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: |
Download (588kB) | Preview
Export
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year