chiang H, Cheung Y, Li H, et al. Factors associated with participation in employment for high school leavers with Autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2013;43:1832–1842.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sale P, West M, Sherron P, et al. Exploratory analysis of job separations from supported employment for persons with traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1991;6:1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Wehman P, Kregel J, Sherron P, et al. Critical factors associated with the successful support employment placement of patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 1993;7:31–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Whitehouse AJ, Watt HJ, Line EA, et al. Adult psychosocial outcomes of children with specific language impairment, pragmatic language impairment and autism. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2009;44:511–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gosling J, Oddy M. Rearranged marriages: marital relationships after head injury. Brain Injury 1999;13:785–796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liss M, Willer B. Traumatic brain injury and marital relationships: a literature review. Int J Rehabil Res. 1990;13:309–320.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brooks DN, Aughton ME. Psychological consequences of blunt head injury. Int Rehabil Med. 1979;1:160–165.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Godfrey HP, Knight RG, Bishara SN. The relationship between social skill and family problem-solving following very severe closed head injury. Brain Injury 1991;5:207–211.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thomsen IV. Late outcome of very severe blunt head trauma: a 10–15 year second follow-up. J. Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 1984;47:260–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Association AP. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington (DC): Author; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Bates E. Language in context. New York: Academic Press; 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom L, Lahey M. Language development and language disorders. Somerset (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Adams C. Social communication intervention for school-age children: rationale and description. Semin Speech Lang. 2005;26:181–188.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Timler GR. Social knowledge in children with language impairments: examination of strategies, predicted consequences, and goals in peer conflict situations. Clin Linguistics Phonetics 2008;22:741–763.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timler GR, Olswang LB, Coggins TE. “Do I know what I need to do?” A social communication intervention for children with complex clinical profiles. Lang Speech Hear Serv Schools 2005;36:73–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris CW. Foundations of the theory of signs. In: Neurath O, Carnap R, Morris C, editors. International encyclopaedia of unified science. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press; 1938. p. 77–138.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson S. Pragmatics. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press; 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Austin J. In: Urmson JO, editor. How to do things with words: the William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon; 1962.
   Google Scholar
• Searle J. A classification of illocutionary acts. Lang Soc. 1976;5:1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dennis M, Simic N, Gerry Taylor H, et al. Theory of mind in children with traumatic brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2012;18:908–916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice HP. Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL, editors. Syntax and semantics. New York: Academic Press; 1975. p. 41–58.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson D, Sperber D. Representation and relevance. In: Kempson RM, Kempson RM, editors. Mental representations: the interface between language and reality. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; 1988. p. 133–153.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber D, Wilson D. Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford, England: Blackwell; 1995. p. 326.
   Google Scholar
• Cummings L. Clinical pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Adolphs R. Social cognition and the human brain. Trends Cogn Sci. 1999;3:469–479.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wimmer H, Perner J. Beliefs about beliefs: representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition 1983;13:103–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flavell JH. The development of role-taking and communication skills in children. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 1968.
   Google Scholar
• Baron-Cohen S, Leslie AM, Frith U. Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition 1985;21:37–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bach LJ, Happe F, Fleminger S, et al. Theory of mind: independence of executive function and the role of the frontal cortex in acquired brain injury. Cogn Neuropsychiatry 2000;5:175–192.
   Google Scholar
• Channon S, Pellijeff A, Rule A. Social cognition after head injury: sarcasm and theory of mind. Brain Lang. 2005;93:123–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Happe F, Brownell H, Winner E. Acquired 'theory of mind' impairments following stroke. Cognition 1999;70:211–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald S. Communication and language disturbances following traumatic brain injury. Handbook of neurolinguistics. New York: Academic Press; 1998. p. 485–494.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe AD, Bullock PR, Pokley CE, et al. ’Theory of mind‘ impairments and their relationship to executive functioning following frontal lobe excisions. Brain 2001;124:600–616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havet-Thomassin V, Allain P, Etcharry-Bouyx F, et al. What about theory of mind after severe brain injury? Brain Injury 2006;20:83–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkstra LS. Conversation-based assessment of social cognition in adults with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 2008;22:397–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkstra LS, McDonald S, Kaufmann PM. Assessment of pragmatic communication skills in adolescents after traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 1996;10:329–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph RM, Tager-Flusberg H. The relationship of theory of mind and executive functions to symptom type and severity in children with autism. Dev Psychopathol. 2004;16:137–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbeduto L, Short-Meyerson K, Benson G, et al. Relationship between theory of mind and language ability in children and adolescents with intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2004;48:150–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champagne-Lavau M, Fossard M, Martel G, et al. Do patients with schizophrenia attribute mental states in a referential communication task? Cogn Neuropsychiatry 2009;14:217–239.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dennis M, Simic N, Bigler ED, et al. Cognitive, affective, and conative theory of mind (ToM) in children with traumatic brain injury. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2013;5C:25–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald S. The social and neuropsychological underpinnings of communication disorders after severe traumatic brain injury. In: Ball MJ, Damico JS, editors. Clinical aphasiology: future directions, a festschrift for Chris Code. New York (NY): Psychology Press; 2007. p. 42–71.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald S. Impairments in social cognition following severe traumatic brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2013;19:231–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stronach ST, Turkstra LS. Theory of mind and use of cognitive state terms by adolescents with traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology 2008;22:1054–1070.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tompkins CA, Scharp VL, Fassbinder W, et al. A different story on “Theory of Mind“ deficit in adults with right hemisphere brain damage. Aphasiology 2008;22:42–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watts AJ, Douglas JM. Interpreting facial expression and communication competence following severe traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology 2006;20:707–722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavell TA. Social adjustment, social performance, and social skills: a tri-component model of social competence. J Clin Child Psychol. 1990;19:111–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organization WH. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: Switzerland; 2001 May 22, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Rosewilliam S, Roskell CA, Pandyan AD. A systematic review and synthesis of the quantitative and qualitative evidence behind patient-centred goal setting in stroke rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil. 2011;25:501–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prideaux GD. Syntactic form and textual rhetoric: the cognitive basis for certain pragmatic principles. J Pragmatics 1991;16:113–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbeduto L, Nuccio J. Evaluating the pragmatic aspects of communication in school-age children and adolescents: insights from research on atypical development. School Psychol Rev. 1989;18:502–512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Association AO. 2014 December. Infant vision: Birth to 24 months of age; American Optometric Association; [cited 2014 Dec].
   Google Scholar
• Goren CC, Sarty M, Wu PY. Visual following and pattern discrimination of face-like stimuli by newborn infants. Pediatrics 1975;56:544–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascalis O, de Shonen S, Morton J, et al. Mother’s face recognition by neonates: a replication and an extension. Infant Behav Dev. 1995;18:79–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vouloumanos A, Werker JF. Listening to language at birth: evidence for a bias for speech in neonates. Dev Sci. 2007;10:159–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Striano T, Stahl D. Sensitivity to triadic attention in early infancy. Dev Sci. 2005;8:333–343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomasello M, Farrar MJ. Joint attention and early language. Child Dev. 1986;57:1454–1463.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent R. Reference manual for communicative sciences and disorders: speech and language. Austin (TX): ProEd; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday MAK. Language as a social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore: University Press; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Gopnik A, Astington JW. Children's understanding of representational change and its relation to the understanding of false belief and the appearance-reality distinction. Child Dev. 1988;59:26–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guralnick MJ, Paul-Brown D. Peer-related communicative competence of preschool children: developmental and adaptive characteristics. J Speech Hear Res. 1989;32:930–943.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Halliday MAK. Learning how to mean: explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold; 1975.
   Google Scholar
• Preece A. The range of narrative forms conversationally produced by young children. J Child Lang. 1987;14:353–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones DE, Greenberg M, Crowley M. Early social–emotional functioning and public health: the relationship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness. Am J Public Health 2015;105:e1–e8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nippold M. Later language development: the school-age and adolescent years. Austin, TX: Pro Ed; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Dennis M. Frontal lobe function in childhood and adolescence: a heuristic for assessing attention regulation, executive control, and the intentional states important for discourse. Dev Neuropsychol. 1991;7:327–358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens R. Language development: an introduction. Boston (MA): Allyn & Bacon; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Ukrainetz TA, Justice LM, Kaderavek JN, et al. The development of expressive elaboration in fictional narratives. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005;48:1363–1377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosacki S, Astington JW. Theory of mind in preadolescence: relations between social understanding and social competence. Soc Dev. 1999;8:237–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blakemore SJ, Choudhury S. Development of the adolescent brain: implications for executive function and social cognition. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2006;47:296–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciccia AH, Meulenbroek P, Turkstra LS. Adolescent brain and cognitive developments: implications for clinical intervention. Top Lang Disord. 2009;29:249–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leppänen JM. Neural and developmental bases of the ability to recognize social signals of emotions. Emotion Rev. 2011;3:179–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brune M, Brune-Cohrs U. Theory of mind–evolution, ontogeny, brain mechanisms and psychopathology. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30:437–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkstra LS, Ciccia AH, Seaton C. Interactive behaviors in adolescent conversation dyads. Lang Speech Hear Serv Schools 2003;34:117–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schraeder P. A guide to school services in speech-language pathology. San Diego (CA): Plural Publishing; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Agha A. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Biber D, Finegan E, editors. Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Duranti A, Goodwin C, editors. Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman E. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Clark HH. Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Clark HH. Using language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1996. p. 432.
   Google Scholar
• Meulenbroek PA, Turkstra LS, Bowers B. Characterizing common workplace communication skills for disorders associated with traumatic brain injury: a qualitative study. J Vocat Rehabil. 2015;44:15–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hymes D. Foundations in sociolinguistics: an ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1974.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson JM, Heritage J. Structures of social action. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Boden D, Zimmerman D, editors. Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins M. The scope of pragmatic disability: a cognitive approach. In: Muller N, editor. Pragmatics in speech and language pathology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2000. p. 7–29.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman SB, Levin HS, Wanek A, et al. Discourse after closed head injury in young children. Brain Lang. 1998;61:395–419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korkmaz B. Theory of mind and neurodevelopmental disorders of childhood. Pediatr Res. 2011;69:101R–108R.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkstra LS, McDonald S, DePompei R. Social information processing in adolescents: data from normally developing adolescents and preliminary data from their peers with traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2001;16:469–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bara BG, Bosco FM, Bucciarelli M. Developmental pragmatics in normal and abnormal children. Brain Lang. 1999;68:507–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce B, Thernlund G, Nettelbladt U. ADHD and language impairment: a study of the parent questionnaire FTF (Five to Fifteen). Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2006;15:52–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams C, Green J, Gilchrist A, et al. Conversational behaviour of children with Asperger syndrome and conduct disorder. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2002;43:679–690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornish K, Burack JA, Rahman A, et al. Theory of mind deficits in children with fragile X syndrome. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2005;49:372–378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paradis M. The other side of language: pragmatic competence. In: Paradis M, editor. Pragmatics in neurogenic communication disorders. Oxford: Pergamon; 1998. p. 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Myers P. Right hemisphere damage: disorders of communication and cognition. San Diego (CA): Singular Publishing Group, Inc.; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Tompkins CA. Right hemisphere communication disorders: theory and management. San Diego: Singular; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Togher L, McDonald S, Coelho CA, et al. Cognitive communication disability following TBI: examining discourse, pragmatics, behaviour and executive function. In: McDonald S, Togher L, Code C, editors. Social and communication disorders following traumatic brain injury. 2nd ed. New York: Psychology Press; 2015. p. 89–118.
   Google Scholar
• Bayles K, Tomoeda C. Cognitive-communication disorders of dementia. San Diego (CA): Plural Publishers; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Davis BH, editor. Alzheirmer talk, text and context. Houndmills (UK): Palgrave; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Lough S, Kipps CM, Treise C, et al. Social reasoning, emotion and empathy in frontotemporal dementia. Neuropsychologia 2006;44:950–958.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brune M. “Theory of mind” in schizophrenia: a review of the literature. Schizophrenia Bull. 2005;31:21–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raine A, Lencz T, Bihrle AM, et al. Reduced prefrontal gray matter volume and reduced autonomic activity in antisocial personality disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2000;57:119–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liles BZ. Narrative discourse in children with language disorders and children with normal language: a critical review of the literature. J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36:868–882.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weiss AL. Why we should consider pragmatics when planning treatment for children who stutter. Lang Speech Hear Serv Schools 2004;35:34–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marschark M, Green V, Hindmarsh G, et al. Understanding theory of mind in children who are deaf. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2000;41:1067–1073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holck P, Nettelbladt U, Sandberg AD. Children with cerebral palsy, spina bifida and pragmatic language impairment: differences and similarities in pragmatic ability. Res Dev Disabil. 2009;30:942–951.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swineford LB, Thurm A, Baird G, et al. Social (pragmatic) communication disorder: a research review of this new DSM-5 diagnostic category. J Neurodev Disord. 2014;6:41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop DV, Adams C. What do referential communication tasks measure? A study of children with specific language impairment. Appl Psycholinguistics 1991;12:199–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop DV, Norbury CF. Exploring the borderlands of autistic disorder and specific language impairment: a study using standardised diagnostic instruments. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2002;43:917–929.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul D, Mccarty J. Answers to your DSM-5 questions: two experts help to piece together reworked diagnosis categories for autism spectrum and other communication disorders. ASHA Leader 2014;19:56–58.
   Google Scholar
• Wertheimer JC, Roebuck-Spencer TM, Constantinidou F, et al. Collaboration between neuropsychologists and speech-language pathologists in rehabilitation settings. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2008;23:273–285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sander AM, Raymer A, Wertheimer J, et al. Perceived roles and collaboration between neuropsychologists and speech-language pathologists in rehabilitation. Clin Neuropsychol. 2009;23:1196–1212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul-Brown D, Ricker JH. Evaluating and treating communication and cognitive disorders: approaches to referral and collaboration for speech-language pathology and clinical neuropsychology. Technical Report. ASHA Suppl. 2003;23:47–58.
   Google Scholar
• Harris SL, Handleman JS. Age and IQ at intake as predictors of placement for young children with autism: a four- to six-year follow-up. J Autism Dev Disord. 2000;30:137–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson G. Early behavioral intervention, brain plasticity, and the prevention of autism spectrum disorder. Dev Psychopathol. 2008;20:775–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prutting C, Kirchner D. A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. J Speech Hear Disord. 1987;52:105–119.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O'Neill DK. The language use inventory for young children: a parent-report measure of pragmatic language development for 18- to 47-month-old children. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007;50:214–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA. Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington (VT): University of Vermont, Research Center for Child, Youth, & Families; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Sparrow S, Cicchetti DV, Balla DA. Vineland adaptive behavior scales. Circle Pines (MN): AGS Publishing; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Gioia GA, Isquith PK, Guy SC, et al. Behavior rating inventory of executive function: self-report version for adolescents and adults. Lutz (FL): PAR Inc.; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Leinonen E, Letts C. Why pragmatic impairment? A case study in the comprehension of inferential meaning. Eur J Disord Commun. 1997;32:35–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Conti-Ramsden G, Crutchley A, Botting N. The extent to which psychometric tests differentiate subgroups of children with SLI. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997;40:765–777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merritt DD, Liles BZ. Narrative analysis: clinical applications of story generation and story retelling. J Speech Hear Disord. 1989;54:438–438.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weaver PW, Dickinson DK. Scratching below the surface structure: exploring the usefulness of story grammars. Discourse Processes 1982;5:225–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop D. Children’s communication checklist. San Antonio: Pearson; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Carrow-Woolfolk E. Comprehensive assessment of spoken language. Circle Pines (MN): American Guidance Service, Inc.; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Phelps-Terasaki D, Phelps-Gunn T. Test of pragmatic language. Torrance (CA): WPS; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Bowers L, Huisingh R, LoGuidance C. Test of problem solving. Austin (TX): LinguiSystems, Inc.; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Gillam RB, Pearson N. Test of narrative language. Austin (TX): Pro-Ed, Inc.; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Davis GA. Aphasiology: disorders and clinical practice. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Frattali CM, editor. Measuring outcomes in speech-language pathology. New York: Thieme; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Murray LL, Chapey R. Assessment of language disorders in adults. In: Chapey R, editor. Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 55–118.
   Google Scholar
• Frattali C, Thompson C, Holland A, et al. American speech language hearing association functional assessment of communication skills for adults. Rockville (MD): American Speech Language Hearing Association; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Lomas J, Rickard L, Bester S, et al. The communicative effectiveness index: development and psychometric evaluation of a functional communication measure for adult aphasia. J Speech Hear Disord. 1989;54:113–124.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Holland A, Frattali C, Fromm D. Communication activities of daily living. Austin (TX): Pro-Ed; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Martin I, McDonald S. Weak coherence, no theory of mind, or executive dysfunction? Solving the puzzle of pragmatic language disorders. Brain Lang. 2003;85:451–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mundy P, Markus J. On the nature of communication and language impairment in autism. Ment Retard Dev Disabil: Res Rev. 1997;3:343–349.
   Google Scholar
• Carlomagno S, Santoro A, Menditti A, et al. Referential communication in Alzheimer's type dementia. Cortex 2005;41:520–534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobhani Rad D. A review on adult pragmatic assessments. Iran J Neurol. 2014;13:113–118.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Douglas JM, Bracy CA, Snow PC. Exploring the factor structure of the La Trobe Communication Questionnaire: insights into the nature of communication deficits following traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology 2007;21:1181–1194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Struchen M, Pappadis MR, Sander A, et al. Examining the contribution of social communication abilities and affective/behavioral functioning to social integration outcomes for adults with traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2011;26:30–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherer M. 2004. The Awareness Questionnaire. The Center for Outcome Measurement in Brain Injury; [cited 2015 Sep 19]. Available from: <http://www.tbims.org/combi/aq>.
   Google Scholar
• Dywan J, Segalowitz S. Self and family ratings of adaptive behavior after traumatic brain injury: psychometric scores and frontally generated ERPs. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1996;11:79–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherney LR, Shadden BB, Coelho CA, editors. Analyzing discourse in communicatively impaired adults. Gaithersburg (MD): Aspen Publishers, Inc.; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Gard A, Gilman L, Gorman J. Speech and language development (chart). Austin (TX): ProEd, Inc.; 1993.
   Google Scholar