Written expression is a high-level language process susceptible to impairment given mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI); however, minimal research exists about assessing or treating this aspect of language performance. This study’s purpose was to determine the effect of a multicomponent intervention on the written expression of an undergraduate student with mTBI resulting in generalized expressive language impairment. Pretreatment, intervention, and posttreatment sessions extended over 11 weeks. Intervention addressed semantic associations, semantic mapping, proofreading, organization, foundational skills, and goal setting. Data reflected performance on intervention components, writing probes, and pre–posttreatment completion of a standardized writing measure. Calculation and plotting of correct writing sequence percentages revealed substantial improvement. Linear regression analysis confirmed the trend line slope for intervention probes differed significantly from baseline probes. Comparison of pre–posttreatment test results also confirmed substantial improvement. Multicomponent instruction similar to that recommended for other students with writing challenges may be effective for people with mTBI.
BorgaroS. R.PrigatanoG. P.KwasnicaC.RexerJ. L. (2003). Cognitive and affective sequelae in complicated and uncomplicated mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 17, 189–198. doi:10.1080/0269905021000013183
2.
ChapmanS. B.SparksG.LevinH. S.DennisM.RoncadinC.ZhangL.SongJ. (2004). Discourse macrolevel processing after severe pediatric traumatic brain injury. Developmental Neuropsychology, 25, 37–60. doi:10.1080/87565641.2004.9651921
3.
CoelhoC. A. (2002). Story narratives of adults with closed head injury and non-brain-injured adults: Influence of socioeconomic status, elicitation task, and executive functioning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1232–1248.
4.
CoelhoC. A. (2007). Management of discourse deficits following traumatic brain injury: Progress, caveats, and needs. Seminars in Speech and Language, 28, 122–135.
5.
CoelhoC. A.GrelaB.CorsoM.GambleA.FeinnR. (2005). Microlinguistic deficits in the narrative discourse of adults with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 19, 1139–1145.
6.
CoelhoC. A.YlvisakerM.TurkstraL. S. (2005). Nonstandardized assessment approaches for individuals with traumatic brain injuries. Seminars in Speech and Language, 26, 223–241.
7.
DennisM.BarnesM. A. (2001). Comparison of literal, inferential, and intentional text comprehension in children with mild or severe closed-head injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 16, 456–468.
8.
DennisM.PurvisK.BarnesM. A.WilkinsonM.WinnerE. (2001). Understanding of literal truth, ironic criticism, and deceptive praise following childhood head injury. Brain & Language, 78, 1–16. doi:10.1006/brln.2000.2431
9.
DockingK. M.MurdochB. E. (2007). Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and language in childhood: Pre- and post-injury trends. Brain & Language, 103, 248–249. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2007.07.021
10.
GalettoV.AndreettaS.ZettinM.MariniA. (2013). Patterns of impairment of narrative language in mild traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 649–661. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2013.05.004
11.
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
12.
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007b). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.
13.
HammilD. D.LarsenS. C. (2009). Test of Written Language–4. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
14.
HartleyL. L.JensenP. J. (1991). Narrative and procedural discourse after closed head injury. Brain Injury, 5, 267–285.
HeatonR. K., & PAR Staff. (2003). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test® (WCST:CV4TM) (Computer version 4). Lutz, FL: PAR.
17.
HuxK.WallaceS. E.EvansK.SnellJ. (2008). Performing cookie theft picture content analyses to delineate cognitive-communication impairments. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 83–103.
18.
JacobsM. L.DondersJ. (2007). Criterion validity of the California Verbal Learning Test–second edition (CVLT-II) after traumatic brain injury. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 143–149. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2006.12.002
19.
JewellJ.MaleckiC. K. (2005). The utility of CBM written language indices: An investigation of production-dependent, production-independent, and accurate-production scores. School Psychology Review, 34, 27–44.
20.
KaplanE.GoodglassH.WeintraubS. (2001). Boston Naming Test. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
21.
KerteszA. (2006). Western Aphasia Battery–Revised (WAB-R). San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education.
22.
KingK. A.HoughM. S.VosP.WalkerM. M.GivensG. (2006). Word retrieval following mild TBI: Implications for categorical deficits. Aphasiology, 20, 233–245. doi:10.1080/02687030500473155
23.
KingK. A.HoughM. S.WalkerM. M.RastatterM.HolbertD. (2006). Mild traumatic brain injury: Effects on naming in word retrieval and discourse. Brain Injury, 20, 725–732. doi:10.1080/02699050600743824
24.
MariniA.GalettoV.ZampieriE.VoranoL.ZettinM.CarlomagnoS. (2011). Narrative language in traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2904–2910. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.06.017
25.
MarshN. V.SmithM. D. (1995). Post-concussion syndrome and the coping hypothesis. Brain Injury, 9, 553–562.
26.
MasonL. H.GrahamS. (2008). Writing instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: Programs of intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 103–112.
27.
RaskinS. A.RearickE. (1996). Verbal fluency in individuals with mild traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychology, 10, 416–422.
28.
ReitanR. M.WolfsonD. (1985). The Halstead–Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery: Therapy and clinical interpretation. Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychological Press.
29.
RogersL. A.GrahamS. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.879
30.
SalvatoreA. P.FjordbakB. S. (2011). Concussion management: The speech-language pathologist’s role. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 1–13.
31.
TombaughT. N.HubieyA. M. (1997). The 60-item Boston Naming Test: Norms for cognitively intact adults aged 25 to 88 years. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 19, 922–932.
32.
TroiaG. A. (2006). Writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. In MacArthurC. A.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 324–336). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
33.
TuckerF. M.HanlonR. E. (1998). Effects of mild traumatic brain injury on narrative discourse production. Brain Injury, 12, 783–792. doi:10.1080/026990598122179
34.
Van LeerE.TurkstraL. (1999). The effect of elicitation task on discourse coherence and cohesion in adolescents with brain injury. Journal of Communication Disorders, 32, 327–349. doi:10.1016/S0021-9924(99)00008-8
35.
WagnerR. K.TogesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.PearsonN. A. (2010). Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
36.
WheelerL.NickersonS.LongK.SilverR. (2014). Expressive writing in people with traumatic brain injury and learning disability. Neurorehabilitation, 34, 29–37. doi:10.3233/NRE-131007
37.
WhelanB.-M.MurdochB. E. (2006). The impact of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) on language function: More than meets the eye?Brain & Language, 99, 183–184. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2006.06.100
38.
WhelanB.-M.MurdochB. E.BellamyN. (2007). Delineating communication impairments associated with mild traumatic brain injury: A case report. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 22, 192–197.
39.
WongM. N.MurdochB.WhelanB. M. (2010). Language disorders subsequent to mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI): Evidence from four cases. Aphasiology, 24, 1155–1169. doi:10.1080/02687030903168212
