Development of a procedure to evaluate the contributions of persons with aphasia and their spouses in an interview situation
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: 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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