Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, Vol 6, No 1 (2015)

Assessments in outcome evaluation in aphasia therapy: Substantiating the claim

Jytte Isaksen, Catherine E. Brouwer
Issued Date: 30 Jan 2015

Abstract


Outcomes of aphasia therapy in Denmark are documented in evaluation sessions in which both the person with aphasia and the speech-language therapist take part. The participants negotiate agreements on the results of therapy. By means of conversation analysis, we study how such agreements on therapy outcome are reached interactionally. The sequential analysis of 34 video recordings focuses on a recurrent method for reaching agreements in these outcome evaluation sessions. In and through a special sequence of conversational assessment it is claimed that the person with aphasia has certain communicative skills. Such claims are systematically substantiated by invoking examples of the person with aphasia performing this skill either outside or inside the therapeutic setting. Substantiation can be seen as a form of validation of the claim and thereby a basis is set for agreement. The findings suggest that in this type of evaluation the requirements of producing a valid account in which the person with aphasia has been heard are being met.

Download Media

PDF (Price: £17.50 )

DOI: 10.1558/jircd.v6i1.71

References


Antaki, C., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H., and Rapley, M. (2000). ‘Brilliant. Next Question …’: High-Grade Assessment Sequences in the Completion of Interactional Units. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33 (3), 235–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3303_1


Brouwer, C. E. (2012). Talking ‘cognition’ in the audiology clinic. In G. Rasmussen, C. E. Brouwer and D. Day (Eds), Evaluating Cognitive Competencies in Interaction, 67–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.


Buttney, R. (1993). Social Accountabilility in Communication. London: Sage Publications.


Clark, C., Drew, P. and Pinch, T. (2003). Managing prospect affiliation and rapport in real-life sales encounters. Discourse Studies, 5 (1), 5–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14614456030050010101


Day, D., and Kjærbæk, S. (2012). Treating student contributions as displays of understanding in group supervision. In G. Rasmussen, C. E. Brouwer and D. Day (Eds), Evaluating Cognitive Competencies in Interaction, 67–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.225.04day


Drew, P., and Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (Eds), Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Drummond, K., and Hopper, R. (1993). Back channels revisited: Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26 (2), 157–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2602_3


Fasulo, A., and Monzoni, C. (2009). Assessing mutable objects: A multimodal analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42 (4), 362–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296481


Goodwin, C. (Ed.). (2003). Conversation and Brain Damage. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.


Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45 (1), 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684


Hutchby, I. and Woofitt, R. (2008). Conversation Analysis (2 edn). Cambridge: Polity Press.


Isaksen, J. (2014). ‘It really makes sense’: The role of outcome evaluation in aphasia therapy in Denmark. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 49 (1), 90–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12049


Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription Notation. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds), Structures of Social Interaction. Studies in Conversation Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.


Koole, T. (2012). Teacher evaluations: Assessing ‘knowing’, ‘understanding’, and ‘doing’. In G. Rasmussen, C. E. Brouwer and D. Day (Eds.), Evaluating Cognitive Competencies in Interaction, 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.225.03koo


Lindström, A. and Mondada, L. (2009). Assessments in Social Interaction: Introduction to the Special Issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42 (4), 299–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296457


Laakso, M., and Klippi, A. N. U. (1999). A closer look at the ‘hint and guess’ sequences in aphasic conversation. Aphasiology, 13(4-5), 345-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026870399402136


Macbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society, 33(05), 703-736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404504045038


Maynard, D. W. (1991). Interaction and Asymmetry in Clinical Discourse. American Journal of Sociology, 97(2), 448-495.


Mondada, L. (2009). The Embodied and Negotiated Production of Assessments in Instructed Actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 329-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296473


Mori, S. and Koschmann, T. (2012). Good reasons for seemingly bad performance: Competences at the blackboard and the accountability of a lesson. In G. Rasmussen, C. E. Brouwer and D. Day (Eds), Evaluating Cognitive Competencies in Interaction, 89–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.225.05mor


Ogden, R. (2006). Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (10), 1752–1775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.011


Pillet-Shore, D. (2003). Doing ‘Okay’: On the Multiple Metrics of an Assessment. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36 (3), 285–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3603_03


Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational Analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


Rasmussen, G. (2012). Triumphing: When ‘mental state’ evaluations become insults. In G. Rasmussen, C. E. Brouwer and D. Day (Eds), Evaluating Cognitive Competences in Interaction, 211–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.225.10ras


Ruusuvuori, J. and Peräkylä, A. (2009). Facial and verbal expressions in assessing stories and topics. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42 (4), 377–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296499


Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.


Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.


Schegloff, E. A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S. and Olsher, D. (2002). Conversation analysis and applied linguistics Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 3–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000016


Simmons-Mackie, N., Threats, T. T. and Kagan, A. (2005). Outcome assessment in aphasia: A survey. Journal of Communication Disorders, 38 (1), 1–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2004.03.007


Simonen, M. (2012). Mutual negotiation of the interviewee’s competence in interview interaction. In G. Rasmussen, C. E. Brouwer and D. Day (Eds), Evaluating Cognitive Competencies in Interaction, 119–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.225.06sim


Steensig, J. and Asmuss, B. (2003). Samtalen på arbejde – konversationsanalyse og kompetenceudvikling: en introduktion. In B. Asmuss and J. Steensig (Eds), Samtalen på arbejde – konversationsanalyse og kompetenceudvikling, 9–31. Frederiksberg C: Samfundslitteratur.


Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38 (2), 131–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1


Undervisningsministeriet (2009). Vejledning til specialundervisning for voksne (VEJ nr. 9396 af 02/07/09). København: Undervisningsministeriet.


Verna, A., Davidson, B. and Rose, T. (2009). Speech-language pathology services for people with aphasia: A survey of current practice in Australia. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11 (3), 191–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549500902726059


Wilkinson, R. (1999). Sequentiality as a problem and resource for intersubjectivity in aphasic conversation: analysis and implications for therapy. Aphasiology, 13 (4–5), 327–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026870399402127


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.





Equinox Publishing Ltd - 415 The Workstation 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield, S1 2BX United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)114 221-0285 - Email: info@equinoxpub.com

Privacy Policy