Development of a procedure to evaluate the contributions of persons with aphasia and their spouses in an interview situation
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Although there has been increasing interest in the study of conversations between people with aphasia and their partners, the participation of persons with aphasia in conversation with their spouses in the presence of a third party has not been extensively investigated. Nevertheless, opportunities for such situations are frequent, and therefore provide an interesting opportunity to examine how couples collaborate. Aims: (1) To develop a procedure to analyse conversations that would specifically address the contributions of persons with aphasia and their spouses in an interview situation. (2) To describe spousal contributions in an interview situation, including what preceded and followed these contributions, in a group of couples with a member with aphasia. (3) To verify the inter‐judge reliability of the procedure. Methods & Procedures: Videos of three couples with aphasia in an interview situation were analysed. Contributions of the spouse when the participant with aphasia was clearly speaking with the interviewer, contexts in which spouses contributed, reactions of persons with aphasia, and their participation following contributions were described. Definitions were created, operationalised, tested, and refined on 11 other similar couples in the same interactive situation. Eight other couples were then videotaped and studied. Outcomes & Results: Results revealed that half the contributions produced by the spouse were “repairs” and the other half were “speaking for” behaviours. Most often, contributions were unsolicited. Generally, the person with aphasia approved the spouse's contribution and continued afterwards to take an active part in the conversation. Inter‐judge reliability coefficients varied between 89% and 97%. Conclusions: The procedure employed is representative of situations encountered by couples affected by aphasia. The data collection and analysis methods could be applicable to clinical situations. It is important to consider spousal contributions and their impact on the person with aphasia in conversations when helping couples adjust to the consequences of aphasia.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 découle