A measure of perceived communicative ability that assesses communication ability based on information gathered from the patient and close others.
30
20-40 minutes
Adolescent
13 - 17
yearsAdult
18 - 64
yearsDo you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!
Acute TBI: (Struchen et al, 2008; n = 80 TBI patients, mean age = 37.70 (12.14) years; mean education = 13.20 (2.14) years)
|
TBI and family Member LCQ Scores*: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dimension |
TBI (n = 88) |
Family (n = 88) |
Std. Error of Mean |
t-Statistic |
p-value |
|
LCQ total score |
53.52 |
54.71 |
1.53 |
-0.77 |
0.44 |
|
Initiation/Conversational Flow scale |
18.15 |
17.87 |
0.73 |
0.38 |
0.70 |
|
Disinhibition/Impulsivity scale |
13.19 |
14.17 |
0.57 |
-1.71 |
0.09 |
|
Conversational Effectiveness scale |
12.97 |
14.02 |
0.62 |
-1.69 |
0.10 |
|
Partner sensitivity scale |
8.17 |
8.24 |
0.36 |
-0.19 |
0.85 |
|
* Based Struchen et al, (2008) 4 factor LCQ model |
|
|
|
|
|
??????Chronic TBI Compared to Healthy Controls: (Douglas et al, 2010; n = 43 TBI patients, mean age at time of injury 32.93 (11.37) years; mean time since injury 5.36 (3.61) years; n = 43 controls, matched to the TBI group in terms of education, age and gender).
|
TBI Versus Control Group Norms: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Self |
|
Relative |
|
Self |
|
Relative |
|
|
LCQ Domain |
Mean (SD) |
Range |
Mean (SD) |
Range |
Mean (SD) |
Range |
Mean (SD) |
Range |
|
LCQ Total |
59.70 (15.51) |
31-91 |
60.3 (16.37) |
34-94 |
48.42 (9.58) |
30-69 |
41.21 (8.27) |
30-61 |
|
Quantity* |
8.37 (2.80) |
4-14 |
8.95 (2.76) |
4-15 |
6.65 (1.48) |
4-10 |
6.00 (1.77) |
4-11 |
|
Quality* |
4.67 (1.67) |
3-9 |
5.35 (1.89) |
3-9 |
4.32 (1.12) |
3-7 |
4.16 (1.25) |
3-7 |
|
Relation* |
10.16 (3.15) |
5-17 |
10.21 (2.91) |
5-16 |
8.09 (2.15) |
5.12 |
6.79 (1.81) |
5-11 |
|
Manner* |
17.00 (4.59) |
9-25 |
16.91 (4.98) |
9-28 |
13.65 (3.00) |
9-22 |
11.67 (2.80) |
9-20 |
*Based on Grice’s (1975) Maxims of Cooperative Principle of conversation
Acute TBI: (Struchen et al, 2008)
|
Internal Consistency of Struchen's 4-factor LCQ Model: |
|
|
|
|
|
Factor* |
# Items |
Mean (SD) |
Strength |
Cronbach’s alpha |
|
Initiation/Conversational Flow |
10 |
18.0 (6.0) |
Excellent |
0.87 |
|
Disinhibition/Impulsivity |
7 |
13.0 (4.2) |
Adequate |
0.77 |
|
Conversational Effectiveness |
6 |
12.5 (4.2) |
Adequate |
0.74 |
|
Partner Sensitivity |
4 |
7.8 (2.9) |
Adequate |
0.75 |
|
Based on 27 LSQ items; *n = 276 |
|
|
|
|
Chronic TBI: (Watts and Douglas 2006; n = 12 sever TBI patients and 12 matched controls; TBI patients had post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) for at least 7 days; mean age (TBI) 32.33 (13.89) years; Time post injury 502.5 (418.68) days)
|
Measure |
Mean |
SD |
Range |
|
EET total* |
21.50 |
3.31 |
15-26 |
|
LCQ self-report |
60.92 |
13.92 |
38-87 |
|
LCQ close-other |
66.45 |
13.59 |
47-91 |
*EET = The Emotion Evaluation Test
Chronic TBI: (Douglas et al, 2007; n = 88 TBI patients and 71 close others; mean age = 32.26 (12.12) years; months post injury 64.40 (70.15) months; patients experienced a loss of consciousness and post-traumatic amnesia for at least 7 days)
Acute TBI: (Struchen et al, 2008; n = 80 TBI patients, mean age = 37.70 (12.14) years; mean years of education = 13.20 (2.14) years)
Struchen's validation study resulted in a four-factor model composed of 27 items that accounted for 48.25% of the variance. Factors include:
|
Factor |
Dimension |
Definition |
|
1 |
Initiation/Conversational Flow factor |
Difficulties with starting and maintaining conversations |
|
2 |
Disinhibition/Impulsivity factor |
Impulsive or disinhibited conversational behaviors, such as saying rude or embarrassing things |
|
3 |
Conversational Effectiveness |
Effectiveness of conversation, being accurate and logical in Perceived social communication and having the ability to change speech style easily |
|
4 |
Partner Sensitivity factor |
Sensitivity to a conversational partner’s needs, such as repeating information, talking about things for too long and switching topics too quickly |
Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000; n = 147, primary subjects and 109 close others; mean age = 20.6 years; participants were Australian students)
Mean (SD) scores: Primary subjects, 52.47 (9.62), range = 31 to 78
Mean (SD) scores: Close others, 47.17 (9.93), range = 30 to 77
Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000; n = 24; subjects assessed twice with an 8 weeks interval between assessments)
The LCQ is administered to both the TBI patient and a close other. For differences in perceived communication refer to the normative data section above.
Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000)
Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000)
Construct validity was established using factor analysis. 25 of the 30 items loaded on one of the following six dimensions:
|
LCQ Factor Dimensions: |
|
|
Factor |
Dimension |
|
1 |
Conversational tone |
|
2 |
Conversational e?ectiveness |
|
3 |
Conversational flow |
|
4 |
Conversational engagement |
|
5 |
Conversational (partner) sensitivity |
|
6 |
Conversational attention / focus |
Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000)
Items were selected for the measure based on two guiding principles:
Assessments of what constitutes normal communication was further guided by Grices Co-operative Principle of normal discourse (1975).
Literature examining deficits of communication following TBI was also consulted prior to item construction.
Douglas, J. M. (2010). "Relation of Executive Functioning to Pragmatic Outcome Following Severe Traumatic Brain Injury." Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing 嫩B研究院 53(2): 365-382.
Douglas, J. M., Bracy, C. A., et al. (2007). "Exploring the factor structure of the La Trobe Communication Questionnaire: Insights into the nature of communication deficits following traumatic brain injury." Aphasiology 21(12): 1181-1194.
Douglas, J. M., O'Flaherty, C. A., et al. (2000). "Measuring perception of communicative ability: the development and evaluation of the La Trobe communication questionnaire." Aphasiology 14(3): 251-268.
Struchen, M. A., Pappadis, M. R., et al. (2008). "Perceptions of communication abilities for persons with traumatic brain injury: Validity of the La Trobe Communication Questionnaire." Brain Injury 22(12): 940-951.
Watts, A. and Douglas, J. (2006). "Interpreting facial expression and communication competence following severe traumatic brain injury." Aphasiology 20(8): 707-722.
We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.