Perkins1999
| Perkins1999 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Perkins1999 |
| Author(s) | Lisa Perkins, Jenni Crisp, David Walshaw |
| Title | Exploring conversation analysis as an assessment tool for aphasia: The issue of reliability |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Aphasia, Conversation Analysis, Reliability, Research Methods |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1999 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Aphasiology |
| Volume | 13 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 259-281 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1080/026870399402091 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper describes an investigation of the temporal reliability of analyses of collaborative repair in aphasic conversation. Whilst it has been proposed that conversation analysis has a useful contribution to make to the assessment of aphasia, assessment methods which use natural interaction as a basis for analysis have been assumed to lack reliability because of variability in conversation in contrast to the standardization across assessments possible with formal assessments. This issue was addressed through comparison of quantitative and qualitative analyses of collaborative repair in dyadic conversations recorded on four different occasions between eight people with aphasia and their relatives. Quantitative results revealed significant within-participant variation in the quantity of collaborative repair occurring in the conversations but between-participant variation was of much greater magnitude. The findings of the qualitative analysis indicated reliability in the interactional challenges experienced as a consequence of aphasia, with consistency in the nature of trouble sources giving rise to collaborative repair work across the participants four conversations. The findings also indicated reliability in the interactional mechanisms employed to deal with trouble sources, with consistency across the participants four conversations in the resolution of collaborative repair. The implications of the findingsfor the use of conversation analysis as an assessment tool to motivate intervention and to measure change over time are discussed.
Notes
