Discourse measurement in aphasia research: have we reached the tipping point?

ABSTRACT Background: Over the past few decades, clinical aphasiologists have increasingly included various measures of discourse, across a variety of genres, to assess treatment effects and to understand spoken language in people with aphasia. The paradigm shift from assessing language at the word and sentence level to assessing at the discourse level shows an increased awareness of capturing meaningful outcomes; however, this has led to a proliferation of new discourse metrics. These new metrics often lack reliability, validity, and stability data to support their use. In fact, we propose that a tipping point has been reached. Aims: To review the recent move toward establishing a basic core outcome set (COS) for aphasia. In support of this effort, we make a strong argument for the need to dovetail these efforts with the development of a core outcome set for discourse (D-COS). Main contribution: We make a case that the current state of the art in aphasia-related discourse research leaves researchers unsure of the most representative outcomes to include in future investigations and clinicians with little guidance on best practice. We applaud and support the recent efforts toward the development of a general COS for aphasia; however, we propose that the need for a D-COS is urgent because the increasing numbers of discourse measures make it difficult to replicate and compare outcomes across studies. Moreover, these issues likely interfere with adaptation of the use of discourse measurement in clinical practice. Conclusions: Many health-related fields have adopted a COS to guide their research and ensure that the field’s data can be compiled, compared, and contrasted for a better overall understanding of how treatments address targeted illnesses. We argue that, in addition to the recent progress toward a COS for aphasia, a D-COS is also required to improve our understanding of how our treatments improve the discourse of people with aphasia, which in turn will aid in evoking a paradigm shift in clinical practice. To be successful, it is essential that the development of a D-COS includes a process by which all stakeholders are included: people with aphasia, caregivers, clinicians, and clinical researchers.

[1]  D. Kempler,et al.  Training verb production in communicative context: Evidence from a person with chronic non‐fluent aphasia , 2009, Aphasiology.

[2]  Myrna F. Schwartz,et al.  The quantitative analysis of agrammatic production: Procedure and data , 1989, Brain and Language.

[3]  Linda Worrall,et al.  Measuring outcomes in aphasia research: A review of current practice and an agenda for standardisation , 2014 .

[4]  J. Isaksen,et al.  Which outcomes are most important to people with aphasia and their families? an international nominal group technique study framed within the ICF , 2017, Disability and rehabilitation.

[5]  L. Worrall,et al.  A good outcome for aphasia , 2014 .

[6]  A. Kong,et al.  Production of nouns and verbs in picture naming and narrative tasks by Chinese speakers with aphasia. , 2013, Procedia, social and behavioral sciences.

[7]  B. Giraudeau,et al.  Better reporting and greater homogeneity in outcome measures are seen in randomized trial protocols when guidelines exist. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  A. Marini,et al.  The effect of lexical deficits on narrative disturbances in fluent aphasia , 2015 .

[9]  A. J. North,et al.  Production of narrative and procedural discourse in aphasia , 1981, Brain and Language.

[10]  A. Raymer,et al.  Changes in aphasic discourse after contrasting treatments for anomia , 2008 .

[11]  Kleanthes K. Grohmann,et al.  Time for a step change? Improving the efficiency, relevance, reliability, validity and transparency of aphasia rehabilitation research through core outcome measures, a common data set and improved reporting criteria , 2014, Aphasiology.

[12]  W. Best,et al.  Phonological and orthographic cueing therapy: A case of generalised improvement , 2010 .

[13]  Ruth B. Fink,et al.  Mapping therapy: A treatment programme for agrammatism , 1994 .

[14]  L. Milman,et al.  Integrated training for aphasia: an application of part-whole learning to treat lexical retrieval, sentence production, and discourse-level communications in three cases of nonfluent aphasia. , 2014, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[15]  Connie A. Tompkins,et al.  Context and word class influences on lexical retrieval in aphasia , 2002 .

[16]  M. Boyle Test-retest stability of word retrieval in aphasic discourse. , 2014, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[17]  Mary Boyle,et al.  Application of Semantic Feature Analysis as a Treatment for , 1995 .

[18]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years , 2013, Trials.

[19]  Selma C. Kunitz,et al.  Poster Abstract #9: Implementing Data Standards: Challenges from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Common Data Elements Project , 2007 .

[20]  R. Brookshire,et al.  A system for quantifying the informativeness and efficiency of the connected speech of adults with aphasia. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[21]  J. Cartwright,et al.  NARNIA: a new twist to an old tale. A pilot RCT to evaluate a multilevel approach to improving discourse in aphasia , 2015 .

[22]  Natalie L. Hedberg,et al.  Analysis of Oral Narratives of Normal and Aphasic Adults , 1985 .

[23]  P. Doyle,et al.  Reliability and concurrent validity of the information unit scoring metric for the story retelling procedure , 2001 .

[24]  W. Polonsky,et al.  The Tipping Point , 2007, The Diabetes educator.

[25]  M. Boyle Stability of Word-Retrieval Errors With the AphasiaBank Stimuli. , 2015, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[26]  Elizabeth Gargon,et al.  Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews? – a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane review groups , 2013, Trials.

[27]  L. Worrall,et al.  Which treatment outcomes are most important to aphasia clinicians and managers? An international e-Delphi consensus study , 2017 .