-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
README.Rmd
128 lines (88 loc) · 7.97 KB
/
README.Rmd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
---
output:
github_document
---
## Welcome to the Main Concept Analysis Web-app
Main Concept Analysis (MCA) is a discourse assessment originally developed by Nicholas and Brookshire (1995) that measures the informativeness of a discourse sample on a given topic. This web-app is intended to facilitate efficient and accurate scoring of main concepts for both research and clinical practice. The app is written in the [{shiny}](https://shiny.rstudio.com/) framework. The app is currently in Beta, and is not yet ready for research or clinical deployment.
It can be accessed here: https://aphasia-apps.shinyapps.io/mainConcept
Please note, the app ***does not save any data*** from each user session.
Please provide feedback!
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf6Ml8j4_NtSuiUy35D8Ue1O14PWIJ8vcV1RI8U-pXfp84mpg/viewform?embedded=true
## Installation
This web-app is also an R package! You can install the app locally with:
``` r
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("aphasia-apps/mainconcept")
```
## Using
If installed, the app can be run locally by calling:
``` r
library(mainConcept)
mainconcept::run_app()
```
## Feedback
At this stage, we would appreciate feedback on the app - whether related to bugs/issues with the app or requested features. Please provide feedback or report bugs using the issues tab in the github repository.
## Repository organization
The app was made using the {golem} package. The folders are organized as follows:
- /R: Holds R scripts for the app
- app_ui.R and app_server.R hold the main code for the app.
- The remaining files hold functions called in app_ui.R and app_server.R
- /inst: Holds resources for the app made available at app/www/...
- /man: Holds documentation for functions. fairly minimal.
- /dev: Holds developer functions
- The list of dependencies can be found in the DESCRIPTION file.
- License can be found in the LICENSE.md file
- app.R is used to upload the app to shinyapps.io
## About Main Concept Analysis
Main concept checklists for several widely used tasks (including picture description, picture sequence, story retell, and procedural stimuli) have been developed based on discourse samples of control speakers (Richardson & Dalton, 2016; 2020). MCA is a hybrid discourse measure that provides some information on micro-linguistic features of the discourse sample as well as more macro-linguistic features about the overall adequacy of the discourse sample to communicate an intended message.
MCA has shown good sensitivity in differentiating between controls and individuals with communication disorders (e.g., Kong, Whiteside, & Bargmann, 2016; Dalton & Richardson, 2019) and between individuals with fluent and non-fluent aphasia (Kong et al., 2016). Importantly, studies have shown that changes in informativeness are associated with treatment performance (Albright & Purves, 2008; Avent & Austermann, 2003; Coelho, McHugh, & Boyle, 2000; Cupit, Rochon, Leonard, & Laird, 2010; Stark, 2010) and are associated with listener's perceptions of communication quality (Cupit et al., 2010; Ross & Wertz, 1999).
### Scoring Main Concept Analysis
[The full analysis manual can be found here.](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bxazjgQWx-WD8ELTJjwBm_5IToRpgQhQ). A searchable HTML version of the manual is here: LINK (note, this version is only updated 1x/year)
Each main concept consists of several essential elements, corresponding to the subject, main verb, object (if appropriate), and any subordinate clauses (Nicholas & Brookshire, 1995). The main concept is assigned one of 5 codes depending on accuracy and completeness.
<center>
Code | Description | **Richardson and Dalton, 2016** | **Kong, 2009**
------------------------------| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |:--------:|:-----------:
Accurate & Complete (AC) | contains all elements of the main concept on the checklist with no incorrect information | 3 Points | 3 Points
Accurate & Incomplete (AI) | contains no incorrect information, but leaves out at least one essential element of the main concept on the checklist | 2 Points | 2 Point
Inaccurate & Complete (IC) | contains at least one incorrect piece of essential information (e.g., "knight" for "prince") but includes all essential elements of the main concept on the checklist | 2 Points | 1 Point
Inaccurate & Incomplete (II) | clearly corresponds with a main concept on the checklist but includes at least one incorrect essential element and fails to include at least one essential element | 1 Point | 1 Point
Absent (AB) | did not produce the main concept | 0 Points | 0 Points
</center>
To our knowledge, norms for AphasiaBank stimuli are only available for the Richardson & Dalton 2016 scoring system. If using the Kong, 2009 system, scores cannot be compared to the Richardson & Dalton 2016 norms.
Nicholas and Brookshire also developed a series of coding rules to assist in determining the accuracy and completeness of main concepts. These coding rules are now supplemented with the published checklists, which provide common alternatives produced for each main concept, since there is variability in the syntax and vocabulary that could be used to produce a main concept. These alternative lists are not comprehensive, so it is possible that a client may produce an acceptable alternative that is not in the checklist.
## References
Albright, E., & Purves, B. (2008). Exploring SentenceShaperTM: Treatment
and augmentative possibilities. *Aphasiology*, *22*(7-8), 741-752.
Avent, J., & Austermann, S. (2003). Reciprocal scaffolding: A context
for communication treatment in aphasia. *Aphasiology*, *17*(4), 397-404.
Coelho, C. A., McHugh, R. E., & Boyle, M. (2000). Semantic feature
analysis as a treatment for aphasic dysnomia: A replication.
*Aphasiology*, *14*(2), 133-142.
Cupit, J., Rochon, E., Leonard, C., & Laird, L. (2010). Social
validation as a measure of improvement after aphasia treatment: Its
usefulness and influencing factors. *Aphasiology*, *24*(11), 1486-1500.
Dalton, S. G. H., & Richardson, J. D. (2019). A large-scale comparison
of main concept production between persons with aphasia and persons
without brain injury. *American journal of speech-language pathology*,
*28*(1S), 293-320.
Kong, A. P. H., Whiteside, J., & Bargmann, P. (2016). The Main Concept
Analysis: Validation and sensitivity in differentiating discourse
produced by unimpaired English speakers from individuals with aphasia
and dementia of Alzheimer type. *Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology*,
*41*(3), 129-141.
Nicholas, L. E., & Brookshire, R. H. (1995). Presence, completeness, and
accuracy of main concepts in the connected speech of non-brain-damaged
adults and adults with aphasia. *Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research*, *38*(1), 145-156.
Richardson, J. D., & Dalton, S. G. (2016). Main concepts for three
different discourse tasks in a large non-clinical sample. *Aphasiology*,
*30*(1), 45-73.
Richardson, J. D., & Dalton, S. G. H. (2020). Main concepts for two
picture description tasks: an addition to Richardson and Dalton, 2016.
*Aphasiology*, *34*(1), 119-136.
Ross, K. B., & Wertz, R. T. (1999). Comparison of impairment and
disability measures for assessing severity of, and improvement in,
aphasia. *Aphasiology, 13*, 113--124.
Stark, J. A. (2010). Content analysis of the fairy tale Cinderella--A
longitudinal single-case study of narrative production: "From rags to
riches". *Aphasiology*, *24*(6-8), 709-724.