A scoping review of transcription‐less practices for analysis of aphasic discourse and implications for future research
Brielle C. Stark,Sarah Grace Dalton
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.13028
2024-03-24
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
Abstract:Background It is important to capture a comprehensive language profile from speakers with aphasia. One way to do this is to evaluate spoken discourse, which is language beyond a single simple clause used for a specific purpose. While the historical trend in aphasiology has been to capture performance during isolated language tasks, such as confrontation naming, there is a demonstrated need and benefit to collecting language information from tasks that resemble everyday communication. As a result, there has been an increase in discourse analysis research over time. However, despite clinicians' and researchers' desire to analyse spoken discourse, they are faced with critical barriers that inhibit implementation. Aims To use scoping review methodology to identify transcription‐less tools developed to analyse discourse from individuals with aphasia. The review addressed the following question: 'What transcription‐less tools and analysis procedures are available to assess discourse in people with aphasia?' and included several sub‐questions to further characterise the type of discourse and tool being used, participants on whom the tool was used to rate discourse abilities, tool users (raters), and psychometric properties. Methods The scoping review was conducted between the months of October 2022 and January 2023, concluding 30 January 2023, on PubMed/NCBI, Academic Search Complete and Linguistics and Language Behavior s. Major inclusion parameters included peer‐reviewed papers written in English; that the tool was used to analyse discourse elicited by individuals with acquired aphasia; and that the tool was not a part of a standardised battery or assessment. Perceptual discourse analysis was defined as any analysis which primarily relied on listener impressions and did not numerically quantify specific language behaviours. 'Transcription‐less' analysis was defined as any discourse analysis which did not require a written record of the discourse sample in order to be completed. A total of 396 abstracts were screened and 39 full articles were reviewed, yielding 21 papers that were included in the review. Main Contribution An overview of the state of transcription‐less tools for aphasic discourse analysis is provided, and next steps are identified to facilitate increased implementation of discourse analysis in clinical and research settings. Conclusion Transcription‐less tools have many benefits for analysing multiple levels (e.g., linguistic, propositional, macrostructural, pragmatic) of discourse, but require more research to establish sound psychometric properties and to explore the implementation of these tools in clinical settings. What this paper adds What is already known on this subject Individuals with aphasia prioritise treatment outcomes at the discourse level such as being able to engage in conversations with friends and family about important topics and participating in social and leisure activities. However, discourse is rarely used as a treatment outcome measure in clinical practice due to multiple barriers. When speech‐language pathologists do assess discourse, they often make perceptual judgements without transcribing the discourse sample. Transcription‐less analysis procedures may improve clinical implementation of discourse assessment, which would better match treatment outcome measurement to clients' desired outcomes. However, little is known about the current state of transcription‐less discourse analysis, blocking progress. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study provides an overview of currently available transcription‐less discourse analysis procedures that are not part of published standardised aphasia assessments. Transcription‐less measures are available to evaluate discourse at all levels (i.e., lexical, propositional, macro‐structural/planning, and pragmatic) and most measures include items that assess discourse abilities across multiple levels. Additionally, there are transcription‐less measures available for both structured (e.g., picture scene description) and spontaneous (e.g., conversation) discourse tasks. However, current transcription‐less procedures are lacking psychometric data including information about validity and reliability. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Transcription‐less analysis methods may provide an avenue for increased implementation of discourse measurement into clinical practice. Further research is needed to determine the clinical utility of transcription‐less discourse analysis to better monitor clients' desired treatment outcomes.
rehabilitation,audiology & speech-language pathology,linguistics