“Accountability” in interaction-focused intervention for aphasia: a conversation-analytic study of therapeutic effects

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Aphasia interventions typically require independent practice on the part of people with aphasia. Interaction-focused interventions aim to change patterns in everyday conversation, and require both people with aphasia and their familiar communication partners to implement communication strategies. Little empirical evidence is available on how people with aphasia and their conversation partners practice communication strategies independently. Aims: This study explores how people with aphasia and their conversation partners attend to intervention goals during independent conversations. It focuses on how people with aphasia are made “accountable” for using communication strategies. Methods & Procedures: This study employed a descriptive, qualitative design, drawing on single-case conversation analytic methods. Six participants (three people with aphasia, and their respective spouses) recorded communication samples as part of an interaction-focused intervention. About 22 min of these samples were transcribed and analysed using conversation-analytic methods. Outcomes & results: 27 instances where conversation partners topicalised intervention were analysed. The extracts presented, demonstrate that intervention goals were invoked via a range of communicative acts, including repair initiations, assessments, and directive-like assertions. People with aphasia were treated as responsible for not administering strategies at communicatively relevant moments. Conclusions: Intervention participants’ displays of “online” reasoning about intervention goals may be practically important for interaction-focused intervention, and warrant further attention. These displays hold potential for better defining therapeutic mechanisms in interaction-focused intervention.

LanguageEnglish
Pages163-186
Number of pages24
JournalAphasiology
Volume33
Issue number2
Early online date16 Nov 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

Aphasia
Social Responsibility
speech disorder
Therapeutic Uses
conversation
responsibility
interaction
communication
Communication
Interpersonal Relations
Interaction
Therapeutics
Accountability
Spouses
spouse

Keywords

  • aphasia
  • interaction
  • intervention
  • communication partner training

Cite this

@article{b011c905a2444ada842b3368697a90e0,
title = "“Accountability” in interaction-focused intervention for aphasia: a conversation-analytic study of therapeutic effects",
abstract = "Background: Aphasia interventions typically require independent practice on the part of people with aphasia. Interaction-focused interventions aim to change patterns in everyday conversation, and require both people with aphasia and their familiar communication partners to implement communication strategies. Little empirical evidence is available on how people with aphasia and their conversation partners practice communication strategies independently. Aims: This study explores how people with aphasia and their conversation partners attend to intervention goals during independent conversations. It focuses on how people with aphasia are made “accountable” for using communication strategies. Methods & Procedures: This study employed a descriptive, qualitative design, drawing on single-case conversation analytic methods. Six participants (three people with aphasia, and their respective spouses) recorded communication samples as part of an interaction-focused intervention. About 22 min of these samples were transcribed and analysed using conversation-analytic methods. Outcomes & results: 27 instances where conversation partners topicalised intervention were analysed. The extracts presented, demonstrate that intervention goals were invoked via a range of communicative acts, including repair initiations, assessments, and directive-like assertions. People with aphasia were treated as responsible for not administering strategies at communicatively relevant moments. Conclusions: Intervention participants’ displays of “online” reasoning about intervention goals may be practically important for interaction-focused intervention, and warrant further attention. These displays hold potential for better defining therapeutic mechanisms in interaction-focused intervention.",
keywords = "aphasia, interaction, intervention, communication partner training",
author = "Scott Barnes",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1080/02687038.2018.1545455",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "163--186",
journal = "Aphasiology",
issn = "0268-7038",
publisher = "Psychology Press",
number = "2",

}

“Accountability” in interaction-focused intervention for aphasia : a conversation-analytic study of therapeutic effects. / Barnes, Scott.

In: Aphasiology, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2019, p. 163-186.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - “Accountability” in interaction-focused intervention for aphasia

T2 - Aphasiology

AU - Barnes,Scott

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Background: Aphasia interventions typically require independent practice on the part of people with aphasia. Interaction-focused interventions aim to change patterns in everyday conversation, and require both people with aphasia and their familiar communication partners to implement communication strategies. Little empirical evidence is available on how people with aphasia and their conversation partners practice communication strategies independently. Aims: This study explores how people with aphasia and their conversation partners attend to intervention goals during independent conversations. It focuses on how people with aphasia are made “accountable” for using communication strategies. Methods & Procedures: This study employed a descriptive, qualitative design, drawing on single-case conversation analytic methods. Six participants (three people with aphasia, and their respective spouses) recorded communication samples as part of an interaction-focused intervention. About 22 min of these samples were transcribed and analysed using conversation-analytic methods. Outcomes & results: 27 instances where conversation partners topicalised intervention were analysed. The extracts presented, demonstrate that intervention goals were invoked via a range of communicative acts, including repair initiations, assessments, and directive-like assertions. People with aphasia were treated as responsible for not administering strategies at communicatively relevant moments. Conclusions: Intervention participants’ displays of “online” reasoning about intervention goals may be practically important for interaction-focused intervention, and warrant further attention. These displays hold potential for better defining therapeutic mechanisms in interaction-focused intervention.

AB - Background: Aphasia interventions typically require independent practice on the part of people with aphasia. Interaction-focused interventions aim to change patterns in everyday conversation, and require both people with aphasia and their familiar communication partners to implement communication strategies. Little empirical evidence is available on how people with aphasia and their conversation partners practice communication strategies independently. Aims: This study explores how people with aphasia and their conversation partners attend to intervention goals during independent conversations. It focuses on how people with aphasia are made “accountable” for using communication strategies. Methods & Procedures: This study employed a descriptive, qualitative design, drawing on single-case conversation analytic methods. Six participants (three people with aphasia, and their respective spouses) recorded communication samples as part of an interaction-focused intervention. About 22 min of these samples were transcribed and analysed using conversation-analytic methods. Outcomes & results: 27 instances where conversation partners topicalised intervention were analysed. The extracts presented, demonstrate that intervention goals were invoked via a range of communicative acts, including repair initiations, assessments, and directive-like assertions. People with aphasia were treated as responsible for not administering strategies at communicatively relevant moments. Conclusions: Intervention participants’ displays of “online” reasoning about intervention goals may be practically important for interaction-focused intervention, and warrant further attention. These displays hold potential for better defining therapeutic mechanisms in interaction-focused intervention.

KW - aphasia

KW - interaction

KW - intervention

KW - communication partner training

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057310404&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/02687038.2018.1545455

DO - 10.1080/02687038.2018.1545455

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 163

EP - 186

JO - Aphasiology

JF - Aphasiology

SN - 0268-7038

IS - 2

ER -