PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Brenda M Wilson

Publications and source records attributed to Brenda M Wilson.

2 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Analysis of normal discourse patterns.

Twenty-five normal young adult college students provided speaking and writing samples using two elicitation procedures: picture description and personal narrative. Patterns of productivity, efficiency, and coherence were investigated while considering the demands imposed by mode of expression, task elicitation, cognitive distance, and verbal working memory. Samples were divided into top (S1) and bottom (S2) halves. Within group (S1/S2) and between group (pictured activity description/personal narrative) comparisons were made for oral vs. written samples, and performance measures were correlated with verbal working memory scores. Results indicated that the productivity measure was influenced by the type of elicitation task and was not related to verbal working memory scores. Efficiency was influenced by mode of expression and demonstrated a low correlation with verbal working memory scores. Coherence ratings were not influenced by type of elicitation task, mode of expression, or length of sample, and were not related to verbal working memory scores. Results are discussed in terms of the clinical utility of these discourse measures.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Written discourse of adolescents with closed head injury.

Written discourse of adolescents with closed head injury (CHI) was compared to that of normal controls. It was expected that the writing of adolescents with CHI would be disordered on one or more of the eight measurements used (productivity, efficiency, lexical, incomplete, or elliptic cohesion, global or local coherence, and maze use). Eight adolescents with closed head injury and matched controls provided written descriptions of a pictured activity. Analysis using t-tests indicated that adolescents with CHI used fewer words to express each idea in writing (p = 0.05), and that the relationship between successive ideas was rated as less than that of controls (p = 0.002). Implications are that written as well as oral discourse should be assessed after CHI. Writing is a more controlled process than speaking; and, therefore, may be used clinically to structure the development of ideas after CHI.

Adolescent↗