T HE E LICITATION OF D ESCRIPTIVE AND P ROCEDURAL D ISCOURSE IN E XPRESSIVE A PHASIA KAILEY E. VITALE CSD 490: Spring 2016 | Lynn Drazinski, Research Advisor Augustana College Communication Sciences and Disorders R ESULTS  Procedural discourse elicited higher averages in TTR, WPM, and %CIUs than descriptive discourse  The difference in TTR between conditions was significant  Both macrolinguistic and microlinguistic analyses suggested changes between the conditions D ISCUSSION & I MPLICATIONS  The procedural elicitation technique and combined analysis method of evaluation seem to be ideal for a clinical setting o The results may lead to more informed discussions when selecting a discourse elicitation technique for treatment o The combined analysis approach revealed more clinically relevant information and should be considered when analyzing clinical discourse samples  There may be a trend towards a future of using a procedural elicitation technique D ISCOURSE IN A PHASIA  Deficits in word-finding abilities (LaPointe, 2005)  Differences in number of content units (Craig et al., 1992)  More nouns than verbs (Armstrong, 2000)  Omission of determiners and fewer pronouns (Armstrong, 2000)  Speech is characterized by paraphasias, circumlocutions, filled or unfilled pauses, and repetitions (LaPointe, 2005; Crockford & Lesser, 1994) E LICITATION T ECHNIQUES  Classified as descriptive, narrative, expository, and procedural  Tasks: generate/retell a story, describe a picture, tell a procedure, and maintain a conversation A NALYSIS T ECHNIQUES  Microlinguistic: lexical and grammatical forms  Macrolinguistic: organization, structure, or pattern  Combined: macrolinguistic and microlinguistic R ESEARCH Q UESTIONS 1)Which is the better discourse elicitation technique: descriptive or procedural? 2)What is the most effective way of analyzing discourse? M ETHOD  Analyzed archival data from a male with expressive aphasia  Descriptive discourse was elicited as the participant described picture scenes  Procedural discourse was elicited as the participant gave his interpretation of how to complete a common task  Microlinguistic analyses: WPM & TTR  Macrolinguistic analysis: %CIUs (Nicholas & Brookshire, 1993) Descriptive vs. Procedural Elicitation Clinical Analysis: Improvements in micro & macro structure Reading vs. Verbal Models Clinical Analysis: No difference Descriptive Elicitation Clinical Impression: Noun strings Armstrong, E. (2000). Aphasic discourse analysis: The story so far. Aphasiology, 14, Retrieved March 21, Craig, H. K., Hinckley, J. J., Winkelseth, M., Carry, L., Walley, J., Bardach, L.,... Sheimo, D. (1993). Quantifying connected speech samples of adults with chronic aphasia. Aphasiology, 7, Retrieved March 21, Crockford, C., & Lesser, R. (1994). Assessing functional communication in aphasia: Clinical utility and time demands of three methods. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 29, doi: / LaPointe, L. L. (2005). Aphasia and related neurogenic language disorders (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Thieme. Nicholas, L. E., & Brookshire, R. H. (1993). A system for quantifying the informativeness and efficiency of the connected speech of adults with aphasia. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 36,