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.

adults, although present<strong>in</strong>g with post-stroke aphasia, all demonstrated some<br />

ability to learn new vocabulary. There was a large range <strong>of</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g ability<br />

spann<strong>in</strong>g from the lowest percentage correct <strong>of</strong> 15%, to the highest percentage<br />

correct <strong>of</strong> 99%.<br />

Table 5.1<br />

Raw and percentage scores for immediate recall tasks (12 participants)<br />

Participant Raw score Percentage correct<br />

(total = 320)<br />

C1 318 99<br />

P3* 253 90<br />

C2 284 89<br />

C3 266 83<br />

C4 215 67<br />

C5 199 62<br />

C6 189.5 59<br />

C7 155 48<br />

C8 154.5 48<br />

C9 76 24<br />

C10 50 16<br />

C11 49 15<br />

*P3’s total possible raw score is 280 (refer 4.6.3)<br />

As the various assessment tasks facilitated the demonstration <strong>of</strong> this learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><br />

ways other than and <strong>in</strong> addition to spoken and/or written responses the f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs<br />

were considered to be a reflection <strong>of</strong> participant ability to learn the new words.<br />

However, the more ability a participant had for spoken and/or written<br />

communication the more po<strong>in</strong>ts they were likely to achieve, perhaps plac<strong>in</strong>g<br />

participants who were unable to demonstrate their learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> spoken or written<br />

format at an <strong>in</strong>stant disadvantage. When the assessment tasks that did not<br />

require spoken and written responses were subtracted from the total raw scores<br />

a slightly different picture emerged. Table 5.2 presents the rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong><br />

participants us<strong>in</strong>g these amended raw scores and percentages. Although<br />

<strong>in</strong>dividual rank<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> participants changed, the orig<strong>in</strong>al top three participants<br />

139

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!