The evaluation of a learner‐centred training programme for spouses of adults with chronic aphasia using qualitative case study methodology
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Family education, training, and counselling programmes have been cited as one way to complement traditional interventions for the individual with aphasia. However, the literature still represents the speech‐language pathologist as the expert in a directive role. Aims: This article describes the second phase of a research study aimed at addressing the psychosocial sequelae of aphasia by developing and studying the effects of a learner‐centred training programme for spouses of adults with chronic aphasia designed to improve conversational interaction between couples. The first phase of this research included the development of a communication‐training programme that integrated principles and strategies from speech‐language pathology and adult education (Sorin‐Peters, 2002). The second phase described in this paper included the delivery and evaluation of the programme using a qualitative case study methodology. The use of the qualitative case study methodology to study the psychosocial consequences of aphasia is described in a companion paper (Sorin‐Peters, 2004). This paper presents the results of one qualitative case study in detail to demonstrate how the qualitative case study methodology was implemented, and a summary of the cross‐case analysis for the five couples, examining the effectiveness of the programme. Methods & Procedures: Using videotaped data, the Couple Questionnaire, and a semi‐structured interview, this study examined changes in attitudes and communication behaviours in five couples immediately after conversation partner training and at 2 months follow‐up. All data were transcribed and analysed for patterns of change. Outcomes & Results: Communication outcomes included changes in conversational interaction as well as in the transaction of information in conversation for all five couples. These included positive changes in the management of conversational repair. There was more balanced control after training and the cognitive competence of the partners with aphasia was revealed following the training. In addition, different conversational genres emerged throughout the programme that could be organised hierarchically. Results indicated ways in which the adult learning principles were actualised across the five cases. Themes emerged related to the expression of emotion about aphasia, including feelings of anger, sadness, and grief, and increased acceptance of the aphasia after the training. Themes related to marital issues emerged and were intertwined with emotions and communication. Conclusions: The adult learning model approach promoted positive and comprehensive changes, and perhaps more than those achieved via existing medical‐model or psychosocial approaches. The adult learning approach to individuals with chronic aphasia extends the existing psychosocial model by acknowledging both the spouse's and person with aphasia's competence as adult learners, by viewing the person with aphasia not only as part of a social unit, including the family, but also as part of a broader system, including multiple environmental and cultural factors that interact interdependently to effect change, and by focusing on the importance of communication for the expression of emotions and the maintenance and development of marital relations. The results suggest the benefits of the expansion of the speech‐language pathologist's role with couples with aphasia to include an adult learning approach to improving conversational interaction between people with aphasia and their spouses.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,038 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».