MC production in aphasia and controls (Dalton & Richardson, 2019)

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 S1. Median tests results comparing all persons with aphasia to all controls for the five discourse tasks.Supplemental Material S2. Comparison median tests comparing all individuals not aphasic by Western Aphasia Battery (NABW) to all controls for the five discourse tasks.Supplemental Material S3. Comparison median tests comparing all individuals with anomic aphasia to all controls for the five discourse tasks.Supplemental Material S4. Comparison median tests comparing all individuals with conduction aphasia to all controls for the five discourse tasks.Supplemental Material S5. Comparison median tests comparing all individuals with Wernicke's aphasia to all controls for the five discourse tasks.Supplemental Material S6. Comparison median tests comparing all individuals with Broca’s aphasia to all controls for the five discourse tasks.Supplemental Material S7. Percent overlap of persons not brain injured (PNBIs) with each aphasia subtype (left) and percent overlap of each aphasia subtype with PNBIs (right) for main concept (MC) composite score. NABW= not aphasic by Western Aphasia Battery (WAB).Supplemental Material S8. Correlation of main concept (MC) composite scores across the five discourse tasks.Supplemental Material S9. Correlation of number of accurate/complete (AC) codes across the five discourse tasks.Supplemental Material S10. Correlation of number of accurate/incomplete (AI) codes across the five discourse tasks.Supplemental Material S11. Correlation of number of inaccurate/complete (IC) codes across the five discourse tasks.Supplemental Material S12. Correlation of number of inaccurate/incomplete (II) codes across the five discourse tasks.Supplemental Material S13. Correlation of number of absent (AB) codes across the five discourse tasks.Supplemental Material S14. Correlation of number of main concept (MC) attempts across the five discourse tasks.Dalton, S. G. H., & Richardson, J. D. (2019). A large-scale comparison of main concept production between persons with aphasia and persons without brain injury. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28(1S), 293-320. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0166Publisher Note: This article is part of the Special Issue: Select Papers From the 47th Clinical Aphasiology Conference.

研究目的：本研究的旨在为临床医生和研究人员提供关于主要概念分析（MCA）的初步心理测量数据，其中MCA是一种话语信息性的度量，具体而言，旨在提供关于大量未受脑损伤人员（PNBIs）和失语症患者（PWAs）在AphasiaBank话语任务中的表现描述性及比较性统计信息。研究方法：从AphasiaBank数据库中检索了5项半自发性话语任务的转录稿，并根据详细的清单和评分程序进行评分。对145名PNBIs和238名PWAs的转录稿进行了评分；报告了描述性统计、中位数测试和效应量。研究结果：PWAs在整体话语信息性得分上表现较低，并且更频繁地产生不准确或不完整的陈述。在所有主要概念措施和故事中，PNBIs与PWAs之间存在差异。PNBIs与失语亚型之间的比较显示出所有群体均有显著差异，尽管差异模式和效应量的大小因群体和话语任务而异。研究结论：这些结果通过为PNBIs和PWAs提供标准话语任务的可信评分的描述性和比较性信息，可能提高MCA的调查和临床效用。结果表明，MCA对失语引起的话语差异敏感。补充材料S1：比较所有失语症患者与所有对照者的五个话语任务的中位数测试结果。补充材料S2：比较所有未失语者（通过西方失语症电池NABW）与所有对照者的五个话语任务的中位数测试结果。补充材料S3：比较所有命名性失语症患者与所有对照者的五个话语任务的中位数测试结果。补充材料S4：比较所有传导性失语症患者与所有对照者的五个话语任务的中位数测试结果。补充材料S5：比较所有韦尼克失语症患者与所有对照者的五个话语任务的中位数测试结果。补充材料S6：比较所有布罗卡失语症患者与所有对照者的五个话语任务的中位数测试结果。补充材料S7：未受脑损伤人员（PNBIs）与每种失语亚型重叠的百分比（左侧）以及每种失语亚型与PNBIs重叠的百分比（右侧）对于主要概念（MC）综合评分。NABW=通过西方失语症电池（WAB）未失语。补充材料S8：五个话语任务中主要概念（MC）综合评分的相关性。补充材料S9：五个话语任务中准确/完整（AC）代码数量的相关性。补充材料S10：五个话语任务中准确/不完整（AI）代码数量的相关性。补充材料S11：五个话语任务中不准确/完整（IC）代码数量的相关性。补充材料S12：五个话语任务中不准确/不完整（II）代码数量的相关性。补充材料S13：五个话语任务中缺失（AB）代码数量的相关性。补充材料S14：五个话语任务中主要概念（MC）尝试数量的相关性。Dalton, S. G. H., & Richardson, J. D. (2019). 失语症患者与未受脑损伤人员在主要概念生成方面的大规模比较。美国言语-语言病理学杂志，28(1S)，293-320. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0166。出版者注：本文是特别问题的一部分：第47届临床失语症会议精选论文。