4.0 Article

Using the La Trobe Communication Questionnaire to Measure Perceived Social Communication Ability in Adolescents With Traumatic Brain Injury

期刊

BRAIN IMPAIRMENT
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 171-182

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1375/brim.11.2.171

关键词

social communication; adolescents; brain injury; assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The La Trobe Communication Questionnaire (LCQ) was developed to measure perceived social communication ability from various sources including the self-perceptions of individuals as well as those of others with whom they converse regularly (e. g., family members, friends and clinicians). It has been psychometrically evaluated with healthy young adults and adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and found to have acceptable reliability and validity. The present study was conducted to gauge the ability of the LCQ to distinguish between a group of adolescents who had sustained TBI and a control group of neurologically normal adolescents matched on the variables of socio-economic status (SES), age, gender and level of education completed. Method: Participants were 19 TBI dyads (TBI adolescents and close relatives) and 19 control dyads. All TBI adolescents had sustained severe injury (mean posttraumatic amnesia duration 33.76 days, SD 18.13) due to moving vehicle-related trauma. Mean age at the time of injury was 16.33 years (SD 1.67) and at the time of assessment 17.11 years (SD 1.90). The LCQ was administered to all participants at home. Results: Perceptions of TBI adolescents and their relatives were significantly different from those of control dyads and consistent with a higher frequency of social communication difficulties in the TBI group. Difficulties reflected reduced conversational fluency and problems with managing the multiple demands of social discourse. Conclusions: The LCQ is a clinical tool that has sound potential to contribute to the multifaceted assessment of social communication in adolescents with TBI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据