Verbal Training to Improve Explanations of Conservation with Aphasic Adults Recent research has indicated a need to study the relationship between the language of the adult aphasic and his attempts at cognitive processing. Nine aphasic adults who demonstrated a minimal ability to explain conservation (as defined by Piaget), a cognitive task which they understood, were given verbal model training to ... Research Article
Research Article  |   December 01, 1979
Verbal Training to Improve Explanations of Conservation with Aphasic Adults
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Laurel Dee Cooper
    Teachers College, Columbia University, New York
  • Seymour Rigrodsky
    Teachers College, Columbia University, New York
Article Information
Research Articles
Research Article   |   December 01, 1979
Verbal Training to Improve Explanations of Conservation with Aphasic Adults
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 1979, Vol. 22, 818-828. doi:10.1044/jshr.2204.818
History: Received June 19, 1978 , Accepted February 15, 1979
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 1979, Vol. 22, 818-828. doi:10.1044/jshr.2204.818
History: Received June 19, 1978; Accepted February 15, 1979

Recent research has indicated a need to study the relationship between the language of the adult aphasic and his attempts at cognitive processing. Nine aphasic adults who demonstrated a minimal ability to explain conservation (as defined by Piaget), a cognitive task which they understood, were given verbal model training to improve their explanations of weight and liquid conservation. Each subject was given a pretest, an experimental condition during which explanations for weight conservation only were trained, a control condition during which subjects named pictured common objects, and a posttest. Order of presentation of the experimental and control conditions was varied. As a result of training, a greater number of explanations (quantitative improvement) and a greater number of explanatory concepts (qualitative improvement) were expressed for both the trained and nontrained conservation tasks. It is suggested that the improvement in conservation explanations is the result of “response facilitation effects” as described by Bandura. Furthermore, the improvement in conservation explanations is supportive of Schuell’s concept of impaired linguistic retrieval mechanisms in aphasia.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access