Event Abstract

Back to Event

Measuring Informativeness in Conversation Using Correct Information Units (CIUs) in People with Aphasia

Marion C. Leaman1* and Lisa A. Edmonds1
  • 1 Teachers College, Columbia University, Biobehavioral Sciences, United States

Background: A primary goal of aphasia treatment is generalization to everyday conversation. However, due to potential variability, no objective tool exists to measure conversation (Prins & Bastiaanse, 2004). Consequently, generalization to discourse is measured via monologues, using established measures, like the Correct Information Unit (CIU; Nicholas & Brookshire, 1993). However, linguistic/cognitive demands and linguistic findings vary across discourse genres, making extrapolation of skills between genres problematic (Armstrong, Ciccone, Godecke, & Kok, 2011; Boyle, 2011; Linnink, Bastiaanse, & Hӧhle, 2016), creating a need for conversation-specific measures (Kurland & Stokes, 2018). Recent research suggests that microlinguistic skills of people with aphasia (PWA) during conversation may be reliably measured, including across communication partners (Leaman & Edmonds, 2017). These findings along with clinical/research familiarity of the CIU, make investigation of the CIU as a measure for conversation warranted. One case study suggests poor interrater reliability of the CIU in conversation (Oelschlaeger & Thorne, 1999). However, raters were not trained, nor were CIU guidelines adapted for conversations (accounting for elliptical utterances, yes/no responses, etc.). Furthermore, a larger sample replication is needed. Aims: This study investigates %CIU (CIU/Word) to measure communicative informativeness of PWA during unstructured conversations by evaluating a) degree of interrater reliability and b) whether differences in %CIU occur between conversations/partners. Methodology: Eight PWA each engaged in two unstructured, non-therapeutic 15-minute conversations, one each with a home partner and an unfamiliar SLP. The first author transcribed 8-12 minute samples for each conversation, with 89% reliability, (see Leaman & Edmonds, 2017). Two graduate research assistants (RAs) received 7-8 hours of training/practice applying CIUs to conversation, following Nicholas and Brookshire’s procedures with minimal modifications made for conversation. The first 300-400 words of each sample were used to derive %CIUs, with point-to-point reliability determined for at least 25% of each sample (Brookshire & Nicholas, 1994; Nicholas & Brookshire, 1993; McHugh, 2012). Results: RQ 1: Interrater correlation coefficients (ICC) for first author(FA)/RA1 was: .973 (Cronbach’s alpha; F 35.066, df=7, CI: .875-.995, p=.000); for FA/RA2: .979 (Cronbach’s alpha; F 42.816, df=7, CI: .897-.996, p=.000). RQ 2: Pearson’s product-moment correlation for %CIU in the two conversation conditions was .959 (p=.000). Paired t-test was significant (t=2.999 p = .020). See Table 1. Discussion: Interrater reliability was excellent (ICC > .87; Koo & Li, 2016; Portney & Watkins, 2015). Furthermore, for 14/16 conversations, the 80% clinical criterion was exceeded (Crockford & Lesser, 1994). Two participants (P3;P5) with moderate/severe aphasia did not meet this criterion for 2/4 of their conversations. Neither of these participants met Nicholas and Brookshire’s 1993 language screening criteria for CIU use. Remarkably, agreement above 80% occurred in their additional two conversations (86%; 83%). Mixed findings occurred comparing %CIU between conversations, with both significant differences and high correlation between conditions. For 7/8 participants, higher %CIUs occurred in the home conversation. None of the participants demonstrated differences exceeding the 10-point criterion set for structured discourse, (Nicholas & Brookshire, 1993; Brookshire & Nicholas, 1994; Cameron, Wambaugh, & Mauszycki, 2010). Further research is needed with more aphasia types, and with consistent conversational dyads.

Figure 1
Image

References

Armstrong, E., Ciccone, N., Godecke, E., & Kok, B. (2011). Monologues and dialogues in aphasia: some initial comparisons. Aphasiology, 25(11), 1347-1371.
Boyle, M. (2011). Discourse treatment for word retrieval impairment in aphasia: The story so far. Aphasiology, 25(1), 1308-1326.
Brookshire, L.E., & Nicholas, R.H. (1994). Speech sample size and test-retest stability of connected speech measures for adults with aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 399-407.
Cameron, R.M., Wambaugh, J.L., & Mauszycki, S.C. (2010). Individual variability on discourse measures over repeated sampling times in persons with aphasia. Aphasiology, 24(6-8), 671-684.
Crockford, C., & Lesser, R. (1994). Assessing functional communication in aphasia: Clinical utility and time demands of three methods. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 29, 165-182.
Koo, T.K., & Li, M.Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15, 155-163.
Kurland, J., & Stokes, P. (2018). Let’s talk real talk: An argument to include conversation in a D-COS for aphasia research with an acknowledgment of the challenges ahead. Aphasiology, 32(4), 475-478.
Leaman, M.C., & Edmonds, L.A. (2017). Conversation in aphasia across communication partners: Exploring linguistic stability and factors of communicative success. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Linnik, A., Bastiaanse, R., & Hӧhle, B. (2016). Discourse production in aphasia: A current review of theoretical and methodological challenges. Aphasiology, 30(7), 765-800.
McHugh, M.L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282.
Nicholas & Brookshire, R.H., (1993). A system for quantifying the informativeness and efficiency of connected speech in adults with aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 338-350.
Oelschlaeger, M.L., & Thorne, J.C. (1999). Application of the correct information unit analysis to naturally occurring conversation of a person with aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 636-648.
Portney, L.G., & Watkins, M.P. (2015). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Company.
Prins, R., & Bastiaanse, R. (2004). Review. Aphasiology, 18(12), 1075-1091.

Keywords: Aphasia, conversation, Measurement, CIU, discourse

Conference: Academy of Aphasia 56th Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, 21 Oct - 23 Oct, 2018.

Presentation Type: poster presentation

Topic: Eligible for a student award

Citation: Leaman MC and Edmonds LA (2019). Measuring Informativeness in Conversation Using Correct Information Units (CIUs) in People with Aphasia. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 56th Annual Meeting. doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2018.228.00084

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 30 Apr 2018; Published Online: 22 Jan 2019.

* Correspondence: Ms. Marion C Leaman, Teachers College, Columbia University, Biobehavioral Sciences, New York City, NY, 10027, United States, ml3833@tc.columbia.edu