Abstract
Purpose
This research note reports on an unexpected negative finding related to behavior change in a controlled trial designed to test whether partner training improves the conversational skills of volunteers.
Method
The clinical trial involving training in “Supported Conversation for Adults with Aphasia” utilized a single-blind, randomized, controlled, pre–post design. Eighty participants making up 40 dyads of a volunteer conversation partner and an adult with aphasia were randomly allocated to either an experimental or control group of 20 dyads each. Descriptive statistics including exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the percentage of control group participants who got worse after exposure to individuals with aphasia.
Results
Positive outcomes of training in Supported Conversation for Adults with Aphasia for both the trained volunteers and their partners with aphasia were reported by Kagan, Black, Felson Duchan, Simmons-Mackie, and Square in 2001. However, post hoc data analysis revealed that almost one third of untrained control participants had a negative outcome rather than the anticipated neutral or slightly positive outcome.
Conclusions
If the results of this small study are in any way representative of what happens in real life, communication partner training in aphasia becomes even more important than indicated from the positive results of training studies. That is, it is possible that mere exposure to a communication disability such as aphasia could have negative impacts on communication and social interaction. This may be akin to what is known as a “nocebo” effect—something for partner training studies in aphasia to take into account.

References
-
Adair Ewing, S., & Pfalzgraf, B. (1991). Moving beyond stroke and aphasia[Video: Color; 28 min] . Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. -
Aiden, H., & McCarthy, A. (2014). Current attitudes towards disabled people. London: Scope. Retrieved from http://www.scope.org.uk/Scope/media/Images/Publication%20Directory/Current-attitudes-towards-disabled-people.pdf -
Bartlett, G., Blais, R., Tamblyn, R., Clermont, R. J., & MacGibbon, B. (2008). Impact of patient communication problems on the risk of preventable adverse events in acute care settings.Canadian Medical Association Journal, 178(12), 1555–1562. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.070690 -
Burns, M., Baylor, C., Dudgeon, B. J., Starks, H., & Yorkston, K. (2015). Asking the stakeholders: Perspectives of individuals with aphasia, their family members, and physicians regarding communication in medical interactions.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24(3), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0051 -
Curran-Everett, D., & Migrom, H. (2013). Post-hoc data analysis: Benefits and limitations.Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 13(3), 223–224. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACI.0b013e3283609831 -
Elliott, H. (1996). Post hoc analysis: Use and dangers in perspective.Journal of Hypertension, 14, S24–S25. -
Godecke, E., Armstrong, E., Hersh, D., & Bernhardt, J. (2014). Missed opportunities: Communicative interactions in early stroke recovery.International Journal of Stroke, 9, 48. -
Godecke, E., Armstrong, E., Hersh, D., Ciccone, N., & Bernhardt, J. (2013, September). Learned communicative non-use is a reality in very early aphasia recovery: An observational study.Paper presented at the biennial conference of the British Aphasiology Society, Manchester, United Kingdom . -
Häuser, W., Hansen, E., & Enck, P. (2012). Nocebo phenomena in medicine: Their relevance in everyday clinical practice.Deutsches Arzteblatt International, 109(26), 459–465. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2012.0459 -
Hemsley, B., Werninck, M., & Worrall, L. (2013). “That really shouldn't have happened”: People with aphasia and their spouses narrate adverse events in hospital.Aphasiology, 27(6), 706–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2012.748181 -
Hilari, K., & Northcott, S. (2017). “Struggling to stay connected”: Comparing the social relationships of healthy older people and people with stroke and aphasia.Aphasiology, 31(6), 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2016.1218436 -
Kagan, A., Black, S. E., Felson Duchan, J., Simmons-Mackie, N., & Square, P. (2001). Training volunteers as conversation partners using Supported Conversation for Adults with Aphasia (SCA): A controlled trial.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44(3), 624–638. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2001/051) -
Kagan, A., Winckel, J., Black, S., Duchan, J. F., Simmons-Mackie, N., & Square, P. (2004). A set of observational measures for rating support and participation in conversation between adults with aphasia and their conversation partners.Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 11(1), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1310/CL3V-A94A-DE5C-CVBE -
Legg, C., Young, L., & Bryer, A. (2005). Training sixth-year medical students in obtaining case-history information from adults with aphasia.Aphasiology, 19(6), 559–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030544000029 -
Northcott, S., Marshall, J., & Hilari, K. (2016). What factors predict who will have a strong social network following a stroke?.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(4), 772–783. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0201 -
Simmons-Mackie, N., & Kagan, A. (1999). Communication strategies used by “good” versus “poor” speaking partners of individuals with aphasia.Aphasiology, 13(9–11), 807–820. -
Simmons-Mackie, N., Raymer, S., Armstrong, E., Holland, A., & Cherney, L. (2010). Partner training in aphasia: A systematic review.Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(12), 1814–1837. -
Simmons-Mackie, N., Raymer, A., & Cherney, L. (2016). Communication partner training in aphasia: An updated systematic review.Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Early online.