Objective: Studies have shown the presence of narrative discourse difficulties in persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI), even in those who do not suffer from aphasia. Yet, there still exist inconsistencies between the results of different studies, in particular at the microlinguistic level. Moreover, a limited number of languages have been studied in this regard. Therefore, this study aimed at examining these skills in Persian-speaking individuals with TBI. The purpose of this pilot study was to analyse the microlinguistic and macrolinguistic skills of these individuals to determine impaired linguistic measures at different levels of narrative discourse. Participants and Methods: Fourteen non-aphasic Persian-speaking persons with TBI (9 with severe TBI and 5 with moderate TBI), aged 19-40 years (mean = 25.84, SD = 5.69), and 61 age-matched healthy adults completed a narrative task. Measures of language productivity, clause density, verbal error ratio, and cohesion ratio were calculated. Also, test-retest and inter-rater reliability coefficients were analysed. Results: The TBI group was impaired in some microlinguistic and all macrolinguistic measures compared to their control peers. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that multi-level narrative discourse analyses of Persian-speaking individuals with TBI may be useful for speech/language pathologists wishing to evaluate communication disorders in persons with TBI.

Keywords:
Acquired communication disorders, Discourse analysis, Traumatic brain injury
1.
Lê K, Mozeiko J, Coelho C: Discourse analyses: characterizing cognitive-communication disorders following TBI. ASHA Leader, 2011, vol 16, pp 18-21.
2.
Holland AL: When is aphasia aphasia? The problem of closed head injury; in Brookshire RH (ed): Clinical Aphasiology: Conference Proceedings. Minneapolis, BRK, 1982, pp 345-349.
3.
Kertesz A: Western Aphasia Battery Test Manual. San Antonio, Psychological Corp, 1982.
4.
Huber W, Poeck K, Weniger D, Willmes K: Aachener Aphasie Test (AAT). Göttingen, Hogrefe, 1983.
5.
Davis GA, Coelho CA: Referential cohesion and logical coherence of narration after closed head injury. Brain Lang 2004;89:508-523.
6.
Angeleri R, et al: Communicative impairment in traumatic brain injury: a complete pragmatic assessment. Brain Lang 2008;107:229-245.
7.
Coelho CA: Management of discourse deficits following traumatic brain injury: progress, caveats, and needs. Semin Speech Lang 2007;28:122-135.
8.
Paquier PF: Diagnostic and therapeutic intervention approaches to acquired neurogenic language and communication disorders in adults. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2012;64:163-164.
9.
Marini A, et al: A multi-level approach to the analysis of narrative language in aphasia. Aphasiology 2011;25:1372-1392.
10.
Coelho C, et al: Characterizing discourse deficits following penetrating head injury: a preliminary model. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2013;22:S438-S448.
11.
Hux K, et al: Performing cookie theft picture content analyses to delineate cognitive-communication impairments. J Med Speech Lang Pathol 2008;16:83.
12.
Jorgensen M, Togher L: Narrative after traumatic brain injury: a comparison of monologic and jointly-produced discourse. Brain Injury 2009;23:727-740.
13.
Marini A, et al: Narrative language in traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychologia 2011;49:2904-2910.
14.
Body R, Perkins MR: Validation of linguistic analyses in narrative discourse after traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 2004;18:707-724.
15.
Coelho C, Ylvisaker M, Turkstra LS: Nonstandardized assessment approaches for individuals with traumatic brain injuries. Semin Speech Lang 2005;26:223-241.
16.
Ehrlich JS: Selective characteristics of narrative discourse in head-injured and normal adults. J Commun Disord 1988;21:1-9.
17.
Wilson BM, Proctor A: Written discourse of adolescents with closed head injury. Brain Injury 2002;16:1011-1024.
18.
Coelho CA: Story narratives of adults with closed head injury and non-brain-injured adults: influence of socioeconomic status, elicitation task, and executive functioning. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2002;45:1232-1248.
19.
Marini A, Zettin M, Galetto V: Cognitive correlates of narrative impairment in moderate traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychologia 2014;64C:282-288.
20.
Galetto V, et al: Patterns of impairment of narrative language in mild traumatic brain injury. J Neuroling 2013;26:649-661.
21.
Coelho C, et al: Narrative and conversational discourse of adults with closed head injuries and non-brain-injured adults: a discriminant analysis. Aphasiology 2003;17:499-510.
22.
Lê K, et al: Measuring goodness of story narratives. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011;54:118-126.
23.
Barca L, et al: Modality-specific naming impairment after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Brain Injury 2009;23:920-929.
24.
Carlomagno S, et al: Discourse information content in non-aphasic adults with brain injury: a pilot study. Brain Injury 2011;25:1010-1018.
25.
Bruns J Jr, Hauser WA: The epidemiology of traumatic brain injury: a review. Epilepsia 2003;44(suppl 10):2-10.
26.
Rahimi-Movaghar V, et al: The incidence of traumatic brain injury in Tehran, Iran: a population based study. Am Surg 2011;77:e112-e114.
27.
Nilipour R, Pourshahbaz A, Qoreyshi Z: Bedside Version of Persian-WAB. Tehran, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation, 2014.
28.
Ansari NN, et al: Validation of a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the Persian population: a pilot study. Appl Neuropsychol 2010;17:190-195.
29.
Mackenzie C: Adult spoken discourse: the influences of age and education. Int J Lang Commun Disord 1999;35:269-285.
30.
Stein NL, Glenn CG: An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children: a test of a schema. ERIC, 1975, ED121474.
31.
Hartley LL, Jensen PJ: Three discourse profiles of closed-head-injury speakers: theoretical and clinical implications. Brain Injury 1992;6:271-281.
32.
Loban W: Language development: kindergarten through grade twelve. NCTE Committee on Research Report No 18. Urbana, National Council of Teachers of English Urbana, 1976.
33.
Moran C, Kirk C, Powell E: Spoken persuasive discourse abilities of adolescents with acquired brain injury. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2012;43:264-275.
34.
Fiestas C, et al: Use of mazes in the narrative language samples of bilingual and monolingual 4- to 7-year-old children. ISB4: Proc 4th Int Symp Bilingual, 2005, pp 730-740.
35.
Kachroo B: Textual cohesion and translation. Meta 1984;29:128-134.
36.
Halliday MAK, Hasan R: Cohesion in English. London, Routledge, 1976.
37.
Wright HH, Capilouto GJ, Koutsoftas A: Evaluating measures of global coherence ability in stories in adults. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2013;48:249-256.
38.
Hay E, Moran C: Discourse formulation in children with closed head injury. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2005;14:324-336.
39.
Lu X: Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. Int J Corpus Ling 2010;15:474-496.
40.
Campbell TF, Dollaghan CA: Expressive language recovery in severely brain-injured children and adolescents. J Speech Hear Disord 1990;55:567-581.
41.
Glosser G, Deser T: Patterns of discourse production among neurological patients with fluent language disorders. Brain Lang 1991;40:67-88.
42.
Chapman SB, et al: Narrative discourse after closed head injury in children and adolescents. Brain Lang 1992;43:42-65.
43.
Coelho C, et al: Discourse production following injury to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychologia 2012;50:3564-3572.
44.
Fagan WT: The relationship of the ‘maze' to language planning and production. Res Teach Engl 1982;16:85-95.
45.
Mentis M, Prutting CA: Cohesion in the discourse of normal and head-injured adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1987;30:88-98.
46.
Strauss Hough M, Barrow I: Descriptive discourse abilities of traumatic brain-injured adults. Aphasiology 2003;17:183-191.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.