Methodological Issues in Interviews Involving People With Communication Impairments After Acquired Brain Damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative research has made a significant contribution to the body of knowledge related to how people experience living with various chronic diseases and disabilities; however, the voices of certain vulnerable populations, particularly those with impairments that affect their ability to communicate, are commonly absent. In recent years, a few researchers have attempted to explore the most effective ways to ensure that the voices of people with communication impairments from acquired brain damages can be captured in qualitative research interviews; yet several methodological issues related to including this population in qualitative research remained unexamined. In this article, the authors draw on insights derived from their research on the experiences of adult survivors of stroke and traumatic brain injury to describe methodological issues related to sampling, informed consent, and fatigue in participant and researcher while also making some recommendations for conducting qualitative interviews with these populations.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.323 | 0.317 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".