JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.42 636-648 June 1999.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Oelschlaeger, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Thorne, J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Oelschlaeger, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Thorne, J. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Application of the Correct Information Unit Analysis to the Naturally Occurring Conversation of a Person With Aphasia

Mary L. Oelschlaeger 1
John C. Thorne 1
1 University of New Mexico Albuquerque

mary.oelschlaeger{at}nua.edu

The Correct Information Unit (CIU) analysis for measuring the communicative informativeness and efficiency of connected speech (Nicholas & Brookshire, 1993) was applied to the naturally occurring conversation of a person with moderate aphasia. Results indicated that, in this instance, reliable CIU measures could not be obtained. Intrarater reliability for CIU and %CIU was low, reaching only 72%, and interrater reliability was never greater than 63%. However, reliability of word counts was good. Post hoc analysis of rater disagreements in application of the CIU analysis revealed that the majority (72%) resulted from insufficiencies in the scoring rules that were originally designed to measure single speaker connected discourse. Two descriptive categories of disagreements were identified: interpretations of informativeness and absence of rules. The remaining 28% of disagreements were attributable to human error in the application of scoring rules. Comparison of findings with previous research and implications for future research are discussed.

KEY WORDS: aphasia, conversation, measurement, correct unit analysis

Submitted on January 1, 1998
Accepted on August 25, 1998


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1999 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.