Literature DB >> 31398300

The Voicemail Elicitation Task: Functional Workplace Language Assessment for Persons With Traumatic Brain Injury.

Peter Meulenbroek1, Leora R Cherney2,3.   

Abstract

Purpose Politeness markers (PMs) are words that enhance cooperativity in dialogue and are an essential component of professional/work communication. Persons with moderate/severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) underuse PMs in connected speech and have employment stability issues. The voicemail elicitation task (VET) is a standardized computerized language sampling procedure measuring PM rate in role-play tasks. Our purpose is to provide preliminary data establishing the potential of a screening assessment tool for professional/work communication. Method We measured VET performance using spoken PMs per minute (PMpM). We present data from 63 persons. Forty-three participants with TBI (22-65 years old, ≥ 1-year postinjury) worked in midlevel jobs before their injury and attempted work return after injury at the same job level. Twenty participants with TBI did not maintain work > 1 year (unstably employed), and 23 did maintain work for ≥ 1 year (stably employed). Twenty controls without history of neurological impairment working at the same job level also completed the VET protocol. We analyzed the data using between-group comparison with 1-way analysis of variance and post hoc analysis. We used receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to calculate sensitivity and specificity, as well as an optimal cutoff value for a screening measure. Results Group differences, F(2, 60) = 19.59, p = .0001, η2 = .376, were identified between unstably employed persons with TBI performing with lower PMpM scores than the stably employed TBI group and the control group. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis indicated a cutoff score of 11.55 PMpM. There was acceptable specificity (0.700, 95% CI [0.499, 0.901]) and sensitivity (0.696, 95% CI [0.508, 0.883]) for a screening tool indicating further assessment of social communication. Conclusion The VET holds promise as a clinical screening tool to identify persons at risk for social communication-related job instability after TBI and the need for a more comprehensive social communication assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31398300      PMCID: PMC6808339          DOI: 10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0466

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  29 in total

1.  Factors predicting return to work following mild traumatic brain injury: a discriminant analysis.

Authors:  A I Drake; N Gray; S Yoder; M Pramuka; M Llewellyn
Journal:  J Head Trauma Rehabil       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.710

2.  Communication abilities and work re-entry following traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  E Isaki; L Turkstra
Journal:  Brain Inj       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 3.  Towards developing a guideline for vocational evaluation following traumatic brain injury: the qualitative synthesis of clients' perspectives.

Authors:  Mary Stergiou-Kita; Susan Rappolt; Deirdre Dawson
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.033

4.  Incremental validity of neuropsychological evaluations to computed tomography in predicting long-term outcomes after traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Michael W Williams; Lisa J Rapport; Robin A Hanks; Scott R Millis; Hillary A Greene
Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 3.535

5.  Return to Work and Social Communication Ability Following Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

Authors:  Jacinta M Douglas; Christine A Bracy; Pamela C Snow
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Characterizing common workplace communication skills for disorders associated with traumatic brain injury: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Peter Meulenbroek; Barbara Bowers; Lyn S Turkstra
Journal:  J Vocat Rehabil       Date:  2016

7.  Return to work within the first seven years of severe head injury.

Authors:  N Brooks; W McKinlay; C Symington; A Beattie; L Campsie
Journal:  Brain Inj       Date:  1987 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Traumatic brain injury: factors predicting return to work or school.

Authors:  R Y Ip; J Dornan; C Schentag
Journal:  Brain Inj       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 9.  Prognostic factors of return to work after acquired brain injury: a systematic review.

Authors:  J M van Velzen; C A M van Bennekom; M J A Edelaar; J K Sluiter; M H W Frings-Dresen
Journal:  Brain Inj       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  Employment Probability Trajectories Up To 10 Years After Moderate-To-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

Authors:  Emilie I Howe; Nada Andelic; Paul B Perrin; Cecilie Røe; Solrun Sigurdardottir; Juan Carlos Arango-Lasprilla; Juan Lu; Marianne Løvstad; Marit Vindal Forslund
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 4.003

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.