Feasibility and Reliability of the Adapted Kagan Scales for Rating Conversations for People With Acquired Brain Injury: A Multiphase Iterative Mixed-Methods Design.

Behn, N; Power, E; Prodger, P; Togher, L; Cruice, M; Marshall, J; Rietdijk, R

Feasibility and Reliability of the Adapted Kagan Scales for Rating Conversations for People With Acquired Brain Injury: A Multiphase Iterative Mixed-Methods Design.

Behn, N Power, E

Prodger, P Togher, L Cruice, M Marshall, J Rietdijk, R

Permalink

Publisher:: American Speech Language Hearing Association
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Am J Speech Lang Pathol, 2025, pp. 1-16
Issue Date:: 2025-02-03

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted versionAdobe PDF (564.62 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Behn, N
dc.contributor.author	Power, E https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2638-0406
dc.contributor.author	Prodger, P
dc.contributor.author	Togher, L
dc.contributor.author	Cruice, M
dc.contributor.author	Marshall, J
dc.contributor.author	Rietdijk, R
dc.date.accessioned	2025-02-21T23:27:47Z
dc.date.available	2025-02-21T23:27:47Z
dc.date.issued	2025-02-03
dc.identifier.citation	Am J Speech Lang Pathol, 2025, pp. 1-16
dc.identifier.issn	1058-0360
dc.identifier.issn	1558-9110
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/185251
dc.description.abstract	PURPOSE: Rating the quality of conversations can assess communication skills in both people with acquired brain injury and their communication partners. This study explored the clinical feasibility and reliability of two conversation rating scales: the Adapted Measure of Participation in Conversation (MPC) and the Adapted Measure of Support in Conversation (MSC). METHOD: Raters were final-year speech and language therapy students (n = 14) and qualified clinicians (n = 2). Raters attended training on the Adapted MPC and MSC, watched 5 or 10 min of videotaped conversations (n = 23), and then scored them on the MPC and MSC scales. Data were collected over four phases, which varied according to the length of the training, sample length, number of samples rated, and level of clinical expertise. Feasibility data (time taken to score conversations and ease of use) were collected. Interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlations (ICCs: absolute agreement, single measures). RESULTS: Raters took 30-45 min to score a 10-min sample, and they took 20-30 min to score a 5-min sample. Ease of use was rated highly across all phases. Overall reliability for rating 5 min of conversation (ICC = .52-.73) was better than for 10 min of conversation (ICC = .33-.68). Reliability for the MPC was moderate for both students (ICC = .69) and clinicians (ICC = .55), and for the MSC, it was moderate for both students (ICC = .73) and clinicians (ICC = .58). Reliability was better for students compared with clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Rating a 5-min conversation in under 30 min was feasible, with more reliable results for 5-min compared with 10-min conversations. Implications for assessing conversation in the future are discussed.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	American Speech Language Hearing Association
dc.relation.ispartof	Am J Speech Lang Pathol
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00144
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	1103 Clinical Sciences, 1702 Cognitive Sciences, 2004 Linguistics
dc.subject.classification	Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology
dc.subject.classification	3903 Education systems
dc.subject.classification	4201 Allied health and rehabilitation science
dc.subject.classification	4704 Linguistics
dc.title	Feasibility and Reliability of the Adapted Kagan Scales for Rating Conversations for People With Acquired Brain Injury: A Multiphase Iterative Mixed-Methods Design.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.location.activity	United States
utslib.for	1103 Clinical Sciences
utslib.for	1702 Cognitive Sciences
utslib.for	2004 Linguistics
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health/GSH.Speech Pathology
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/UTS Groups
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/UTS Groups/UTS Ageing Research Collaborative (UARC)
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/UTS Groups/Stroke Research Collaborative
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.date.updated	2025-02-21T23:27:46Z
pubs.publication-status	Published online

Abstract:

PURPOSE: Rating the quality of conversations can assess communication skills in both people with acquired brain injury and their communication partners. This study explored the clinical feasibility and reliability of two conversation rating scales: the Adapted Measure of Participation in Conversation (MPC) and the Adapted Measure of Support in Conversation (MSC). METHOD: Raters were final-year speech and language therapy students (n = 14) and qualified clinicians (n = 2). Raters attended training on the Adapted MPC and MSC, watched 5 or 10 min of videotaped conversations (n = 23), and then scored them on the MPC and MSC scales. Data were collected over four phases, which varied according to the length of the training, sample length, number of samples rated, and level of clinical expertise. Feasibility data (time taken to score conversations and ease of use) were collected. Interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlations (ICCs: absolute agreement, single measures). RESULTS: Raters took 30-45 min to score a 10-min sample, and they took 20-30 min to score a 5-min sample. Ease of use was rated highly across all phases. Overall reliability for rating 5 min of conversation (ICC = .52-.73) was better than for 10 min of conversation (ICC = .33-.68). Reliability for the MPC was moderate for both students (ICC = .69) and clinicians (ICC = .55), and for the MSC, it was moderate for both students (ICC = .73) and clinicians (ICC = .58). Reliability was better for students compared with clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Rating a 5-min conversation in under 30 min was feasible, with more reliable results for 5-min compared with 10-min conversations. Implications for assessing conversation in the future are discussed.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/185251