La Trobe Communication Questionnaire

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 

• Adequate: correlation between LCQ ratings made by close others and performance on the facial expression tasks (r = –.532, p = .037)
• Not Significant: correlation between LCQ self-reports and performance on the facial expression tasks (r = -.412, p = .091)

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) 

• A seven-factor structure, in which 27 of 30 items clearly loaded on a factor, accounted for 60.88% of total variance.

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)

• Adequate primary subject test-retest reliability (r = 0.7558)
• Poor close other test-retest reliability (r = 0.4784)

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)

• Excellent primary subject internal consistency (r =0.8538) 
• Excellent close other internal consistency (r = 0.8551)

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 eåectiveness

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:

• Fundamental Characteristics of normal effective communication
• An assessment of characteristics of cognitive-communicative breakdown following brain injury

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.