Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing Discourse Ability in Adults with Traumatic Brain Injury

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Spoken Discourse Impairments in the Neurogenic Populations

  • 210 Accesses

Abstract

Consequences of traumatic brain injury (TBI) can vary greatly. Injury type, location of trauma as well as the individual’s underlying health, cognitive reserve, and external supports can all influence the recovery process. In general, those with milder brain injuries will receive the least attention, despite perceiving themselves as different compared to pre-injury. Discourse analysis is a sensitive means of identifying a deficit in functional communication that may not be revealed by other means. Importantly, it is also a way to assess the subtle pragmatic shortcomings that often lead to debilitating social isolation following TBI. A quality assessment of conversational or narrative discourse can lead to a more individualized treatment program, but this relies on skills and time that many speech-language pathologists (SLPs) may not possess. Evidence points to an increasing adoption of discourse analysis among SLPs but more streamlined approaches and effective technology utilization are necessary to fully overcome this barrier. This chapter will summarize the advantages and disadvantages of discourse analysis, its adoption for clinical use thanks to technological advances, and common standardized and non- standardized assessments of discourse production, comprehension, or both.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Coelho C, Ylvisaker M, Turkstra LS. Nonstandardized assessment approaches for individuals with traumatic brain injuries. In: Semin Speech Lang [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2015 Feb 1]. p. 223–41.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Steel J, Togher L. Social communication assessment after traumatic brain injury: a narrative review of innovations in pragmatic and discourse assessment methods. Brain Inj. 2019;33(1):48–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Frith M, Togher L, Ferguson A, Levick W, Docking K. Assessment practices of speech-language pathologists for cognitive communication disorders following traumatic brain injury in adults: an international survey. Brain Inj. 2014;28(13–14):1657–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Myers JR, Solomon NP, Lange RT, French LM, Lippa SM, Brickell TA, et al. Analysis of discourse production to assess cognitive communication deficits following mild traumatic brain injury with and without posttraumatic stress. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022;31(1):84–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gillam RB, Pearson NA. Test of narrative language: examiner’s manual. Pro-ed; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Snow PC, Douglas JM. Subject review: conceptual and methodological challenges in discourse assessment with TBI speakers: towards an understanding. Brain Inj. 2000;14(5):397–415.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Coelho CA. Management of discourse deficits following traumatic brain injury: progress, caveats, and needs. Semin Speech Lang. 2007;28(2):122–135. Copyright© 2007 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Marini A, Andreetta S, del Tin S, Carlomagno S. A multi-level approach to the analysis of narrative language in aphasia. Aphasiology. 2011;25(11):1372–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lindsey A, Mozeiko J, Krueger F, Grafman J, Coelho C. Changes in discourse structure over time following traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychologia. 2018;119:308–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. VanSolkema M, McCann C, Barker-Collo S, Foster A. Attention and communication following TBI: making the connection through a meta-narrative systematic review. Neuropsychol Rev. 2020;30(3):345–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goodglass H, Kaplan E, Weintraub S. BDAE: the Boston diagnostic aphasia examination. 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kertesz A. Western aphasia battery-revised (WAB-R). Austin. 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Le K, Coelho C, Mozeiko J, Krueger F, Grafman J. Measuring goodness of story narratives: implications for traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology. 2011;25(6–7):748–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lindsey A, Hurley E, Mozeiko J, Coelho C. Follow-up on the story goodness index for characterizing discourse deficits following traumatic brain injury. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2019;28(1S):330–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Graesser AC, McNamara DS, Louwerse MM, Cai Z. Coh-Metrix: analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004;36(2):193–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marini A, Zettin M, Galetto V. Cognitive correlates of narrative impairment in moderate traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychologia. 2014;64:282–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Galetto V, Andreetta S, Zettin M, Marini A. Patterns of impairment of narrative language in mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurolinguistics. 2013;26(6):649–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mozeiko J, Le K, Coelho C, Krueger F, Grafman J. The relationship of story grammar and executive function following TBI. Aphasiology. 2011;25(6–7):826–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Steel J, Elbourn E, Togher L. Narrative discourse intervention after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of the literature. Top Lang Disord. 2021;41(1):47–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lê K, Coelho C, Fiszdon J. Systematic review of discourse and social communication interventions in traumatic brain injury. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022;31(2):991–1022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang Q. Once upon a time: explaining cultural differences in episodic specificity: culture and episodic specificity. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2009;3(4):413–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang Q, Yang JCI. Culture and storytelling in literature. Narrat Inq [Internet]. 2022 25 [cited 2022 Sep 9]. http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/ni.21093.wan

  23. Bradford WA. Gender differences in the narrative productions of African American adults. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2019;28(2):623–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Morrow EL, Turkstra LS, Duff MC. Confidence and training of speech-language pathologists in cognitive-communication disorders: time to rethink graduate education models? Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021;30(2S):986–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fox CB, Israelsen-Augenstein M, Jones S, Gillam SL. An evaluation of expedited transcription methods for school-age children’s narrative language: automatic speech recognition and real-time transcription. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2021;64(9):3533–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. King KA, Hough MS, Walker MM, Rastatter M, Holbert D. Mild traumatic brain injury: effects on naming in word retrieval and discourse. Brain Inj. 2006;20(7):725–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Arnett S, Mozeiko J. Evaluating the accuracy of self-ratings of language in adults with aphasia and non-brain injured adults: a pilot study. Semin Speech Lang. 2022;43:378.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Suting LB, Mozeiko J. Analysis of real-world language use in a person with Wernicke’s aphasia. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2021;6(3):553–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Coelho CA, Youse KM, Le KN. Conversational discourse in closed-head-injured and non-brain-injured adults. Aphasiology. 2002;16(4–6):659–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wiemann JM. Effects of laboratory videotaping procedures on selected conversation behaviors. Hum Commun Res. 1981;7(4):302–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. MacWhinney B. The CHILDES system. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1996;5(1):5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mengistu KT, Rudzicz F. Comparing humans and automatic speech recognition systems in recognizing dysarthric speech. In: Canadian conference on artificial intelligence. Springer; 2011. p. 291–300.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jacks A, Haley KL, Bishop G, Harmon TG. Automated speech recognition in adult stroke survivors: comparing human and computer transcriptions. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2019;71(5–6):286–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Greenwood CR, Schnitz AG, Irvin D, Tsai SF, Carta JJ. Automated language environment analysis: a research synthesis. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;27(2):853–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Angeleri R, Bosco FM, Zettin M, Sacco K, Colle L, Bara BG. Communicative impairment in traumatic brain injury: a complete pragmatic assessment. Brain Lang. 2008;107(3):229–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. MacDonald S. Functional assessment of verbal reasoning and executive strategies (FAVRES). Guelp: Clinical Publishing; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Joanette Y, Ska B, Côté H. In: Édition O, editor. Protocole Montréal d’Évaluation de la Communication. Isbergues: France; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Arcara G, Bambini V. A test for the assessment of pragmatic abilities and cognitive substrates (APACS): normative data and psychometric properties. Front Psychol. 2016;7:70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Bara BG. Cognitive pragmatics. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2010.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Airenti G. Conversation and behavior games in the pragmatics of dialogue. Cogn Sci. 1993;17(2):197–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Isaki E, Turkstra L. Communication abilities and work re-entry following traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2000;14(5):441–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Rietdijk R, Simpson G, Togher L, Power E, Gillett L. An exploratory prospective study of the association between communication skills and employment outcomes after severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2013;27(7–8):812–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Meulenbroek PA, Togher L, Turkstra, L. Functional workplace communication elicitation for persons with traumatic brain injury. In: Clinical aphasiology conference. Tucson, AZ; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  44. LeBlanc J, de Guise E, Champoux MC, Couturier C, Lamoureux J, Marcoux J, et al. Acute evaluation of conversational discourse skills in traumatic brain injury. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2014;16(6):582–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Casarin FS, Pagliarin KC, Altmann RF, de Mattos Pimenta Parente MA, Ferré P, Côté H, et al. Montreal communication evaluation brief battery—MEC B: reliability and validity. Codas. 2020;32(1):e20180306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Douglas JM, O’Flaherty CA, Snow PC. Measuring perception of communicative ability: the development and evaluation of the La Trobe communication questionnaire. Aphasiology. 2000;14(3):251–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Finch E, Cornwell P, Copley A, Doig E, Fleming J. Remediation of social communication impairments following traumatic brain injury using metacognitive strategy intervention: a pilot study. Brain Inj. 2017;31(13–14):1830–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Steel J, Ferguson A, Spencer E, Togher L. Social communication assessment during post-traumatic amnesia and the post-acute period after traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2017;31(10):1320–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Hoepner JK, Olson SE. Joint video self-modeling as a conversational intervention for an individual with traumatic brain injury and his everyday partner: a pilot investigation. Clin Arch Commun Disord. 2018;3(1):22–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Behn N, Togher L, Power E, Heard R. Evaluating communication training for paid carers of people with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2012;26(13–14):1702–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. MacLennan DL, Cornis-Pop M, Picon-Nieto L, Sigford B. The prevalence of pragmatic communication impairments in traumatic brain injury. In: National Brain Injury Association Conference. Minneapolis, MN; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Linscott RJ, Knight RG, Godfrey HPD. The profile of functional impairment in communication (PFIC): a measure of communication impairment for clinical use. Brain Inj. 1996;10(6):397–412.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Dahlberg CA, Cusick CP, Hawley LA, Newman JK, Morey CE, Harrison-Felix CL, et al. Treatment efficacy of social communication skills training after traumatic brain injury: a randomized treatment and deferred treatment controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(12):1561–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Braden C, Hawley L, Newman J, Morey C, Gerber D, Harrison-Felix C. Social communication skills group treatment: a feasibility study for persons with traumatic brain injury and comorbid conditions. Brain Inj. 2010;24(11):1298–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Togher L, Power E, Tate R, McDonald S, Rietdijk R. Measuring the social interactions of people with traumatic brain injury and their communication partners: the adapted Kagan scales. Aphasiology. 2010;24(6–8):914–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mann K, Power E, Barnes S, Togher L. Questioning in conversations before and after communication partner training for individuals with traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology. 2015;29(9):1082–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Behn N, Marshall J, Togher L, Cruice M. Feasibility and initial efficacy of project-based treatment for people with ABI. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019;54(3):465–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Iwashita H, Sohlberg MM. Measuring conversations after acquired brain injury in 30 minutes or less: a comparison of two pragmatic rating scales. Brain Inj. 2019;33(9):1219–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Bond F, Godfrey H. Conversation with traumatically brain injured individuals: a controlled study of behavioural changes and their impact. Brain Inj. 1997;11(5):319–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. MacDonald S. The cognitive-communication checklist for acquired brain injury: a means of identifying, recording, and tracking communication impairments. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021;30(3):1074–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Jones CA, Turkstra LS. Selling the story: narratives and charisma in adults with TBI. Brain Inj. 2011;25(9):844–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Tu LV, Togher L, Power E. The impact of communication partner and discourse task on a person with traumatic brain injury: the use of multiple perspectives. Brain Inj. 2011;25(6):560–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kilov AM, Togher L, Grant S. Problem solving with friends: discourse participation and performance of individuals with and without traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology. 2009;23(5):584–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Jorgensen M, Togher L. Narrative after traumatic brain injury: a comparison of monologic and jointly-produced discourse. Brain Inj. 2009;23(9):727–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Bogart E, Togher L, Power E, Docking K. Casual conversations between individuals with traumatic brain injury and their friends. Brain Inj. 2012;26(3):221–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Halliday MAK. In: Arnold E, editor. An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd ed. London; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sim P, Power E, Togher L. Describing conversations between individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and communication partners following communication partner training: using exchange structure analysis. Brain Inj. 2013;27(6):717–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Mentis M, Prutting CA. Analysis of topic as illustrated in a head-injured and a normal adult. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1991;34(3):583–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Brassel S, Kenny B, Power E, Elbourn E, McDonald S, Tate R, et al. Conversational topics discussed by individuals with severe traumatic brain injury and their communication partners during sub-acute recovery. Brain Inj. 2016;30(11):1329–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Meulenbroek P, Turkstra LS. Job stability in skilled work and communication ability after moderate–severe traumatic brain injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(5):452–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Meulenbroek P, Cherney LR. The voicemail elicitation task: functional workplace language assessment for persons with traumatic brain injury. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019;62(9):3367–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Meulenbroek P, Cherney LR. Computer-based workplace communication training in persons with traumatic brain injury: the work-related communication program. J Commun Disord. 2021;91:106104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

    Jennifer Mozeiko & Louisa Suting

  2. School of Education, Nevada State University, Henderson, NV, USA

    André Lindsey

Authors
  1. Jennifer Mozeiko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Louisa Suting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. André Lindsey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Mozeiko .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Academic Unit of Human Communication, Learning, and Development, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

    Anthony Pak-Hin Kong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mozeiko, J., Suting, L., Lindsey, A. (2023). Assessing Discourse Ability in Adults with Traumatic Brain Injury. In: Kong, A.PH. (eds) Spoken Discourse Impairments in the Neurogenic Populations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45190-4_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45190-4_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-45189-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-45190-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation