City Research Online

Feasibility and reliability of the Adapted Kagan Scales for rating conversations for people with acquired brain injury: A multi-phase iterative mixed methods design

Behn, N. ORCID: 0000-0001-9356-9957, Power, E., Prodger, P. , Togher, L., Cruice, M., Marshall, J. & Rietdijk, R. (2024). Feasibility and reliability of the Adapted Kagan Scales for rating conversations for people with acquired brain injury: A multi-phase iterative mixed methods design. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,

Abstract

PURPOSE: Rating the quality of conversations can assess communication skills in both people with acquired brain injury (ABI) and their communication partners. This study explored the clinical feasibility and reliability of two conversation rating scales: The Adapted Measure of Participation in Conversation (MPC) and Adapted Measure of Support in Conversation (MSC)

METHOD: Raters were final-year speech and language therapy students (n = 14) and qualified clinicians (n = 2). Raters attended training on the Adapted MPC and MSC, watched 5 or 10 minutes of videotaped conversations (n = 23) and then scored them on the MPC and MSC scales. Data was collected over four phases which varied according to the length of the training, sample length, number of samples rated and level of clinical expertise. Feasibility data (time taken to score conversations and ease of use) was collected. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intra-class correlations (ICCs: absolute agreement, single measures).

RESULTS: Raters took 30 - 45 minutes to score a 10-minute sample; and 20 - 30 minutes to score a 5-minute sample. Ease of use was rated highly across all phases. Overall reliability for rating 5-minutes of conversation (ICC = 0.52-0.73) was better than for 10-minutes of conversation (ICC = 0.33 - 0.68). Reliability for the MPC was moderate for both students (ICC = 0.69) and clinicians (ICC = 0.55); and for the MSC, moderate for both students (ICC = 0.73) and clinicians (ICC= 0.58). Reliability was better for students compared with clinicians.

CONCLUSION: Rating a 5-minute conversation in under 30 minutes was feasible, with more reliable results for 5-minute compared with 10-minute conversations. Implications for assessing conversation in the future are discussed

Publication Type: Article
Additional Information: Final version to be published here - https://pubs.asha.org/journal/ajslp
Publisher Keywords: Social communication; brain injury; assessment
Subjects: P Language and Literature > P Philology. Linguistics
R Medicine > RC Internal medicine > RC0321 Neuroscience. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry
Departments: School of Health & Psychological Sciences
School of Health & Psychological Sciences > Language & Communication Science
SWORD Depositor:
[thumbnail of Adapted Kagan Scales Manuscript V5_CRO.pdf]
Preview
Text - Accepted Version
Download (588kB) | Preview

Export

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

Actions (login required)

Admin Login Admin Login