CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 146Focus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsQualitative Research Methods and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interviewing people with aphasia: Insights into method adjustments from a pilot study

Luck, Amy M., Rose, Miranda L.·2007·Aphasiology
DOI 10.1080/02687030601065470
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: An increasing number of researchers are using qualitative methods to study the impact of aphasia. However, there is a paucity of published research outlining if and how qualitative interview methods are altered with participants with aphasia, and how potential modifications impact on the rigour of such research. Aims: In a qualitative, pilot study we investigated (1) What services do males in Victoria with mild chronic aphasia perceive could be provided by the Australian Aphasia Association? (2) How is qualitative in‐depth interviewing method altered to accommodate the communicative difficulties experienced by people with aphasia? This paper reports on the second aim. Methods and Procedures: A qualitative phenomenological approach was adopted. Purposeful sampling was used to obtain four participants with mild chronic aphasia across the variables of geographical location and employment status at time of stroke. An interview guide was devised and refined with a fifth pilot participant. Interviews were videotaped to allow for transcription of total communication strategies and 20% of transcriptions were verified by an expert in aphasia. Outcomes and Results: When using the traditional open‐ended, non‐directive approach to qualitative interviewing, very little information was obtained from the pilot participant. The results from four further participants revealed that with participants with aphasia, the researcher is required to step out of the traditional role of the…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02687030601065470

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. 2002, Constitution for the Australian Aphasia Association
  2. Damico J. S., 1995, Clinical Aphasiology, 23, 84
  3. Elman R. J., 1995, Clinical Aphasiology, 23, 77
  4. Fontana A., 2000, Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., 361
  5. Jones J., 1992, College of Speech and Language Therapists Bulletin, 478, 6
  6. Kertesz A., 1982, Western Aphasia Battery
  7. Le Dorze G., 1995, Aphasiology, 9, 229
  8. Minichiello V., 1995, In‐depth interviewing (2nd ed.)
  9. Simmons‐Mackie N., 2001, Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders (4th ed., 248

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Luck, A. M., & Rose, M. L.
Affiliations
  • North West Regional Hospital (AU)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
Corresponding author
Rose, Miranda L.
ORCID
Rose, Miranda L.
Venue
Aphasiology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2007-02
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
208-224
ISSN
  • 0268-7038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5041
DOI
10.1080/02687030601065470
OpenAlex
W2075700640
Cited by
146
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 2
FWCI
12.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Aphasiology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Keywords
aphasia, qualitative interviews, stroke survivors, researcher role, videotaped interviews

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review