Response to text-based social cues in the formation of causal attributions in adults with traumatic brain injury.
Peter Meulenbroek, Lyn S Turkstra
PMID 30325251WHAT IT FOUND
Adults with chronic TBI were less likely to match their reasons for a crime to the questionnaire letterhead than uninjured adults.
Written materials may need to make context explicit.
Key findings
01Uninjured adults gave more reasons matching the letterhead (mean 0.72, SD 0.25) than adults with TBI (mean 0.52, SD 0.31).
02On a 15-point weighted score, uninjured adults scored 10.35 and adults with TBI scored 7.32.
03Ten of 38 adults with TBI reported vision problems not fixed by lenses, but their scores did not differ significantly from those who did not.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was mailed, so it did not test reading, attention, or visuospatial skills, and it cannot say why the TBI group differed. Eleven of 49 recruited adults with TBI were excluded, leaving 38 analysed, so the recruited group was not the group tested. Vision problems were self-reported after the task, and 10 of 38 participants with TBI reported unfixed vision problems, but no vision testing was done. Both groups were culturally homogeneous, so the letterhead cues may not have the same meaning for other readers. The task used newspaper profiles and a mailed questionnaire, not real medical forms, online media, or functional reading outcomes.
Declared interests
The paper states that the authors have no conflicts of interest to report. It does not describe a sponsor role in the supplied text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that adults with TBI cannot understand written context. The study did not test reading comprehension, attention, or eye scanning, and it used one mailed questionnaire about newspaper profiles.