ArticlePDF Available

“So that's the way it is for me — always being left out.” Acquired Pragmatic Language Impairment and Social Functioning following Traumatic Brain Injury

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Our ability to interact appropriately in everyday interpersonal situations is fundamental to successful social integration. Impaired pragmatic competence correlates significantly and substantially with indices of social function across several domains for adults with acquired neurological disorders. In particular, evidence supports the negative impact of pragmatic impairments on the development and maintenance of relationships and community integration more generally. Pragmatic language competence sits in a complex, multifactorial space characterised by interacting associations with cognitive and psychological functions and social and environmental parameters. This complexity is evident in much of the research seeking to unravel the nature and magnitude of interactions between pragmatic language competence and social outcomes in adults with acquired neurological disorders. Over recent years our understanding of the impact of pragmatic impairments on social outcome has benefited substantially from inclusion of the insider's perspective in our research evidence base. Indeed, a methodological inclusion of constructivist paradigms has enabled the development of a rich understanding of the devastating social impact of impaired pragmatic competence. The aim of this paper is to review pragmatic language impairment in the context of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and detail its impact on social functioning from the perspectives of people with TBI and their intimate partners/spouses and friends. With these perspectives as background, the paper concludes with consideration of therapeutic developments and a brief look at a novel intervention designed to reduce the negative impact of pragmatic deficits and improve functional language use following TBI.
Content may be subject to copyright.
BRAIN IMPAIRMENT VOLUME 18 NUMBER 3DECEMBER pp. 321–331 c
Australasian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment 2017
doi:10.1017/BrImp.2017.20
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
“So that’s the way it is for me —
always being left out.” Acquired
Pragmatic Language Impairment and
Social Functioning following
Traumatic Brain Injury
Jacinta M. Douglas1,2
1Living with Disability Research Centre, School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia
2Summer Foundation, Victoria, Australia
Our ability to interact appropriately in everyday interpersonal situations is funda-
mental to successful social integration. Impaired pragmatic competence corre-
lates significantly and substantially with indices of social function across several
domains for adults with acquired neurological disorders. In particular, evidence
supports the negative impact of pragmatic impairments on the development and
maintenance of relationships and community integration more generally.
Pragmatic language competence sits in a complex, multifactorial space charac-
terised by interacting associations with cognitive and psychological functions and
social and environmental parameters. This complexity is evident in much of the
research seeking to unravel the nature and magnitude of interactions between
pragmatic language competence and social outcomes in adults with acquired
neurological disorders.
Over recent years our understanding of the impact of pragmatic impairments on
social outcome has benefited substantially from inclusion of the insider’s per-
spective in our research evidence base. Indeed, a methodological inclusion of
constructivist paradigms has enabled the development of a rich understanding of
the devastating social impact of impaired pragmatic competence.
The aim of this paper is to review pragmatic language impairment in the context
of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and detail its impact on social functioning from the
perspectives of people with TBI and their intimate partners/spouses and friends.
With these perspectives as background, the paper concludes with consideration
of therapeutic developments and a brief look at a novel intervention designed to
reduce the negative impact of pragmatic deficits and improve functional language
use following TBI.
Keywords: brain injury, pragmatic impairment, social function, relationship, couples, friends
Introduction
Pragmatic language competence sits in a com-
plex, multi-factorial space characterised by inter-
acting associations with cognitive and psycholog-
Address for correspondence: Prof. Jacinta Douglas, Living with Disability Research Centre, School of Allied Health,
La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3086, Australia. E-mail: J.Douglas@latrobe.edu.au
ical functions and social and environmental pa-
rameters. Pragmatic skills have been variously
described as ‘the skills underlying competence
in contextually determined, functional language
321
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2017.20
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 179.61.181.168, on 19 Oct 2019 at 02:06:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
JACINTA M. DOUGLAS
use’ (Turkstra, McDonald, & Kaufmann, 1995),
‘the emergent consequence of interactions between
linguistic, cognitive and sensorimotor processes
which take place both within and between in-
dividuals’ (Perkins, 2005) and ‘the wide range
of codified but subtle ways in which language
use has evolved in a given culture’ (Snow &
Douglas, 2017). Given its multifaceted nature, it
follows that the study of pragmatic competence
is inherently multidisciplinary (Cummings, 2005)
covering scholarly endeavours across philosophy,
linguistics, speech language pathology, cognitive
science and psychology.
The multifactorial structure of pragmatic lan-
guage competence is illustrated in Figure 1:‘Acup
of competence’ (Snow & Douglas, 2017). This fig-
ure depicts the various constituent functions of
pragmatic competence (executive, language and
social cognition functions) conceptualised in the
context of individual psychological characteristics
as well as social–environmental influences. As a
result of this complexity, there are many levels at
which skills can be compromised giving rise to
substantial challenges for the reliable and valid as-
sessment of pragmatic impairment (for review see
Cummings, 2017; Douglas & Togher, 2017).
Pragmatic deficits are encountered in a range
of neurological conditions including those asso-
ciated with focal damage (e.g., unilateral stroke,
both right and left hemisphere); those associated
with more diffuse damage (e.g., traumatic brain
injury (TBI); as well as degenerative disorders
(e.g., Alzheimer’s disease, variant forms of pri-
mary progressive aphasia) (for review see Douglas
& Togher, 2017; Snow & Douglas, 2017). Each of
these acquired neurological disorders affects a sub-
stantial proportion of the adult population. In Aus-
tralia alone our prevalence rate of 2.2% (Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare, 2007) means that
one in 45 Australians are living with brain injury
related disability and almost three quarters of these
people are less than 65 years of age.
Lack of social integration and poor quality
of social relationships are common and endur-
ing experiences for many people who acquire
neurological disorders during adulthood (Barry &
Douglas, 2000; Clare et al., 2012; Galski, Tomp-
kins, & Johnston, 1998; Lefebvre, Cloutier, &
Levert, 2008; Pound, Gompertz, & Ebrahim,
1998). Further, increasing evidence demonstrates
that disorders likely to be associated with nega-
tive social outcomes are those that involve changes
in the functional use of language (Douglas, 2015;
Hilari et al., 2010). Over recent years our under-
standing of the impact of these acquired prag-
matic impairments on social outcome has bene-
fited substantially from inclusion of the insider’s
perspective in our research evidence base. Indeed,
a methodological shift to constructivist paradigms
has enabled the development of a rich understand-
ing of the devastating personal experience of im-
paired pragmatic competence and its impact on
social living.
The aim of this paper is to review pragmatic
language impairment in the context of evidence in
the field of TBI, describe its impact on social inte-
gration particularly within relationships from the
individual perspectives of those with TBI and their
intimate partners/spouses and friends. The paper
concludes with consideration of therapeutic devel-
opments and a brief look at a novel intervention
designed to reduce the negative impact of prag-
matic deficits and improve functional language use
following TBI.
Understanding the Personal
Experience: Theory, Practice and
Research
Many scholars have emphasised the personal sig-
nificance of the interplay between the individual
and society. Notable among these theorists are
those working in the tradition of symbolic inter-
actionism, considered to be one of the most endur-
ing social theories of the 20th century (Benzies &
Allen, 2001;Oliver,2012; Plummer, 2000). Sym-
bolic interactionism views the individual and the
context in which the individual exists as insepara-
ble and mutually constructed in the course of social
interactions. George Herbert Mead’s (1863–1931)
theory of the emergence of mind and self out of
the social process of communication is generally
considered the foundation of symbolic interaction-
ism. Mead described the individual as ‘taking the
attitudes of other individuals toward himself (sic)
within a social environment or context of experi-
ence and behaviour in which both he and they are
involved’ (1934, p. 203). Thus, from Mead’s view,
it is the individual’s perception or interpretation of
his/her own social world that influences the self.
Herbert Blumer (1900–1987), Mead’s student,
progressed the tradition of symbolic interactionism
during the mid 20th century stating:
The term “symbolic interactionism” refers of
course to the peculiar and distinctive character of
interaction as it takes place between human beings.
The peculiarity consists in the fact that human be-
ings interpret or “define” each other’s actions in-
stead of merely reacting to each other’s actions.
Their “response” is not made directly to the actions
of one another but instead is based on the meaning
which they attach to such actions. Thus, human in-
teraction is mediated by the use of symbols, by in-
terpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one
322
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2017.20
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 179.61.181.168, on 19 Oct 2019 at 02:06:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
ACQUIRED PRAGMATIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT
FIGURE 1
‘A cup of competence’: Constituent functions of pragmatic language competence and psychological and social
influences. From Research in Clinical Pragmatics Volume 11 of the series Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy &
Psychology, Chapter 23, Psychosocial Aspects of Pragmatic Disorder, 2017, pp 617–649, Snow & Douglas. With
permission of Springer Nature.
another’s actions. This mediation is equivalent to
inserting a process of interpretation between stim-
ulus and response in the case of human behavior.”
(Blumer, 1962, p. 180).
Blumer (1962,1969) went on to outline impor-
tant tenets underpinning this theoretical stance. He
described individuals as acting toward people and
things based upon the meanings they have given to
323
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2017.20
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 179.61.181.168, on 19 Oct 2019 at 02:06:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
JACINTA M. DOUGLAS
FIGURE 2
Rehabilitation and research implications of symbolic interactionism.
those people or things. Thus, meaning arises in the
process of interaction between people; it is a social
process taking place in the context of relationships.
In turn, people are assumed to have the capac-
ity to negotiate meaning through symbols giving
rise to an interpretive process that is ever chang-
ing. In other words, he described human behaviour
as emergent and continually constructed. Within
this framework then, it can be seen that pragmatic
competence, involving the use and interpretation
of codified signs, makes a direct contribution to
meaning as constructed within the interaction.
The theoretical tenets of symbolic interaction-
ism have some important implications for prac-
tice within therapeutic or rehabilitation and re-
search domains (Douglas, Drummond, Knox, &
Mealings, 2015)(Figure 2). In rehabilitation, ap-
preciating the client’s experience requires the clin-
ician to understand the meaning of the situation
from the perspective of the injured individual and
those with whom the individual relates. In a sym-
bolic interactionist framework, understanding can-
not be fully developed based on what is typically
captured through test administration; it requires
shared interactions with the injured individual and
close others and direct consideration of the role/s
valued by that individual. In short, viewing the
world as much as possible from the client’s per-
spective. Similarly in the domain of research, sym-
bolic interactionism demands the use of construc-
tivist interpretivist approaches with a focus on ex-
ploring the lived experience of the person with
injury and those with whom they interact.
Exploring Pragmatic Deficits in the
Context of TBI
Globally TBI will surpass many diseases as the ma-
jor cause of disability by 2020 (Hyder, 2007). As
many as 70% of these people will report difficulties
with communication including motor speech im-
pairment (Wang, Kent, Duffy, & Thomas, 2005),
word finding problems (Bittner & Crowe, 2006;
Olver, Ponsford, & Curran, 1996), comprehension
difficulties (Olver et al., 1996) and pragmatic im-
pairment (Channon & Watts, 2003; McDonald,
1993; Snow, Douglas, & Ponsford, 1997,1998;
Turkstra et al., 1995). Further, longitudinal stud-
ies demonstrate that these communication deficits,
particularly in the domain of pragmatics, persist
into the long term and result in substantial ongo-
ing demands on therapy resources (Snow et al.,
1998). In fact data from one of our early studies
showed that problems in conversation continued
to be evident in 96% of speakers with moderate–
severe TBI who were followed up over 2-years, de-
spite having had considerable therapy (Snow et al.,
1998).
While incidence and prevalence statistics illus-
trate the scope of the problem, personal descrip-
tion powerfully evokes the experience of prag-
matic impairment faced by people with TBI ev-
eryday as they go about negotiating life in so-
cial settings. Tab le 1 presents a summary of quotes
from research participants outlining the pragmatic
communication behaviours that they perceive as
challenging (Bracy & Douglas, 2005; Douglas,
324
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2017.20
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 179.61.181.168, on 19 Oct 2019 at 02:06:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
ACQUIRED PRAGMATIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT
TABLE 1
The Personal Experience of Pragmatic Deficits
Personal Experiences#Pragmatic Problems
What the hell do I say? I don’t know, so I don’t speak
Generating topics
I do have problems starting up a conversation . . . specially when it comes
to women
Initiating conversation
I don ’ t say the right thing - I say ridiculous things
Inappropriate comments
I go on and on about things, I don’t know when enough’s enough
Ver bosit y
I can’t seem to pick up even their facial expressions or their voice to know
when to say something or even if I should say something
Reading non-verbal cues
I don ’ t seem to show people I ’ m interested in what they ’ re saying
Using non-verbal cues
You’ve got to be trying to think about two things, that you’re actually doing
the actual communication stuff, but then at the same time remember the
stuff you’re saying
Simultaneous pragmatic and
cognitive demands
#Note: Participant quotes from (Bracy & Douglas, 2005;Douglas,2010;Douglas,2015; Mackey et al., 2007; Shorland &
Douglas, 2010).
2010; Douglas, 2015; Mackey, Sloan, Starritt, &
Douglas, 2007; Shorland & Douglas, 2010). These
quotes show that people with TBI are well aware
of the functional communication challenges they
grapple with on a daily basis ranging from knowing
what to say, when and how to say it, and keeping
track of the interaction. Given the enormous chal-
lenges so effectively captured by these statements,
it is unsurprising that many people with TBI expe-
rience social interaction as an anxiety provoking
activity: ‘I get so anxious . . . there’s so much hap-
pening, I never knew’ (Michael) (Douglas, 2015,
p. 207).
The consequences of impaired communication
skills following TBI are also well illustrated across
several studies that have directly investigated the
association between functional use of language
and community integration (Dahlberg et al., 2006;
Galskietal.,1998;Snowetal.,1998; Struchen
et al., 2008; Struchen, Pappadis, Sander, Burrows,
& Myszka, 2011). Although these studies show
variable findings with respect to the magnitude
of the association, they generally yield modest to
strong statistically significant correlations account-
ing for as much as 18.5% of variance in community
integration scores.
Snow et al. (1998) reported that clinician-rated
discourse errors correlated significantly with (r=
0.36, p=.04) and accounted for 13% of the
variance in social integration scores as measured
by the Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting
Technique (CHART; Whiteneck, Charlifue, Ger-
hart, Overholser, & Richardson, 1992) in a group
of 26 adults with severe TBI followed up 2 years af-
ter injury. In that same year, Galski et al. (1998)re-
ported similar findings between clinician-rated dis-
course parameters and the CHART (rranging from
.06 to .41) in a group of 30 participants with mod-
erate to severe injuries. More recently, Dahlberg
et al. (2006) showed that self-rated but not close
other-rated social communication ability was sig-
nificantly associated with social integration in a
group of 60 participants with moderate to severe
brain injury sustained 1–21 years previously. Cor-
relation coefficients between self-rated social com-
munication abilities and both the CHART and the
Communication Integration Questionnaire (CIQ;
Willer, Ottenbacher, & Coad, 1994) ranged from
0.28 to 0.43. In 2011, Struchen et al. reported
the findings of their evaluation of the contribu-
tion of self-rated social communication skills (La
Trobe Communication Questionnaire (LCQ) self-
report; Douglas, Bracy, & Snow, 2007; Douglas,
O’Flaherty, & Snow, 2000)topredictionofso-
cial integration outcomes (CIQ) using hierarchi-
cal multiple regression on data from 184 adults
with TBI at least 6 months after discharge from
acute care. After accounting for demographic and
injury-related characteristics, social communica-
tion and affective/behavioural variables accounted
for a statistically significant amount of variance in
social integration functioning. Social communica-
tion measures accounted for 11.3% of the over-
all explained variance in social integration and the
LCQ total score made a statistically significant and
unique contribution to the prediction of CIQ scores.
Significant association between communica-
tion and social participation can be expected given
that communication is the means by which we ne-
gotiate daily activities and relationships. Indeed,
interpersonal communication skills contribute to
vocational outcome in their own right, separable
from the contribution made by executive cogni-
tive function (Struchen et al., 2008). In addition,
while executive control processes influence social
communication competence, they do not explain
325
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2017.20
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 179.61.181.168, on 19 Oct 2019 at 02:06:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
JACINTA M. DOUGLAS
pragmatic deficits and research shows that execu-
tive function measures leave a substantial propor-
tion of variance (almost two thirds) in pragmatic
impairment unexplained (Douglas, 2010).
The Experience of Pragmatic Deficits
Within Relationships
Friendships
Friendship is characterised by mutual help and sup-
port. Willmott (1987) defined a friend as someone
you can trust, someone whose company you enjoy,
and someone with whom you can discuss things
freely. Friends typically have similar attitudes, be-
liefs and interests (Nussbaum, 1994). They also
demonstrate similar values concerning communi-
cation (Burleson, Samter, & Lucchetti, 1992). In
particular, Burleson et al. (1992) found that pairs of
friends rated the ability to ‘comfort’ as a communi-
cation skill important to maintaining their friend-
ships. Thus, it can be anticipated that negative
changes in a person’s communication behaviours,
especially those that convey mutuality and sensitiv-
ity, will have a negative impact on existing friend-
ships. Further, if a person’s communication be-
haviours reflect socially inappropriate behaviour,
that person’s ability to develop new friendships is
likely to be reduced (Snow & Douglas, 2017).
The negative impact of changed pragmatic
competence on friendship after TBI has been high-
lighted by the findings of several qualitative studies
(Karlovits & McColl, 1999; Paterson & Stewart,
2002; Shorland & Douglas, 2010)). People with
TBI identified social interaction as one of nine
sources of stress in Karlovits and McColl’s (1999)
study. They described feeling that they no longer
had ownership over what and howthey contributed
to conversations:
At times I tend to monopolize the conversation.
I’m trying to keep an eye on that. I’d be roughly
corrected in the past and I realize it doesn’t win too
many friends (Karlovits & McColl, p. 852).
Paterson and Stewart (2002) analysed focus
group data from 11 participants deriving themes re-
lating to how participants viewed their interactions
and relationships. Participants linked lost friend-
ships with their changed communication: ‘When
you go somewhere, aye, they look at you, ‘oh he’s
alright.’ And as soon as you speak, it all flips over
one side’ (Paterson & Stewart, 2002, p.16). They
identified strain on their day-to-day interactions
particularly due to lost or reduced ability to be
tactful: ‘You just say straight away what you want,
there is no tactfulness involved’ (Paterson & Stew-
art, 2002, p.16).
In 2010, we (Shorland & Douglas, 2010) high-
lighted similar difficulties in the experiences of two
young adults, Rachel and Dave, following severe
TBI. Three key themes emerged from analysis of
the in-depth interview data: evolution of friend-
ships following TBI; perceptions of communica-
tion; and opening up to others. The participants’
perception of their ability to communicate con-
tained many examples of their experiences of im-
paired pragmatic competence. Rachel commented
on difficulties with interpreting turn-taking cues,
leading to her tendency to interrupt:
Sometimes I have trouble if someone’s speaking
and I’m not quite sure when they’ve finished, like
if they have a pause for a moment and then I want
to go and say something but they actually haven’t
finished saying something so I butt in (Shorland &
Douglas, 2010; p. 574).
Rachel also remarked on problems with man-
aging discourse structure and difficulties modify-
ing prosody to convey emotional tone:
Sometimes I start with saying something then I
go back to the beginning of what I should be ac-
tually saying to make, make more sense in my
mind but I’m sort of speaking that out loud; I sup-
pose I try and correct it [disjointed discourse] as
best as possible. But yeah it happens sort of as
I’m, as I’m speaking because my brain doesn’t
sort of do it beforehand like un-brain injured peo-
ple’s brains.’. . . ‘She [friend] could tell by what I
was saying that I was sincere, but not by the tone
of my voice. (Shorland & Douglas, 2010; p. 574).
Both Rachel and Dave highlighted difficul-
ties with managing their contributions to conver-
sations:
I had trouble with continuing a conversation. You
say ‘hi how are you’ and then where do you go
from there? (Rachel). (Shorland & Douglas, 2010;
p. 574).
. . . .sometimes I sort of run out of things to say
and then, then sort of the other person doesn’t,
bring anything new into the conversation, you sort
of get stuck (Dave). (Shorland & Douglas, 2010;
p. 574).
Approaching someone, initiating, is a little like
strange, or unfamiliar to me and bringing conver-
sations to a close I don’t always know how to, how
to end a conversation or how to leave a conversa-
tion in a, in a correct manner . . . (Dave). (Shorland
& Douglas, 2010; p. 574).
Although Rachel acknowledged that her com-
munication might affect her friendships: ‘So the
way I speak to people and communicate with
them I suppose would affect the friendships that
I have and am trying to make’ (Shorland & Dou-
glas, 2010; p. 574), she was surprised when her
326
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2017.20
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 179.61.181.168, on 19 Oct 2019 at 02:06:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
ACQUIRED PRAGMATIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT
friends discussed changes in her communication
that could impact the quality of their relationships:
‘I think it’s the same but [my friends] were telling
me things that they noticed that my communication
is different . . . When they were telling me these
problems, it made me feel a bit disheartened, a bit
miserable.’ (Shorland & Douglas, 2010; p. 574).
Dave described the impact of his communication
difficulties on relationships by reference to his lack
of confidence: ‘Confidence is a big issue, when it,
when it goes to walking up and talking to someone’
(Shorland & Douglas, 2010; p. 574). His response
is consistent with evidence that people with TBI
take a passive role in conversation (Bogart, Togher,
Power, & Docking, 2012). Dave described himself
in this manner but also noted that his passivity var-
ied according to particular communication partners
and settings. Finally, both Rachel’s and Dave’s ex-
periences supported the importance of addressing
the communication difficulties of this population
using context-specific approaches that include so-
cial activities with friends and peers.
Intimate Relationships
Acquired communication impairments impact on
relationships in general, and most significantly,
on intimate spousal/partner relationships. Sustain-
ing emotional intimacy in partner relationships re-
lies on dialogue, transparency, vulnerability, and
reciprocity (Perlman, 2008). Indeed, relational
problems in couples have been conceptualised
as a function of deficiencies in communication
skills, resulting in dyadic distress and dissatisfac-
tion (Rogge & Bradbury, 1999). As two-way con-
versations are the currency for sustaining intimacy
in healthy partner relationships (Duck, 1988), neg-
ative changes in pragmatic ability are likely to
threaten the spousal bond. Evidence to support this
contention can be found in the literature examining
the experience of couples following TBI (Bracy &
Douglas, 2005; Gill, Sander, Robins, Mazzei, &
Struchen, 2011; Godwin, Chappell, & Kreutzer,
2014; O’Flaherty & Douglas, 1997).
Individuals with TBI frequently struggle
within intimate relationships as a result of commu-
nication challenges, information processing dif-
ficulties, and frequent emotional and sexual inti-
macy issues (Godwin et al., 2014). Similarly, their
partners also experience communication difficul-
ties as barriers to intimacy. Gill and colleagues
(2011) interviewed 18 couples at a mean length
of 4.78 years post-injury. Most participants iden-
tified good communication as critical to maintain-
ing their intimate relationship and negotiating the
injury related changes they encountered. Partners
noted that communication seemed to take place
on a different level after TBI, with conversations
lacking intellectual and emotional depth: ‘I think
an intimate moment is when you pour your heart
out. And we can’t do that anymore’ (Gill et al.,
2011, p. 62). Some also reported that their injured
partner tended to avoid discussing issues that af-
fected the relationship. Bracy and Douglas (2005)
also noted topic avoidance in their study of cou-
ples following TBI. However, avoidance tended to
be used as a coping strategy by partners to steer
clear of topics that were likely to trigger negative,
difficult or angry interactions.
Using a model of interpersonal communica-
tion, O’Flaherty and Douglas (1997) explored the
subjective experience of living with the conse-
quences of TBI. The married participants in the
study described fundamental changes to the dy-
namics of their relationship as a couple. Partici-
pants reported a substantial decline in social and
leisure activities, with married dyads reporting a
progressive tendency for the uninjured spouse to
socialise alone. Participants identified increased
tension in situations in which wider family and/or
friends were together as one of the reasons for
this outcome. Further, the injured partner’s un-
predictable and inappropriate communication was
seen as the source of this tension for spouses,
while injured partners reported feeling unable to
‘keep up’ in fast-moving and busy social situations,
and therefore consciously chose to avoid them:
‘ . . . as I said I just don’t go [to social activ-
ities at his wife’s workplace] because I’m more
of a hindrance or make it harder for her to enjoy
herself’ (O’Flaherty & Douglas, 1997, p. 900).
Spouses also identified insensitive or violent
outbursts, and difficulties with implicature and
social banter as particularly challenging in their
relationships:
. . . it’s still very hard when someone’s screaming
and shouting at you (O’Flaherty & Douglas, 1997,
p. 901).
. . . you know, if there’s a trick in it. And she just
won’t get it. Won’t get it; Some of the problem with
friends...partofthefriendshipwasalwaysbanter.
Banter that you used to . . . and you [directed at
injured partner] can’t keep up with that now . . .
You know jokes and asides (O’Flaherty & Douglas,
1997, p. 903).
Evidence not only in the TBI literature but
also in the stroke (Bakas, Kroenke, Plue, Perkins,
& Williams, 2006; Grawburg, Howe, Worrall, &
Scarinci, 2013) and dementia (Eloniemi-Sulkava
et al., 2002; Pozzebon, Douglas, & Ames,
2016) literature shows that intimate relationships
are vulnerable to pragmatic impairments that
result in even subtle changes in interpersonal
327
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2017.20
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 179.61.181.168, on 19 Oct 2019 at 02:06:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
JACINTA M. DOUGLAS
communication. Further, these changes can
progressively erode the fabric of a couple’s rela-
tionship and pose a direct threat to the cohesion
of that relationship. Consequently, it is important
that we focus therapeutic attention on pragmatic
competence, particularly in the context of intimate
partnerships.
Communication Rehabilitation
Following TBI
Despite the overwhelming negative impact of com-
munication disability after TBI, high quality evi-
dence to inform clinical management of this prob-
lem continues to be relatively scarce. To date only
five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of com-
munication rehabilitation for adults with TBI have
been published. In 2014, the international recom-
mendations for management of cognition follow-
ing TBI (INCOG guideline) (Bayley et al., 2014)
included seven recommendations regarding best
practice for the assessment and management of
communication disorders following TBI (Togher
et al., 2014). Only three are based on evidence from
at least one randomised trial with a relevant con-
trol group. Evidence currently available supports
the effectiveness of context-sensitive interventions
embedded in the person’s everyday life, communi-
cation partner training, and metacognitive strategy
training (Togher et al., 2014).
We have recently developed and completed
preliminary evaluation of a new approach to in-
tervention for communication disability (Douglas,
Knox, De Maio, & Bridge, 2014; Douglas et al.,
in press). This approach focuses on coping in the
context of communication breakdown which as
we have seen is a frequent and stress provoking
experience for people with TBI (Bracy & Dou-
glas, 2005; Douglas & Spellacy, 2000). Typically,
people use communication-specific coping strate-
gies in situations characterised by communica-
tion breakdown (Douglas et al., 2014). Produc-
tive coping strategies enhance message transfer, re-
duce stress and improve participation. In contrast,
non-productive strategies do little to resolve prob-
lems, frequently exacerbate stress and promote so-
cial isolation. In a series of studies, our research
has shown that people with TBI exhibit a pattern
of communication-specific coping that deviates
markedly from the norm (Friedman & Douglas,
2005; Mitchell & Douglas, 2011; Muir & Douglas,
2007). We found TBI participants used signifi-
cantly more non-productive coping strategies (e.g.,
Get angry and shout; Stop talking to the person)
and significantly fewer productive strategies (Find
out what the person is having trouble with; Use ex-
amples) than control participants matched for age,
sex and education. We also found that the ability to
cope with communication breakdown was signif-
icantly associated with improved social outcome
(r=.51, p<.05) (Friedman & Douglas, 2005).
These findings support the functional importance
of communication-specific coping. Indeed, our
findings show that communication-specific cop-
ing accounts for more variance in social outcome
(25%, Friedman & Douglas, 2005) than commu-
nication impairment (Snow et al., 1998).
Given our results, we reasoned that an in-
tervention developed to increase productive and
reduce non-productive communication-specific
coping strategies would have a substantial and
measurable positive impact on functional commu-
nication, stress, and emotional wellbeing for those
with communication problems. Consequently, we
developed a new treatment, Communication-
specific Coping Intervention (CommCope-I). We
have now completed proof of concept testing us-
ing single case experimental design (SCED) with
replication (Douglas et al., 2014) and a small fea-
sibility trial (n=13) (Douglas et al., in press), both
of which have shown clinically and statistically
significant results supporting the effectiveness of
the approach. Indeed participants in both stud-
ies showed substantial improvement on measures
of communication-specific coping, psychological
distress and functional use of communication with
improved scores maintained 1 and 3 months later.
The CommCope-I program represents an in-
novative approach to functional communication
problems. It is systematically underpinned by treat-
ment principles with supporting evidence from
multiple disciplines and areas of practice includ-
ing cognitive behavioural therapy, self-awareness
training, context-sensitive communication therapy
with everyday communication partners, and self-
management. It focuses on increasing positive be-
haviours rather than attempting to extinguish nega-
tive behaviours and as captured by Amanda, one of
the participants, it produces results that make a dif-
ference to everyday functional language use: ‘now
I see what strategies I’ve done, and I like watch-
ing it. I feel like, ‘That’s me and I did it.’ I didn’t
like going into shops, I didn’t like talking on the
phone . . . but I think, I definitely know there’s
improvements, seeing myself at the start and
finishing’.
Concluding Comments
People who display poor pragmatic language com-
petence typically have difficulty engaging in so-
cial situations, leading to uncomfortable interac-
tions with others. Such interactions contribute to
328
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2017.20
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 179.61.181.168, on 19 Oct 2019 at 02:06:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
ACQUIRED PRAGMATIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT
rejection by others and poor community integra-
tion, which can in turn contribute to negative
self-concept, depressed mood, loneliness, and
withdrawal from efforts to engage in community
activities. In turn, withdrawal from community ac-
tivities further reduces opportunities for social en-
counters contributing to a vicious circle of con-
tinuing and increasing social isolation, loneliness
and depression. Ongoing research and treatment
development efforts with a focus on improving
pragmatic competence and reducing the negative
effects of pragmatic impairment continue to be es-
sential to maximise long term social gains for the
large number of people with pragmatic deficits ac-
quired as a result of brain injury.
Acknowledgements
Much of the work referred to in this presiden-
tial address reflects collaboration with a num-
ber of researchers and clinicians who I would
like to thank for their much valued contributions:
Sandy Barry, Christine (O’Flaherty) Bracy, He-
len Bridge, Carren (Mitchell) De Maio, Melanie
Drummond, Abby Friedman, Amy (Muir) Ford,
Lucy Knox, Jan Mackey, Margaret Mealings, Katie
Pennycuick, Margaret Pozzebon, Joanna Shorland,
Pamela Snow, Leanne Togher and Jo Whiteoak. I
would also like to extend my thanks to those who
have so generously participated in our research and
provided such important input.
References
AIHW (2007). Disability prevalence and trends. Disabil-
ity series, AIHW. Bulletin 55, Dec.
Bakas, T., Kroenke, K., Plue, L.D., Perkins, S.M., &
Williams, L.S. (2006). Outcomes among family care-
givers of aphasic versus nonaphasic stroke survivors.
Rehabilitation Nursing, 31, 33–42.
Barry, S., & Douglas, J. (2000). The social integration of
individuals with aphasia. Advances in Speech Lan-
guage Pathology, 2, 77–91.
Bayley, M., Tate, R., Douglas, J., Turkstra, L., Ponsford,
J., Stergiou-Kita, M., . . . On behalf of the INCOG
Expert Panel (2014). INCOG guidelines for cogni-
tive rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury:
Methods and overview. Journal of Head Trauma Re-
habilitation, 29, 290–306.
Benzies, K., & Allen, M. (2001). Symbolic interaction-
ism as a theoretical perspective for multiple method
research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33, 541–547.
Bittner, R., & Crowe, S.F. (2006) The relationship be-
tween working memory, processing speed and ver-
bal comprehension and FAS performance following
traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury,21(7), 971–980.
Blumer, H. (1962). Society as symbolic interaction. In
A. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social pro-
cesses: An interactionist approach (pp. 179–192).
Boston, MA: Mifflin.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective
and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Bogart, E., Togher, L., Power, E., & Docking, K. (2012).
Casual conversations between individuals with trau-
matic brain injury and their friends. Brain Injury, 26,
221–233.
Bracy,C., & Douglas, J. (2005). Marital dyad perceptions
of injured partners’ communication following se-
vere traumatic brain injury. Brain Impairment, 6,1
12.
Burleson, B., Samter, W., & Lucchetti, A. (1992).
Similarity in communication values as a predictor
of friendship choices: Studies of friends and best
friends. The Southern Communication Journal,57,
260–276.
Channon, S., & Watts, M. (2003). Pragmatic language
interpretation after closed head injury: Relationship
to executivefunctioning. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry,
8, 243–260.
Clare, L., Nellis, S.M., Whitaker, C.J., Martyr, A.,
Markova,I.S.,Roth,I.,...Morris,R.G.(2012).
Marital relationship quality in early-stage dementia:
Perspectives from people with dementia and their
spouses. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disor-
ders,26, 148–158.
Cummings, L. (2005). Pragmatics: A multidisciplinary
perspective, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Cummings, L. (Ed.) (2017). Research in clinical prag-
matics. In Series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Phi-
losophy & Psychology (vol. 11), Cham, Switzerland:
Springer-Verlag.
Dahlberg,C.,Hawley,L.,Morey,C.,Newman,J.,Cusick,
C.P., & Harrison-Felix, C. (2006). Social commu-
nication skills in persons with post-acute traumatic
brain injury: Three perspectives. Brain Injury, 20,
425–435.
Douglas, J. (2010). Relation of executive functioning to
pragmatic outcome following severe traumatic brain
injury. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 53, 365–382.
Douglas, J. (2015). Placing therapy in the context of the
self and social connection. International Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 199–210.
Douglas, J., & Spellacy, F.J. (2000). Correlates of depres-
sion in adults with severe traumatic brain injury and
their carers. Brain Injury, 14, 71–88.
Douglas, J., & Togher, L. (2017). Managing acquired
social communication disorders. In B. Wilson,
C. van Heugten, J. Winegardner, & T. Ownsworth
(Eds.), Neuropsychological rehabilitation: The
international handbook. London: Psychology
Press.
Douglas, J., Bracy, C., & Snow, P. (2007). Measuring per-
ceived communicative ability after traumatic brain
injury: Reliability and validity of the La Trobe com-
munication questionnaire. Journal of Head Trauma
Rehabilitation,22, 31–38.
329
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2017.20
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 179.61.181.168, on 19 Oct 2019 at 02:06:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
JACINTA M. DOUGLAS
Douglas, J., Drummond, M., Knox, L., & Mealings,
M. (2015). Rethinking social-relational perspectives
in rehabilitation: Traumatic brain injury as a case
study (chapter 8). In K. McPherson, B.E. Gibson, &
A. Leplege (Eds.), Rethinking rehabilitation theory
(pp. 137–162). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Douglas, J., Knox, L., De Maio, C., & Bridge, H.
(2014). Improving communication-specific coping
after traumatic brain injury: Evaluation of a new
treatment using single case experimental design.
Brain Impairment, 15, 190–201.
Douglas, J., Knox, L., De Maio, C., Bridge, H.,
Drummond, M., & Whiteoak, J. (in press). Effec-
tiveness of communication-specific coping interven-
tion for adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI): Pre-
liminary results. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2016.1259114
Douglas, J., O’Flaherty, C., & Snow, P. (2000). Measur-
ing perception of communicative ability: The devel-
opment and evaluation of the La Trobe Communica-
tion Questionnaire. Aphasiology, 14, 251–268.
Duck, S. (1988). Relating to others. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Eloniemi-Sulkava, U., Notkola, I.L., Hamalainen, K.,
Rahkonen,T.,Viramo,P.,Hentinen,M.,...Sulkava,
R. (2002). Spouse caregiver perceptions of influence
of dementia on marriage. International Psychogeri-
atrics,14, 47–58.
Friedman, A., & Douglas, J. (2005). Social participation
and coping with communication breakdown follow-
ing severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, Sup-
plement,6, 50–51.
Galski, T., Tompkins, C., & Johnston, M. (1998). Compe-
tence in discourse as a measure of social integration
and quality of life in persons with traumatic brain
injury. Brain Injury, 12, 769–782.
Gill, C., Sander, A., Robins, N., Mazzei, D., & Struchen,
M. (2011). Exploring experiences of intimacy from
the viewpoint of individuals with traumatic brain
injury and their partners. Journal of Head Trauma
Rehabilitation,26, 56–68.
Godwin, E., Chappell, B., & Kreutzer, J. (2014) Relation-
ships after TBI: A grounded research study. Brain
Injury, 28, 398–413.
Grawburg, M., Howe, T., Worrall, L., & Scarinci, N.
(2013). Third-party disability in family members of
people with aphasia: A systematic review. Disability
and Rehabilitation, 35, 1324–1341.
Hilari, K., Northcott, S., Roy, P., Marshall, J.,
Wiggins, R.D., Chataway, J., & Ames, D. (2010).
Psychological distress after stroke and aphasia:
The first six months. Clinical Rehabilitation, 24,
181–190.
Hyder, A. (2007). The impact of traumatic brain injuries:
A global perspective. NeuroRehabilitation,22, 341–
353.
Karlovits, T.,& McColl, M. (1999). Coping with commu-
nity reintegration after severe brain injury: A descrip-
tion of stresses and coping strategies. Brain Injury,
13, 845–861.
Lefebvre, H., Cloutier, G., & Levert, J. (2008). Perspec-
tives of survivors of traumatic brain injury and their
caregivers on long-term social integration. Brain In-
jury,22, 535–543.
Mackey, J., Sloan, S., Starritt, N., & Douglas, J. (2007).
Improving social outcomes following brain injury
through development of confident communication
skills. Brain Impairment, 8, 207–208.
McDonald, S. (1993). Pragmatic language skills after
closed head injury: Ability to meet the informational
needs of the listener. Brain and Language, 44, 28–
46.
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self and society: From the
standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Mitchell, C., & Douglas, J. (2011). Coping with commu-
nication breakdown: A comparison between adults
with severe TBI and healthy controls. Brain Impair-
ment, 12, Supplement,41.
Muir, A., & Douglas, J. (2007). Coping with communi-
cation breakdown after severe traumatic brain injury.
Brain Impairment, 8, 83.
Nussbaum, J. (1994). Friendship in older adulthood.
In M.L. Hummert, J.M. Wiemann, & J.F. Nuss-
baum (Eds.), Interpersonal communication in older
adulthood: Interdisciplinary theory and research
(pp. 209–225). California: Sage Publications, Inc.
O’Flaherty, C., & Douglas, J. (1997). Living with
cognitive-communicative difficulties following trau-
matic brain injury: Using a model of interpersonal
communication to characterise the subjective expe-
rience. Aphasiology, 11, 889–911.
Oliver, C. (2012). The relationship between symbolic
interactionism and interpretive description. Qualita-
tive Health Research, 22, 409–415.
Olver, J.H., Ponsford, J.L., & Curran, C.A. (1996). Out-
come following traumatic brain injury: A compari-
son between two and five years after injury. Brain
Injury,10, 841–848.
Paterson, J., & Stewart, J. (2002). Adults with acquired
brain injury: Perceptions of their social world. Re-
habilitation Nursing, 27, 13–18.
Perkins, M. (2005). Pragmatic ability and disability as
emergent phenomena. Clinical Linguistics and Pho-
netics, 19, 367–377.
Perlman, D. (2008). Intimate relationships.NewYork:
McGraw-Hill.
Plummer, K. (2000). Symbolic interactionism in the
twentieth century. In B. Turner (Ed.), The Blackwell
companion to social theory (pp. 193–222). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Pound, P., Gompertz, P., & Ebrahim, S. (1998). A patient-
centred study of the consequences of stroke. Clinical
Rehabilitation, 12, 338–347.
Pozzebon, M., Douglas, J., & Ames, D. (2016). Spouses’
experience of living with a partner diagnosed with
a dementia: A synthesis of the qualitative re-
search. International Psychogeriatrics, 537–556.
doi:10.1017/S1041610215002239.
330
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2017.20
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 179.61.181.168, on 19 Oct 2019 at 02:06:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
ACQUIRED PRAGMATIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT
Rogge, R., & Bradbury, T. (1999). Till violence does
us part: The differing roles of communication and
aggression in predicting marital outcomes. Journal
of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 67, 340–351.
Shorland, J., & Douglas, J. (2010). Understanding the
role of communication in maintaining and forming
friendships following traumatic brain injury. Brain
Injury, 24, 569–580.
Snow, P., & Douglas, J. (2017). Psychosocial aspects
of pragmatic disorders. In L. Cummings (Ed.), Re-
search in clinical pragmatics, series: Perspectives
in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology (vol. 11,
pp. 617–649). Cham, Switzerland: Springer-Verlag.
Snow, P., Douglas, J., & Ponsford, J. (1997). Conversa-
tional assessment following traumatic brain injury:
A comparison across two control groups. Brain In-
jury, 11, 409–430.
Snow, P., Douglas, J., & Ponsford, J. (1998). Conversa-
tional discourse abilities following severe traumatic
brain injury: A longitudinal follow-up. Brain Injury,
11, 911–935.
Struchen, M., Clark, A., Sander, A., Mills, M., Evans,
G., & Kurtz, D. (2008). Relation of executive func-
tioning and social communication measures to func-
tional outcomes following TBI. Neurorehabilitation,
23, 185–198.
Struchen, M., Pappadis, M., Sander, A., Burrows,
C., & Myszka, K. (2011). Examining the con-
tribution of social communication abilities and
affective/behavioral functioning to social integration
outcomes for adults with traumatic brain injury.Jour-
nal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation,26, 30–42.
Togher, L., Wiseman-Hakes, C., Douglas, J., Stergiou-
Kita, M., Ponsford, J., Teasell, R., . . . Turkstra On
behalf of the INCOG Expert Panel (2014). INCOG
Recommendations for management of cognition
following TBI Part IV: Cognitive communication.
Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 29, 353–
368.
Turkstra, L., McDonald, S., & Kaufmann, P. (1995). As-
sessment of pragmatic communication skills in ado-
lescents after traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury,
10, 319–345.
Wang, Y., Kent, R., Duffy, J., & Thomas, J. (2005).
Dysarthria in traumatic brain injury: A breath group
and intonational analysis. Folia Phoniatrica et Lo-
gopaedica, 57, 59–89.
Whiteneck, G., Charlifue, S., Gerhart, K., Overholser, J.,
& Richardson, G. (1992). Quantifying handicap: A
new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
73, 519–526.
Willer,B., Ottenbacher, K., & Coad, M. (1994). The com-
munity integration questionnaire: A comparative ex-
amination. American Journal of Physical Medicine
and Rehabilitation,73, 103–111.
Willmott, P. (1987). Friendship networks and social sup-
port. London: Policy Studies Institute.
331
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2017.20
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 179.61.181.168, on 19 Oct 2019 at 02:06:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
... Communication is also central to the maintenance of relationships. Past studies have reported reduced acceptance and social participation when communication is affected by brain injury (Douglas, 2017). Consistent with these findings, participants reported feeling embarrassed, frustrated, afraid of judgement, grieving the loss of pre-injury selves, and worrying that they would not improve. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Concussion and communication researchers have yet to study how post-concussion communication changes affect youths’ daily lives. The lack of attention paid to how young people respond to communication changes during concussion recovery constitutes a significant gap in current concussion management research and practices. Aims: To explore how youth respond to the effects of post-concussion communication changes in their daily life, including (1) daily routines, (2) relationships with family members, (3) relationships with peers and (4) participation in school/work and community activities. Methods & Procedures: Five youths (16–25 years) and three family members participated in this arts-based reflexive collective case study. Ecocultural theory provided the theoretical framework for study design, data collection and analysis. Cases consist of (1) pre-interview demographic information, (2) three 60–90-min virtual interviews, (3) optional family member interviews, (4) multi-media arts-based participant-generated materials representing participants’ experiences of communication change and concussion, and (5) researcher observations, discussions and reflexive journal entries. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Outcomes & Results: Analysis yielded four themes that illustrate the ways youth navigated and adapted to post-concussion communication changes: (1) navigating changes in communication tasks, daily roles, and identity; (2) re-negotiating relationships and emotional reactions; (3) seeking control and learning to let go during recovery; and (4) helping youth adapt to post-concussion communication changes. Conclusions & Implications: The study findings deepen our understanding of the impact of post-concussion communication changes on youths' daily lives and underscore considerations critical to the development of communication-focused concussion education programs and interventions tailored specifically for youth.
... Cognitive-communication disorders following acquired brain injury (ABI) [1,2] can substantially disrupt a person's ability to communicate and form and maintain relationships with others [3] across their life trajectory [4]. Disruptions in high-level cognitive-linguistic function [1] lead to conversation difficulties in the domains of topic generation, conversation initiation, inappropriate comments, verbosity, reading and using nonverbal cues, and the complexity of managing simultaneous cognitive and communication demands [5]. Such difficulties can have a considerable impact following injury on family functioning and psychological well-being for several years following the injury [6]. ...
Preprint
BACKGROUND People with acquired brain injury (ABI) experience communication breakdown in everyday interactions many years after injury, negatively impacting social and vocational relationships. Communication partner training (CPT) is a recommended intervention approach in communication rehabilitation after ABI. Access to long-term services is essential, both in rural and remote locations. Digital health has potential to overcome the challenges of travel and improve cost efficiencies, processes, and clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE We aimed to collaboratively develop a novel, multimodal web-based CPT intervention (convers-ABI-lity) with key stakeholders and evaluate its feasibility for improving conversation skills after brain injury. METHODS This mixed methods study consisted of 3 key stages guided by the Integrate, Design, Assess, and Share (IDEAS) framework for developing effective digital health interventions. Stage 1 included the integration of current end-user needs and perspectives with key treatment and theoretical components of existing evidence-based interventions, TBI Express and TBIconneCT. Stage 2 included the iterative design of convers-ABI-lity with feedback from end-user interviews (n=22) analyzed using content analysis. Participants were individuals with ABI, family members, health professionals, and paid support workers. Stage 3 included the evaluation of the feasibility through a proof-of-concept study (n=3). A total of 3 dyads (a person with ABI and their communication partner [CP]) completed 7 weeks of convers-ABI-lity, guided by a clinician. The outcome measures included blinded ratings of conversation samples and self-report measures. We analyzed postintervention participant interviews using content analysis to inform further intervention refinement and development. RESULTS Collaborative and iterative design and development during stages 1 and 2 resulted in the development of convers-ABI-lity. Results in stage 3 indicated positive changes in the blinded ratings of conversation samples for the participants with traumatic brain injury and their CPs. Statistically reliable positive changes were also observed in the self-report measures of social communication skills and quality of life. Intervention participants endorsed aspects of convers-ABI-lity, such as its complementary nature, self-guided web-based modules, clinician sessions, engaging content, and novel features. They reported the intervention to be relevant to their personal experience with cognitive-communication disorders. CONCLUSIONS This study presents the outcome of using the IDEAS framework to guide the development of a web-based multimodal CPT intervention with input from key stakeholders. The results indicate promising outcomes for improving the conversation skills of people with ABI and their CPs. Further evaluation of intervention effectiveness and efficacy using a larger sample size is required.
... Cognitive-communication disorders following acquired brain injury (ABI) [1,2] can substantially disrupt a person's ability to communicate and form and maintain relationships with others [3] across their life trajectory [4]. Disruptions in high-level cognitive-linguistic function [1] lead to conversation difficulties in the domains of topic generation, conversation initiation, inappropriate comments, verbosity, reading and using nonverbal cues, and the complexity of managing simultaneous cognitive and communication demands [5]. Such difficulties can have a considerable impact following injury on family functioning and psychological well-being for several years following the injury [6]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background People with acquired brain injury (ABI) experience communication breakdown in everyday interactions many years after injury, negatively impacting social and vocational relationships. Communication partner training (CPT) is a recommended intervention approach in communication rehabilitation after ABI. Access to long-term services is essential, both in rural and remote locations. Digital health has potential to overcome the challenges of travel and improve cost efficiencies, processes, and clinical outcomes. Objective We aimed to collaboratively develop a novel, multimodal web-based CPT intervention (convers-ABI-lity) with key stakeholders and evaluate its feasibility for improving conversation skills after brain injury. Methods This mixed methods study consisted of 3 key stages guided by the Integrate, Design, Assess, and Share (IDEAS) framework for developing effective digital health interventions. Stage 1 included the integration of current end-user needs and perspectives with key treatment and theoretical components of existing evidence-based interventions, TBI Express and TBIconneCT. Stage 2 included the iterative design of convers-ABI-lity with feedback from end-user interviews (n=22) analyzed using content analysis. Participants were individuals with ABI, family members, health professionals, and paid support workers. Stage 3 included the evaluation of the feasibility through a proof-of-concept study (n=3). A total of 3 dyads (a person with ABI and their communication partner [CP]) completed 7 weeks of convers-ABI-lity, guided by a clinician. The outcome measures included blinded ratings of conversation samples and self-report measures. We analyzed postintervention participant interviews using content analysis to inform further intervention refinement and development. ResultsCollaborative and iterative design and development during stages 1 and 2 resulted in the development of convers-ABI-lity. Results in stage 3 indicated positive changes in the blinded ratings of conversation samples for the participants with traumatic brain injury and their CPs. Statistically reliable positive changes were also observed in the self-report measures of social communication skills and quality of life. Intervention participants endorsed aspects of convers-ABI-lity, such as its complementary nature, self-guided web-based modules, clinician sessions, engaging content, and novel features. They reported the intervention to be relevant to their personal experience with cognitive-communication disorders. Conclusions This study presents the outcome of using the IDEAS framework to guide the development of a web-based multimodal CPT intervention with input from key stakeholders. The results indicate promising outcomes for improving the conversation skills of people with ABI and their CPs. Further evaluation of intervention effectiveness and efficacy using a larger sample size is required.
... include, but are not limited to, PLI as a symptom of Parkinson's disease caused by cognitive dysfunctionMontemurro et al., 2019cMontemurro et al., , 2019a, PLI as a symptom of systemic lupus erythematosus patients(Ceccarelli et al., 2019), a symptom of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)(Green et al., 2014;Inoko et al., 2012;Islam, 2017), a symptom of traumatic brain injury (TBI)(Douglas, 2017), Noonan syndrome (Selås & Helland, 2016), behavioural problems (Wenche Andersen Helland et al., 2014), congenital visual Impairment (Pijnacker et al., 2012), Williams syndrome (Asada et al., 2010), and a symptom of autism in terms of social communication and moral judgment (Garcia-Molina et al., 2020) with reference the theory of mind (ToM; see Garcia-Molina et al., 2019). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Over the last four decades, extensive research has been carried out on Pragmatic Language Development (PLD) from linguistic, psychological, social, cognitive, clinical, and even neurological perspectives. Consequently, these investigations have generated many studies on the conceptualisation of PLD and the diagnosis of Pragmatic Language Impairment (PLI). Due to the complexity of the field, there is a potential for confusion for researchers, clinicians, and society, hindering the appropriate assessment of PLD and, more significantly, PLI diagnosis. In the present literature review, we argue that these competing accounts result from different backgrounds that must be made explicit and brought into dialogue to overcome the existing confusion and disparity within the scientific community. First, we present the importance of exploring PLD and PLI. We then examine PLD and PLI and synthesize recent research on PLD and the available tools used to assess PLD and PLI with specific reference to preschool-age children. We close by discussing future directions for research on PLD (assessment) and PLI (diagnosis).
... Disorders related to the recognition and expression of both emotion and empathy are associated with difficulties in social interaction (Wauters & Marquardt, 2019), resulting in serious consequences for psychosocial functioning and intact intimate relationships (Douglas, 2017;de Sousa et al., 2011). ...
Article
Full-text available
Communication disorders following traumatic brain injury have been attributed to social-cognitive dysfunctions. However, this relationship is not always clearly demonstrated in empirical research. This systematic review seeks to clarify the relationship by considering different subcomponents of social cognition and communication. The results show that, for the social-cognitive subcomponents of emotion recognition and empathy, evidence is available mainly for a relationship to global communication abilities. However, we did find a systematic relationship between Theory of Mind and individual aspects of pragmatics (i. e., the processing of irony/sarcasm, insincerity, indirect speech acts). To strengthen the evidence for the role of social-cognitive subcomponents concerning communication, future research could implement a core outcome set based on the present findings.
... Common characteristics of discourse impairments following TBI include deficient global coherence, reduced efficiency of conveying information, impoverished or inaccurate content, disorganization of ideas, and decreased initiation and maintenance of topic in conversation (Coelho, 2007;Coelho et al., 2005;Hough & Barrow, 2003;Stout et al., 2000). Impaired social communication following TBI is often reflected in poor turn-taking, verbosity or paucity of speech, problems with topic initiation and management, reduced tactfulness and management of nonverbal cues, difficulty understanding and conveying emotional tone, and difficulty with theory of mind (ToM; Coelho, 1995;Douglas, 2017;McDonald, 2013;Snow et al., 1997). ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose This study reviewed the current state of discourse and social communication interventions in traumatic brain injury (TBI) to provide clinically focused guidance about treatment efficacy, treatment approaches by TBI severity, treatment components, and treatment outcome measures. Method Searches were conducted in five electronic databases and reference lists of topical articles for discourse or social communication interventions in TBI published between 2012 and 2021. Search terms reflected three concepts: TBI, treatment, and cognitive-communication. Studies were evaluated for methodological quality using rating scales specific to study design. Results Seven hundred sixty-seven records were identified, culminating in 21 studies for qualitative synthesis. All approaches resulted in improvement posttreatment, but durability and strength of evidence varied. Five treatment components were identified as “essential” for fostering change. Discourse approaches were generally more effective in mild-to-moderate TBI, whereas social communication approaches were more effective in moderate-to-severe TBI. Communication outcome measures were generally more sensitive to change than measures of other domains of functioning. Conclusions The evidence suggests that discourse and social communication treatments are promising for improving communication in TBI. Selection of treatment components and tailoring treatment to the individual are important clinical considerations. Use of at least two proximal outcome measures that evaluate the target behavior and extent of functional generalization may be advantageous. The field would benefit from additional, more rigorous treatment studies to provide a greater understanding of how best to treat cognitive-communicative impairments in people with TBI. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19233516
Article
Purpose: To explore the rehabilitation goals and evaluate goal attainment outcomes of people with severe acquired brain injury (ABI), and investigate the relationship between goal engagement and goal attainment. Materials and methods: Mixed-methods cohort study with twenty-nine adults with severe ABI in Australia. Demographic data, goal statements and pre-post program Goal Attainment Scale scores as well as Goal Engagement Scale scores were collected. Goals were coded using inductive content analysis and categorised by ICF component and domain. Goal attainment within ICF categories was described and compared using descriptive statistics. Pre-post program change in goal attainment was evaluated using Wilcoxon signed rank tests and correlations between goal engagement and attainment was explored using Spearman's (rho). Results: 94% of 320 goals were categorised as ICF Activity and Participation. There was significant improvement in goal attainment between admission and discharge (z=-0.47, p < 0.01). There was no significant relationship between goal engagement and goal attainment however there was a positive association between engagement in goal setting at admission and discharge.Conclusions: This interdisciplinary, inpatient rehabilitation program underpinned by key-worker facilitated person-centred, role-based goal setting resulted in goal attainment in chosen goals, which were primarily activity and participation-focused.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose People who have an acquired brain injury (ABI) experience challenges using social media. Inversely, rehabilitation clinicians report feeling inadequately prepared to support them in its use. We aimed to develop a collaboratively designed, evidence-based online training resource to support people with an ABI to learn about using social media. Key recommendations for course design have previously been identified through a mixed methods approach, including (a) qualitative exploration of the experiences of people who use social media after ABI, (b) a scoping review to identify key features and effective teaching approaches from existing social media skills training programs. Method Further design recommendations were obtained in this mixed methods study through (c) collaborative design of course content and features with 23 people, including people with living experience of ABI and other key stakeholders, and (d) a pilot trial of the course prototype with four participants who had an ABI (two men, two women; aged 28–69 years). Results Training needs to be interactive, including practical components addressing online safety and wellbeing, and to explain how to use social media platforms to connect with others. The first social-ABI-lity prototype incorporated these findings. Pilot data indicated that the prototype was beneficial, with participants demonstrating small increases in social media confidence and knowledge. Areas for further refinement were also identified. Conclusion The social-ABI-lity self-directed online course is the first of its kind to support people with an ABI in using social media and will be a valuable resource for rehabilitation clinicians internationally. This resource may drive sustainable changes in participation by helping people with ABI to build their social media mastery and to participate in supportive online networks.
Chapter
Severe Traumatic Brain Injury (sTBI) requires an inter-professional and long lasting neuro-rehabilitative process, but even more importantly a constant support by at least one informal caregiver (“caregiver” from now on). Indeed, the brain damage involves not only the individual who suffered the brain injury, but also the whole family system. Of note, while they have an active role in the rehabilitation process as an extension of the health care system, caregivers have to face their own burden and concern. This implies the need of a dual intervention on caregivers, aimed both at sustaining them according to a classical psychotherapeutic approach and educating them on how interacting at best with their care recipients, in order to facilitate the whole neuro-rehabilitation process. The present chapter aims at describing the “psycho-educational” support to caregivers, integrating psychotherapeutic and educational interventions, reflecting a holistic and competence-based approach, which stresses health, collaboration, coping, and empowerment.
Article
Full-text available
People with traumatic brain injury (TBI) describe everyday interactions as a long-term challenge frequently associated with ongoing stress. Communication-specific Coping Intervention (CommCope-I) is a new treatment developed to target coping in the context of communication breakdown. The intervention incorporates principles of cognitive behavioural therapy, self-coaching and context-sensitive social communication therapy. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of CommCope-I in a group of adults with severe TBI and ongoing functional communication difficulties. Participants were 13 adults with severe TBI (GCS = 3–8; mean age = 35.2 years; mean time post-injury = 7.6 years). The project involved three phases: (1) Control/pre-intervention wait phase (multiple assessments), (2) Treatment (6 weeks), and (3) Follow-up (12 weeks). Repeated measures ANOVA with planned pairwise comparisons were used to test the significance of change. Intervention elicited statistically significant improvements in communication-specific coping, functional communication and stress that were maintained for three months. Improved use of communication-specific coping strategies was evident in clinician blind ratings. Clients reported significant reduction in stress at the end of treatment and one and three months later. This intervention provides a promising means of improving communication-specific coping and reducing communication dysfunction and its negative consequences for people with TBI.
Book
This is the first volume to present individual chapters on the full range of developmental and acquired pragmatic disorders in children and adults. In chapters that are accessible to students and researchers as well as clinicians, this volume introduces the reader to the different types of pragmatic disorders found in clinical populations as diverse as autism spectrum disorder, traumatic brain injury and right hemisphere language disorder. The volume also moves beyond these well-established populations to include conditions such as congenital visual impairment and non-Alzheimer dementias, in which there are also pragmatic impairments. Through the use of conversational and linguistic data, the reader can see how pragmatic disorders impact on the communication skills of the clients who have them. The assessment and treatment of pragmatic disorders are examined, and chapters also address recent developments in the neuroanatomical and cognitive bases of these disorders.
Chapter
This chapter considers the everyday psychological and social costs attached to having pragmatic language difficulties. We briefly review key terminology concerning pragmatic language functions, before summarizing features of pragmatic language difficulties that occur in both the developmental period (e.g. associated with language impairment, autism spectrum disorder, hearing impairment, traumatic brain injury, intellectual disability) and in adulthood (e.g. in fronto-temporal dementia, aphasia, and Alzheimer’s disease). We present a schematic model as a means of conceptualizing the elements of pragmatic language competence and its inverse, pragmatic language difficulties, within the broader psycho-social context. We argue that psychological factors such as coping style and self-efficacy for communication need to be considered alongside social factors (such as cultural mores and everyday communication contexts) if the true impact of pragmatic language difficulties is to be both documented and adequately addressed when interventions for affected individuals are designed, implemented, and evaluated.
Article
Background: The majority of people diagnosed with a dementia live at home with the support of their spouse. While this situation has advantages, it brings many challenges for the spouse, particularly dealing with the emotional impact of the behavioral changes associated with the dementia. A growing body of qualitative research has focused on understanding the spousal caregiver perspective of living with a partner diagnosed with dementia. The aim of this study was to complete a synthesis of the results of published qualitative studies that have explored the spousal experience. Method: An electronic database search of Ovid Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsychINFO from January 1980 to September 2014 was conducted. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Verbatim quotes of the participant interview data derived from these studies were collated and a thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Synthesis of the published data revealed five major themes. The theme of "loss of partner" was central, and around this central experience spouses described various processes: acknowledging change, being in crisis, adapting and adjusting, accepting and moving forward. Conclusions: These findings provide insights into the day-to-day adjustments and experiences of spousal caregivers whilst highlighting the importance of considering the impact of cognitive decline and dementia in a social-relational context.
Book
The first truly multidisciplinary text of its kind, this book offers an original analysis of the current state of linguistic pragmatics. Cummings argues that no study of pragmatics can reasonably neglect the historical and contemporary influences on this discipline of neighboring fields of inquiry, particularly philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence, and language pathology. By the same token, these fields can begin to address their own questions more productively by examining the insights of pragmatics. The book's range of topics and depth of analysis will be of interest to advanced undergraduate and more specialized readers in linguistics, communication studies, speech and language therapy, and cognitive science. Topics discussed include: *coverage of pragmatic concepts and theories; *criticisms of Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory, Habermas's theory of communicative competence, and Kasher's views on the modularity of pragmatics; *pragmatic deficits in a range of child and adult language disorders; and *a pragmatic analysis of argumentation in topical issues such as AIDS and BSE theories of meaning, inferences, pragmatics and AI.
Article
Although it is generally accepted that social support plays a role in the maintenance of psychological well-being, there has been relatively little direct investigation of the role that social support may play in affecting post-injury depressive symptoms and mediating the effects of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Consequently, social support was selected as the framework within which to investigate possible indicators of depression in adults with severe TBI and their carers. The authors were interested in the degree of association between social support and the criterion variable of depression in the context of demographic and disability-related variables that have been identified as significant correlates of depression. Thirty-five adults with severe TBI (PTA > 7 days) and their primary carers participated in the study. Time post-injury ranged from 3.5-10 years and all the participants were living in the community. Fifty-seven per cent of the adults with TBI and 60% of their carers were classified as s...