Creating a theoretical framework to underpin discourse assessment and intervention in aphasia
Brain Sciences, ISSN: 2076-3425, Vol: 11, Issue: 2, Page: 1-18
2021
- 31Citations
- 407Usage
- 51Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations31
- Citation Indexes31
- 31
- CrossRef21
- Usage407
- Downloads375
- Abstract Views32
- Captures51
- Readers51
- 51
- Mentions1
- Blog Mentions1
- Blog1
Most Recent Blog
Brain Sciences, Vol. 11, Pages 183: Creating a Theoretical Framework to Underpin Discourse Assessment and Intervention in Aphasia
Brain Sciences, Vol. 11, Pages 183: Creating a Theoretical Framework to Underpin Discourse Assessment and Intervention in Aphasia Brain Sciences doi: 10.3390/brainsci11020183 Authors: Lucy Dipper
Article Description
Discourse (a unit of language longer than a single sentence) is fundamental to everyday communication. People with aphasia (a language impairment occurring most frequently after stroke, or other brain damage) have communication difficulties which lead to less complete, less coherent, and less complex discourse. Although there are multiple reviews of discourse assessment and an emerging evidence base for discourse intervention, there is no unified theoretical framework to underpin this research. Instead, disparate theories are recruited to explain different aspects of discourse impairment, or symptoms are reported without a hypothesis about the cause. What is needed is a theoretical framework that would clarify the specific linguistic skills that create completeness, coherence, and complexity (i.e., richness) in discourse, and illuminate both the processes involved in discourse production and the reasons for breakdown. This paper reports a review and synthesis of the theoretical literature relevant to spoken discourse in aphasia discourse, and we propose a novel theoretical framework which unites these disparate sources. This framework is currently being tested as the foundation for Linguistic Underpinnings of Narrative in Aphasia (LUNA) treatment research. In this paper, we outline the novel framework and exemplify how it might be used to guide clinical practice and research. Future collaborative research is needed to develop this framework into a processing model for spoken discourse.
Bibliographic Details
https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/communcsci-disorders-facpubs/150; https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworkspost2013/9866
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85100967271&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11020183; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33540723; https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/11/2/183; https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/communcsci-disorders-facpubs/150; https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1149&context=communcsci-disorders-facpubs; https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworkspost2013/9866; https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10872&context=ecuworkspost2013; https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11020183
MDPI AG
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know