The evaluation of a learner‐centred training programme for spouses of adults with chronic aphasia using qualitative case study methodology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it