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.

4.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY<br />

The three pilot studies described <strong>in</strong> this chapter narrate the evolution <strong>of</strong> the<br />

methodology to its f<strong>in</strong>al completion. The screen<strong>in</strong>g assessments were evaluated<br />

for use <strong>in</strong> the ma<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestigation. The HADs self-rat<strong>in</strong>g scale (Zigmond and<br />

Snaith, 1983) was considered adequate for evaluat<strong>in</strong>g the emotional well-be<strong>in</strong>g<br />

<strong>of</strong> participants <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> anxiety and depression, as the scores appeared to<br />

reflect participants’ report <strong>of</strong> how they felt at the time <strong>of</strong> the studies. All<br />

participants <strong>in</strong> the ma<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestigation completed the HADs with the help <strong>of</strong> the<br />

researcher who read the <strong>in</strong>dividual statements aloud to ensure that those<br />

participants who presented with acquired read<strong>in</strong>g difficulties as a result <strong>of</strong> their<br />

stroke understood the task. The CLQT (Helm-Estabrooks, 2001) appeared to be<br />

adequate <strong>in</strong> screen<strong>in</strong>g the cognitive abilities and difficulties <strong>of</strong> participants. The<br />

‘stepp<strong>in</strong>g-stone route’ appeared to be appropriate for assess<strong>in</strong>g non-verbal<br />

learn<strong>in</strong>g tasks as based on Evans et al. (2000). Additionally, the language<br />

screen<strong>in</strong>g assessment was considered to be sufficient to differentiate between<br />

vary<strong>in</strong>g degrees <strong>of</strong> aphasia severity and would be used <strong>in</strong> conjunction with the<br />

language screen<strong>in</strong>g sub-test <strong>of</strong> the CLQT (Helm-Estabrooks, 2001).<br />

The stimuli and methodology proved successful <strong>in</strong> tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and assess<strong>in</strong>g<br />

participants <strong>in</strong> the acquisition <strong>of</strong> new vocabulary. Participants P1 and P2<br />

demonstrated that it was possible to learn this novel vocabulary (see section<br />

4.4.3.1 and 4.5.3.1) and reta<strong>in</strong> it <strong>in</strong> long-term memory (see section 4.4.3.2 and<br />

4.5.3.2). The methodology was also suitable for tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and assess<strong>in</strong>g<br />

participant P3 who presented with aphasia (see section 4.6) and therefore<br />

considered suitable for tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and evaluat<strong>in</strong>g the ability <strong>of</strong> participants with<br />

aphasia to learn new vocabulary <strong>in</strong> the ma<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestigation. As reported by De<br />

Groot and Keijzer (2000) participants were motivated to learn the nonsense<br />

vocabulary (see section 2.8.5.1) and reported that they found it enjoyable and<br />

that the novelty help ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> their attention. The methodology was discussed <strong>in</strong><br />

relation to the robustness <strong>of</strong> the cognitive neuropsychology model <strong>in</strong> support<strong>in</strong>g<br />

132

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!