05.06.2014 Views

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

4.4.5 Summary <strong>of</strong> pilot study one<br />

Pilot study one evaluated the non-l<strong>in</strong>guistic learn<strong>in</strong>g task (stepp<strong>in</strong>g-stone route)<br />

(see section 4.2.2.2) that was adapted from Evans et al (2000). P1 performed<br />

the task with 100% accuracy, <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that she could follow the <strong>in</strong>structions for<br />

the task and assessment procedure successfully, and that the task itself could<br />

be learned. In the absence <strong>of</strong> a more standardised non-l<strong>in</strong>guistic learn<strong>in</strong>g task, it<br />

was decided to use this task as part <strong>of</strong> the screen<strong>in</strong>g assessment for the ma<strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>in</strong>vestigation.<br />

This pilot study also evaluated the tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g, assessment and scor<strong>in</strong>g procedures<br />

for the ma<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestigation with an adult <strong>of</strong> normal cognitive and l<strong>in</strong>guistic<br />

function<strong>in</strong>g. However, while the participant’s language and cognition were<br />

normal, her emotional and medical status (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g fatigue and use <strong>of</strong> her nondom<strong>in</strong>ant<br />

hand) dur<strong>in</strong>g the pilot phase mimicked many limitations experienced<br />

by people with aphasia. Therefore this study was more <strong>in</strong>formative than if P1<br />

had been a fully function<strong>in</strong>g healthy participant. The study endeavoured to<br />

ascerta<strong>in</strong> the number and tim<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and assessment sessions, the<br />

details <strong>of</strong> which are displayed <strong>in</strong> Table 4.3. The number <strong>of</strong> sessions that were<br />

required was as anticipated (i.e. six sessions), and the number <strong>of</strong> items to be<br />

learned was appropriate for the time allocated, i.e. five creatures to be<br />

<strong>in</strong>troduced, tra<strong>in</strong>ed, learned and assessed with<strong>in</strong> approximately one hour. While<br />

the estimated time required for <strong>in</strong>dependent learn<strong>in</strong>g was 20 m<strong>in</strong>utes less than<br />

anticipated, it could not be assumed that participants with aphasia would be able<br />

to learn this novel l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>in</strong>formation dur<strong>in</strong>g the same period <strong>of</strong> time. This time<br />

frame was further evaluated when compared with the performance <strong>of</strong> the poststroke<br />

participant with aphasia <strong>in</strong> pilot study three (see section 4.6). The<br />

<strong>in</strong>structions were clear and comprehensive with an example <strong>of</strong> each task us<strong>in</strong>g<br />

an already familiar creature be<strong>in</strong>g useful <strong>in</strong> demonstrat<strong>in</strong>g all tasks and<br />

assessments.<br />

120

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!