Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Mar 11;28(1S):293-320.
doi: 10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0166.

A Large-Scale Comparison of Main Concept Production Between Persons With Aphasia and Persons Without Brain Injury

Sarah Grace Hudspeth Dalton  1 , Jessica D Richardson  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

A Large-Scale Comparison of Main Concept Production Between Persons With Aphasia and Persons Without Brain Injury

Sarah Grace Hudspeth Dalton et al. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. .

Abstract

Purpose The purposes of this study are to provide clinicians and researchers with introductory psychometric data for the main concept analysis (MCA), a measure of discourse informativeness, and specifically, to provide descriptive and comparative statistical information about the performance of a large sample of persons not brain injured (PNBIs) and persons with aphasia (PWAs) on AphasiaBank discourse tasks. Method Transcripts of 5 semi-spontaneous discourse tasks were retrieved from the AphasiaBank database and scored according to detailed checklists and scoring procedures. Transcripts from 145 PNBIs and 238 PWAs were scored; descriptive statistics, median tests, and effect sizes are reported. Results PWAs demonstrated overall lower informativeness scores and more frequent production of statements that were inaccurate and/or incomplete. Differences between PNBIs and PWAs were observed for all main concept measures and stories. Comparisons of PNBIs and aphasia subtypes revealed significant differences for all groups, although the pattern of differences and strength of effect sizes varied by group and discourse task. Conclusions These results may improve the investigative and clinical utility of the MCA by providing descriptive and comparative information for PNBIs and PWAs for standardized discourse tasks that can be reliably scored. The results indicate that the MCA is sensitive to differences in discourse as a result of aphasia. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.7485647.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Boxplots of the distribution of MC composite scores for all groups for the (A) Broken Window, (B) Cinderella, (C) Cat Rescue, (D) Refused Umbrella, and (E) Sandwich tasks. A single asterisk below the groups indicates a significant difference between that group and persons not brain injured with a medium effect size. A double asterisk indicates a significant difference with a large effect size. MC = main concept; NABW = not aphasic by WAB.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Boxplots of the distribution of MC attempts for all groups for the (A) Broken Window, (B) Cinderella, (C) Cat Rescue, (D) Refused Umbrella, and (E) Sandwich tasks. A single asterisk below the groups indicates a significant difference between that group and persons not brain injured with a medium effect size. A double asterisk indicates a significant difference with a large effect size. MC = main concept; NABW = not aphasic by WAB.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Boxplots of the distribution of accurate/complete codes for all groups for the (A) Broken Window, (B) Cinderella, (C) Cat Rescue, (D) Refused Umbrella, and (E) Sandwich tasks. A single asterisk below the groups indicates a significant difference between that group and persons not brain injured with a medium effect size. A double asterisk indicates a significant difference with a large effect size. NABW = not aphasic by WAB.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Boxplots of the distribution of accurate/incomplete codes for all groups for the (A) Broken Window, (B) Cinderella, (C) Cat Rescue, (D) Refused Umbrella, and (E) Sandwich tasks. A single asterisk below the groups indicates a significant difference between that group and persons not brain injured with a medium effect size. A double asterisk indicates a significant difference with a large effect size. NABW = not aphasic by WAB.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Boxplots of the distribution of inaccurate/complete codes for all groups for the (A) Broken Window, (B) Cinderella, (C) Cat Rescue, (D) Refused Umbrella, and (E) Sandwich tasks. A single asterisk below the groups indicates a significant difference between that group and persons not brain injured with a medium effect size. A double asterisk indicates a significant difference with a large effect size. NABW = not aphasic by WAB.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Boxplots of the distribution of inaccurate/incomplete codes for all groups for the (A) Broken Window, (B) Cinderella, (C) Cat Rescue, (D) Refused Umbrella, and (E) Sandwich tasks. A single asterisk below the groups indicates a significant difference between that group and persons not brain injured with a medium effect size. A double asterisk indicates a significant difference with a large effect size. NABW = not aphasic by WAB.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Boxplots of the distribution of absent codes for all groups for the (A) Broken Window, (B) Cinderella, (C) Cat Rescue, (D) Refused Umbrella, and (E) Sandwich tasks. A single asterisk below the groups indicates a significant difference between that group and persons not brain injured with a medium effect size. A double asterisk indicates a significant difference with a large effect size. NABW = not aphasic by WAB.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Albright E., & Purves B. (2008). Exploring SentenceShaperTM: Treatment and augmentative possibilities. Aphasiology, 22(7–8), 741–752.
    1. American Psychological Association. (1999). Standards for education and psychological tests. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
    1. Armstrong E. (2000). Aphasic discourse analysis: The story so far. Aphasiology, 14(9), 875–892.
    1. Armstrong E., & Ferguson A. (2010). Language, meaning, context, and functional communication. Aphasiology, 24(4), 480–496.
    1. Armstrong L., Brady M., Mackenzie C., & Norrie J. (2007). Transcription-less analysis of aphasic discourse: A clinician's dream or a possibility? Aphasiology, 21(3–4), 355–374.

Publication types