title: Evaluating measures of global coherence ability in stories in adults.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Discourse coherence is a reflection of the listener's ability to interpret the overall meaning conveyed by the speaker. Measuring global coherence (maintenance of thematic unity of the discourse) is useful for quantifying communication impairments at the discourse level in clinical populations and for measuring response to discourse-level treatments.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The aim was to determine feasibility of a four-point global coherence scale developed by the authors. Specifically, they were (1) to estimate measurement reliability of the four-point global coherence scale; and (2) to estimate construct validity for the four-point global coherence scale.
  
  
  METHODS
  Fifty cognitively healthy adults aged between 28 and 58 years participated in the study. Participants viewed and then told the stories depicted in two wordless picture books. Participants' stories were orthographically transcribed and segmented into communication units (C-unit). Raters scored each participant's story for global coherence using two global coherence scales (four- and five-point scales). Each C-unit received an individual score, then the mean global coherence score was computed, resulting in two mean global coherence scores for each coherence scale, one for each story, for all participants.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Results indicated high reliability estimates for the scale. In addition, construct validity, specifically face validity and convergent validity, was effectively estimated for using the four-point scale as a measure of maintenance of global coherence in stories told by cognitively healthy adults. Lastly, it was found that the wordless picture books elicited stories that are comparable and can be reliably interchanged as different forms to evaluate maintenance of global coherence.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The assumptions that the measure is feasible were achieved and face and convergent validity were adequately estimated. Future investigations should consider estimating predictive validity, concurrent validity and discriminant validity of the measure.
authors: Communication Sciences & Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27834, USA. wrighth@ecu.edu
authors: Heather Harris
authors: HH
authors: Wright
authors: Gilson J
authors: GJ
authors: Capilouto
authors: Anthony
authors: A
authors: Koutsoftas
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003072:Cognition Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis*; D003147:Communication Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis*; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005260:Female; D064368:Healthy Volunteers; D006801:Humans; D007807:Language Tests / Q000592:standards*; D008037:Linguistics; D008297:Male; D008606:Mental Processes; D008875:Middle Aged; D033262:Narration; D015203:Reproducibility of Results
references: Aphasiology. 2012 Jan 1;26(5):656-672
references: 22962509
references: Brain Lang. 1991 Jan;40(1):67-88
references: 2009448
references: J Psycholinguist Res. 2005 Sep;34(5):439-63
references: 16177935
references: J Speech Hear Res. 1993 Oct;36(5):868-82
references: 8246476
references: J Commun Disord. 1999 Sep-Oct;32(5):327-48; quiz 348-9
references: 10498013
references: J Commun Disord. 2010 May-Jun;43(3):212-24
references: 20219209
references: Aphasiology. 2011 Jan 10;25(10):1261-1278
references: 22904592
references: J Gerontol. 1992 Jul;47(4):P266-72
references: 1624704
references: Brain Lang. 1995 Nov;51(2):291-317
references: 8564473