LSHSS
Research Article
Spoken Persuasive Discourse Abilities
of Adolescents With Acquired
Brain Injury
Catherine Moran, a Cecilia Kirk, b and Emma Powell c
Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the performance
of adolescents with acquired brain injury (ABI) during a spoken
persuasive discourse task. Persuasive discourse is frequently
used in social and academic settings and is of importance in
the study of adolescent language.
Method: Participants included 8 adolescents with ABI and
8 peers without ABI who were matched for age, gender, and
education. A spoken persuasive discourse task requiring par-
ticipants to express their opinion on a topic was administered,
and the 2 groups were compared on measures of language
productivity, syntactic complexity, and language content.
In addition, the relationship between working memory and
discourse production was explored.
t is estimated that approximately half a million American
I children under the age of 14 sustain an acquired brain
injury (ABI) each year (Langlois, Rutland-Brown, &
Thomas, 2005). ABI refers to brain injury that can result
from impact to the brain. It also includes diffuse damage that
arises from accidents that result in a severe lack of oxygen to
the brain such as near-drowning incidents (e.g., Blosser &
dePompeii, 2003). For the purposes of this paper, ABI refers
specifically to accidental injuries that are limited to closed
head injury. For children who suffer an ABI in childhood,
most will experience ongoing social and academic diffi-
culties (Turkstra, 1999). Related to this is the presence of
a
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
b
University of Oregon, Eugene
c
Accident Compensation Corporation of New Zealand,
Wellington
Correspondence to Catherine Moran:
catherine.moran@canterbury.ac.nz
Editor: Marilyn Nippold
Associate Editor: Victoria Joffe
Received February 2, 2011
Revision received June 14, 2011
Accepted November 25, 2011
DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0114)
264 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 264–275 • July 2012 * American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Results: There were no statistically significant group differences
on measures of language productivity or syntactic complexity, with
the exception of the use of mazes, which was more prevalent in the
discourse of the group with ABI. However, there were significant
differences in language content, with age-matched peers produc-
ing more than twice as many supporting reasons and far fewer
tangentially related utterances than the adolescents with ABI.
Conclusions: Persuasive discourse production was affected follow-
ing ABI. Given the importance of persuasive discourse in social and
academic situations, further investigations into factors that influ-
ence discourse production in adolescents with ABI are warranted.
Key Words: adolescents, brain injury, discourse analysis
communication deficits that are not only recognized at the
time of injury, but that may become evident or worsen as
the child progresses into adolescence. For instance, it has
been reported that children who demonstrate relative re-
covery of language skills may present with difficulties with
later developing syntax and semantics (e.g., Ewing-Cobbs,
Brookshire, Scott, & Fletcher, 1998; Jordan, Cannon, &
Murdoch, 1992; Jordan & Murdoch, 1994; Moran & Gillon,
2004).
One area of language that continues to develop through-
out childhood and adolescence is discourse production. Dis-
course impairments are often evident at the time of brain injury
and persist in children and adolescents regardless of the age
of injury or stage of recovery (Biddle, McCabe, & Bliss,
1996; Chapman et al., 1992; Chapman et al., 1997; Ewing-
Cobbs et al., 1998).
Discourse Production Following ABI
The most widely studied type of discourse produced by
children with ABI is narrative discourse (e.g., Coelho, 1995,
2002). Performance on narrative production tasks has typ-
ically been measured across three broad domains: language
productivity (e.g., number of words, number of T-units),
syntactic complexity (e.g., clause density), and language
content (e.g., essential story information, inclusion of epi-
sodic structure elements).
Within the narrative genre, children and adolescents with
ABI have been found to present with deficits predominantly
in the domains of language content (Brookshire, Chapman,
Song, & Levin, 2000; Chapman et al., 1992, 1997). For
instance, Chapman et al. (1997) compared the performance of
children with ABI to that of age-matched peers (AMPs) on
two narrative tasks involving a retell of an Aesop’s fable and
generation of a story based on a five-picture card sequence.
Each story contained 16 propositions and had distinctive
episodes and similar macrostructure or gist components. Re-
sults indicated highly significant differences between the
two groups on measures of language content, with the ABI
group producing less information and omitting essential story
components and global story content, as well as producing
disruptions to story structure. However, there were no sta-
tistically significant group differences on measures of lan-
guage productivity or syntactic complexity.
In contrast, Hay and Moran (2005) found that children
and adolescents with ABI had deficits across all three lan-
guage domains. Hay and Moran compared the performance
of nine individuals with ABI and nine typically developing
AMPs on the retelling of narrative fables and expository
passages. Their results showed that, in addition to reduced
language content, the participants with ABI produced fewer
words and fewer T-units as well as less complex syntactic
structures.
In a different type of narrative task, personal narrative
production, Biddle et al. (1996) found that although both
adults and children with ABI produced equal amounts of
discourse as their peers, their productions were less efficient.
For example, critical, partial, or entire units of information
were left out of the narratives of the participants with ABI,
making it difficult for listeners to understand the main points
of the narrative. Productivity was affected in that the indi-
viduals with ABI produced a greater number of repetitions,
filled pauses, and false starts.
Although the findings in the studies described are varied,
measures of language productivity, syntactic complexity,
and language content may all be reduced in the discourse
production of individuals with ABI. For this reason, a broad
range of measures should be considered when evaluating
discourse in this population.
Persuasive Discourse
One factor that must be considered when evaluating dis-
course production is the genre that is assessed. In nonclinical
populations, genre has been shown to affect language produc-
tivity and syntactic complexity (Nippold, Hesketh, Duthie,
& Mansfield, 2005; Scott & Windsor, 2000). Differences in
organization and content have also been noted. One type of
discourse that has received little attention in ABI research is
persuasive discourse. Persuasive discourse aims to convince
another person to share one’s point of view (e.g., Devito,
2003; Nippold, 2007). Persuasive discourse is an important
genre to examine in adolescents with ABI for a variety of
reasons. First, persuasion is considered to be a more cogni-
tively demanding task than narrative production (Crowhurst,
1990; Felton & Kuhn, 2001; Knudson, 1992), and given
the cognitive deficits associated with ABI, it is likely to be
impaired.
Second, persuasive discourse is a form of discourse that is
common in daily life. For adolescents, persuasive discourse
may occur in both formal situations (e.g., school debates,
school essays) and informal situations (e.g., convincing a
friend to see a movie, urging parents to purchase the latest
electronic gadget). The ability to produce efficient persua-
sive discourse is recognized as an important academic skill.
For instance, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (2007)
stated that in order to achieve English standards for grad-
uation, adolescents should be able to produce spoken lan-
guage that is persuasive by providing coherent arguments
and clear points of view.
Third, Nippold (2007) described ongoing development of
persuasive discourse throughout the school-age and adolescent
years, with improvements to such areas as the anticipation
of counterarguments, the substitution of “whining” and
“begging” tactics for bargaining and continued politeness,
providing a larger number of different arguments including
advantages for the speaker to comply, and changing the
speaker’s persuasive style to cater to differing audience fea-
tures. However, it appears that full maturation of persuasive
discourse skills is not yet complete by 17 years of age, par-
ticularly in the area of pragmatics (e.g., Nippold, 2007). This
makes the persuasive genre a later developing skill and there-
fore may be affected by an ABI in childhood.
Finally, adolescence is a time of significant social de-
velopment. From pre-adolescence (9–12 years) through to
older adolescence (17+ years), a number of developmental
changes take place with regard to the construction of self-
identity, including development of independent values,
morals, and opinions (Turkstra, 2000). Using a variety of
ecological data collection methods such as focus groups and
observation, Turkstra (2000) compiled a list of skills that are
considered to be required for social acceptance in this age
group. Of significance to the application of persuasive dis-
course were the ability to understand another person’s point
of view and to be flexible in thinking about an issue. Within
adolescent conversation interactions, speaker characteris-
tics included asking questions and seeking opinions of others.
In summarizing the study, Turkstra stated that communica-
tion was not only the means for conveying information, but it
also provided a medium for developing social skills. View-
ing persuasive discourse as a means to develop one’s sense
of identity through communicating opinions, ideas, and
beliefs signals that this genre is vitally important in the ado-
lescent years. Given the challenges faced by adolescents with
ABI, the more that is known about their ability to conduct
Moran et al.: Persuasive Discourse in Adolescents 265
persuasive discourse, the better equipped clinicians and edu-
cators will be in assisting them to reach their social com-
municative potential.
Discourse and Working Memory (WM)
There are a number of reasons why individuals would
demonstrate difficulties with discourse production following
ABI. It is useful to consider the possible underlying causes of
the discourse difficulties in order to determine how to best
proceed with intervention (Chapman et al., 1997). Although
communication deficits following ABI have typically been
found to be influenced by characteristics of the injury (e.g.,
severity of injury, age at injury; Dennis, 1989; Ewing-Cobbs,
Fletcher, Levin, & Eisenberg, 1987; Jordan & Murdoch,
1994), it has been proposed that executive functions may be
an important contributor to pragmatic deficits such as dis-
course generation, regardless of the nature of the injury
(Douglas, 2010). Executive functions include but are not
limited to attentional control, inhibition of irrelevant infor-
mation and responses, and monitoring and updating of infor-
mation over time (Miyake et al., 2000; Miyake & Shah, 1999).
Douglas (2010) examined the influence of a small subset
of executive functions on the ability to produce conversa-
tional discourse following ABI. She found associations
between executive functioning and conversational ability,
whereas no such links were found between conversational
performance and injury characteristics such as length of
posttraumatic amnesia or site of lesion. This is consistent with
earlier findings by Brookshire et al. (2000), who found that
although executive functions including memory were asso-
ciated with discourse performance on a narrative task, the
site and extent of the lesion were not. Given the heterogeneity
of individuals with ABI, performance on executive function-
ing may be a more important indicator of overall communi-
cative functioning than injury characteristics. Executive
functions are part of a broader mechanism of cognitive
function referred to as WM (Baddeley, 1976). WM is typi-
cally conceptualized as a part of memory that is involved
in the strategic processing and storage of information (e.g.,
Baddeley, 1976; Just & Carpenter, 1992). WM has been
linked extensively to the processing of discourse in popu-
lations with and without brain injury (e.g., Cain, Bryant, &
Oakhill 2004; Chapman et al., 2006; Light & Anderson, 1985).
The contribution of WM to discourse production is less
clear, yet there is evidence to support a link. In an exam-
ination of the neural correlates of discourse comprehension
and production, the frontal and temporal areas of the brain,
areas that support WM, are also active in discourse pro-
duction (Mar, 2004). In written text, WM has been found to
be a strong contributor to discourse production, associated
with measures such as sentence length (Kellogg, 2004) and
goal-directed writing (McCutcheon, 1996). With regard to
WM and discourse production in clinical populations, results
have been equivocal. Hay and Moran (2005) noted a strong
266 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 264–275 • July 2012
relationship between WM and the ability to produce expos-
itory and narrative discourse using a retelling task. They
suggested that if WM is constrained, individuals are likely to
perform more poorly on a discourse retelling task as it is
difficult to store the information for later retelling. When
the task is a generation task as opposed to retelling, how-
ever, the storage demands may not be as great, so it is
less clear whether WM would be taxed. Youse and Coelho
(2005) explored the contribution of WM on conversa-
tional discourse. Using a digit span task, they examined
the relationship between performance on the memory task
and measures of discourse production. Although they
did not find a significant correlation, Youse and Coelho
suggested that the relationship be further explored using
a more complex WM task that taxes both storage and
processing.
To summarize, the practical applications of persuasive
discourse skills are lifelong and are important in both aca-
demic success and functioning in everyday life (Crowhurst,
1990). Furthermore, the ability to persuade and use argu-
ments effectively is considered a fundamental social inter-
action skill (Bartsch, London, & Campbell, 2007; Felton &
Kuhn, 2001). Spoken discourse production is disrupted in
children and adolescents following ABI, with deficits oc-
curring in the domains of language productivity, syntactic
complexity, and language content. Although performance on
measures of discourse has been found to vary across studies,
it is collectively agreed that individuals with ABI have
difficulty verbally organizing and constructing language for
functional tasks such as narration and explanation.
Goals of the Study
Currently, there is limited research investigating either
written or spoken persuasive discourse in individuals with
ABI. The aim of this study was to address this gap in the
literature by examining the performance of adolescents with
ABI on a task of spoken persuasive discourse. Specifically,
three questions are addressed:
& Do adolescents with ABI differ from AMPs on
language productivity and syntactic complexity
measures in a spoken discourse task?
& Do adolescents with ABI differ from AMPs on
language content measures in a spoken discourse task?
& Is WM associated with performance on spoken
discourse in adolescents with and without ABI?
METHOD
Participants
Study participants (N = 16) included eight adolescents with
brain injury (Mage = 14;6 [years;months], range = 11;7–17;5)
and eight age-, gender-, and education-matched peers with-
out brain injury (Mage = 14;6, age range = 11;7–17;11). All
participants were monolingual English speakers and attended
middle or secondary school education institutions. No par-
ticipants had a reported hearing or visual impairment. The
following demographic information is provided for each
particpant in Table 1: gender, age at injury, age at testing,
educational level, mechanism of injury, and scores on the
Los Ranchos Amigos Scale of Cognitive Functioning
(LCOF; Hagen, 1998) and the Disability Rating Scale
(Rappaport, 2005).
Adolescents with ABI. The participants with ABI were
recruited from the existing and previous clinical caseload of
one of the authors and were deemed to be brain injured if
they had a claim that had been accepted by the Accident
Compensation Corporation of New Zealand. The partici-
pants with ABI sustained their injuries a minimum of 7 years
before administration of the persuasive discourse task re-
ported in this paper. Severity levels of injuries were unable to
be obtained for all participants due to the time since injury.
However, all participants with ABI presented with language
difficulties as identified by a combination of standardized
testing and a practicing speech-language pathologist
(SLP). Specifically, the participants with ABI (a) had
been diagnosed with language difficulties and had re-
ceived or were receiving speech-language pathology
services focusing on language, literacy, and/or cognitive-
communication disorders; (b) had scored >1 SD below the
mean on at least two subtests of the Clinical Evaluation of
Language Fundamentals—Fourth Edition (CELF–4; Semel,
Wiig, & Secord, 2003); (c) had scored >1 SD below the mean
on at least one subtest of the Test of Adolescent and Adult
Language—Third Edition (TOAL–3; Hammill, Brown,
Larsen, & Wiederholt, 1994); and (d) were receiving teacher
aide support in the classroom. It was confirmed by the ser-
vice provider that all participants had sustained injuries
that ranged from moderate-to-severe to severe according to
criteria defined by the Accident Compensation Corpora-
tion Serious Injury Profiles (Accident Compensation
Corporation, 2010).
All participants exhibited some disability in daily func-
tioning as measured by the LCOF and the DRS. The LCOF
describes stages of functioning following ABI that range
from I to VIII, with I being no response and VIII being
purposeful and appropriate. The scores of the participants
with ABI ranged from VI to VIII on the LCOF. The DRS is
a valid, reliable tool that measures current functioning of
individuals with ABI and other acquired brain injuries such
as stroke (Douglas, 2010; Rappaport, 2005). It is particularly
useful when a long period of time has passed post injury
as individuals with brain injury can demonstrate differing
levels of recovery over time, regardless of the severity of
the injury (Blosser & de Pompei, 2003; Rappaport, 2005).
The DRS measures function across four areas: arousability,
awareness, and responsiveness; cognition for self-care;
dependence on others; and employability (or alternatively,
functioning at school). The severity levels range from 0
(no disability) to 29 (vegetative state). The scores of the
participants in this study ranged from 2 (partial disability) to
4 (moderate disability). See Table 1 for details. Participants
were excluded from the study if (a) English was not the
first language spoken in the home; (b) there was a premorbid
history of special education, including treatment for lan-
guage deficits for those who received their injury subsequent
to the first year of life; (c) there was a prior history of psy-
chological disorder; or (d) child abuse was suspected.
AMPs. Once the participants with ABI had been identi-
fied, typically developing participants were recruited to
match the adolescents with ABI based on gender, age (matched
within 6 months), and educational level. Students in the
AMP group were all recruited from a single high school and
were selected from an initial pool of students put forward
by the school’s special needs coordinator. Students in the
initial pool were recommended because they were deemed

Table 1. Demographics of the participants with acquired brain injury (ABI).

Age at injury
Participant Gender (years;months) Age at testing Educational level Mechanism of injury LCOF DRS

1 Male 1;4 11;7 Year 7 Fall VI 3

2 Male 3;4 12;8 Year 8 Collision VIII 2
3 Male 7;4 14;4 Year 9 Fall VI 4
4 Male 5;6 14;6 Year 9 Fall VII 2
5 Female 2;7 14;11 Year 10 MVA VIII 1
6 Male 7;6 15;1 Year 10 Car vs. pedestrian VII 2
7 Male 8;8 16;1 Year 11 Medical mishap VI 4
8 Male 5;7 17;5 Year 13 Bike vs. car VIII 3

Note. LCOF = Los Ranchos Amigos Scale of Cognitive Functioning (Hagen, 1998); DRS = Disability Rating Scale (Rappaport, 2005), MVA =
motor vehicle accident.

Moran et al.: Persuasive Discourse in Adolescents 267

to have no existing learning or language problems and would Table 3. Independent t test results comparing performance of
likely be willing participants in the project. From this pool, the two groups on language and working memory tests.
the AMPs who best matched the participants with ABI were then
selected to participate in the study. All of the AMPs performed
Test t p d
within or above normal limits on the CELF–4 and TOAL–3.

CELF–4 5.88 <.001 2.94

Procedure TOAL–3: WV 6.95 <.001 3.47
All sessions followed the same format. Following a brief TOAL–3: WG 3.53 .003 1.76
CLPT 3.62 .003 1.81
introduction and explanation of the session, two standard-
ized language tests (CELF–4 and TOAL–3) and a WM test
(Competing Language Processing Test [CLPT]; Gaulin &
Campbell, 1994) were administered. The language tests were fatigue. Sessions were conducted at each participant’s school
administered in order to determine the language status of or home (all of the AMPs were seen at school, and six of
the adolescents with and without ABI. The WM test was the eight students with ABI were seen at home) in a quiet
administered in order to examine the relationship between room with minimal distraction. Participants were offered the
WM and discourse production. Results of the language and option of having a significant other present, and one of the
WM tests for the two groups of participants are presented eight students with ABI opted for this.
in Table 2. Results of independent t tests comparing perfor- WM. The CLPT was selected to measure WM as it is a
mance between the two groups are provided in Table 3. dual processing and storage task that is used to evaluate WM in
This testing was followed by a 10-min break, and finally, children. The CLPT is a complex WM task that is similar to
the persuasive discourse task was administered. Sessions Daneman and Carpenter’s (1980) Reading Span task for adults.
lasted between 1 hr and 15 min and 2 hr. Breaks were of- It has been suggested that complex WM tasks like the CLPT are
fered throughout the session to help minimize the effects of more likely to be linked to discourse generation than simple
span tasks (Youse & Coelho, 2005). The CLPT was selected for
use in this study because the test items are constructed of
Table 2. Performance of the two groups of participants on sentences that are short and simple to comprehend. Although
language and working memory tests. standardized on children ages 6 to 12, this test was deemed
particularly useful for children who sustained their ABI at a
young age as the sentence length and complexity meant that it
Test ABI AMP should be achievable by the youngest participants with ABI.
Despite being designed for younger children, no participants in
CELF–4 the current study, including both those with and without ABI,
M 93.63 122.25 achieved a perfect score. To complete the CLPT, participants
SD 11.69 7.27 were required to listen to groups of sentences increasing in num-
Range 79–115 114–134
ber from two to six. Participants were instructed to answer true
TOAL–3: WV subtest
M 4.25 12.88 or false after each sentence (processing component) and then
SD 3.01 1.81 to repeat the last word of each sentence once the whole group
Range 1–8 10–15 had been read aloud (storage component). The percentage cor-
TOAL–3: WG subtest rect of true/false responses and words recalled were recorded.
M 6.38 12.38
Spoken persuasive discourse task. Next, participants
SD 4.07 2.56
Range 1–14 8–15 were asked to offer an opinion as to whether they thought
CLPT team sports or individual sports were better and to provide
M 24.63 29.13 reasons for their claim. This topic was chosen because sports
SD 2.92 1.96 have a widespread appeal, thus increasing the likelihood that
Range 20–28 27–33
the participants would have personal experience with vari-
ous types of sports because topic knowledge is likely to af-
Note. CELF–4 = Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals— fect the quality of persuasive argumentation. Each participant
Fourth Edition (Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003; results shown are core
language scores where M = 100 and SD = 15); TOAL–3 = Test of was prompted to look at a photomontage depicting a vari-
Adolescent and Adult Language—Third Edition (Hammill, Brown, ety of team and individual sports. The examiner then read
Larsen, & Wiederholt, 1994; results shown are subtest standard scores aloud an introductory passage to encourage the participants
where M = 10 and SD = 3); WV = Writing Vocabulary; WG = Writing to consider all aspects of the topic:
Grammar; CLPT = Competing Language Processing Test (Gaulin
& Campbell, 1994; results shown are raw scores representing the People have different views on which are the best types of
number of words recalled; higher scores represent greater working sport to play, individual sports or team sports. For example,
memory capacity). some people think team sports like rugby, netball, and soccer

268 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 264–275 • July 2012
 are great because you get to share the work and different
team members get to do different jobs like goal shoot.
However, other people think that individual sports like
swimming, snowboarding, and some athletics are the best
because you get to challenge yourself and when you win
you’ve done it all on your own. I am interested in learning
whether you think team sports or individual sports are better
and why. I want you to spend the next 10 minutes telling
me what you think and make sure you give me lots of good
reasons for your opinion. I will raise my hand when you’ve
got 1 minute to go. Do you have any questions?
Data Transcription and Analyses
Each spoken sample was keyboarded into the Systematic
Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) computer pro-
gram (Miller & Chapman, 2010). Coding of the variables
of interest (i.e., language productivity, syntactic complexity,
and language content) was conducted by researchers who
were blinded to participant group membership.
Language productivity. One of the researchers divided
each spoken sample into T-units. T-units were defined as an
independent clause with any associated dependent clauses.
Definitions and examples of independent and dependent
clauses provided by the participants are provided in Table 4.
Maze behaviors that consisted of filled pauses (e.g., and they
say [um] well done), revisions (e.g., you have more varia-
tion [in the] in the sports you can play), and repetitions (e.g.,
but [teams] teams are good to play in) were parenthesized
and were excluded from the calculation of the mean length
of T-units in words. Reliability of coding for this measure
and all other variables of interest followed the protocol set
out in Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, and Fanning (2005). A
second researcher checked the T-units and mazes to verify
that they had been identified correctly. The level of agree-
ment between the two investigators for number of T-units
was 99.5%. The level of agreement between the two inves-
tigators for total number of mazed words was 98.5%. Any
disagreement was resolved through discussion until 100%
agreement was attained. From this information, the follow-
ing measures of language productivity were calculated:
(a) total number of T-units, (b) mean length of T-unit in
words, (c) total number of unmazed words, and (d) num-
ber of mazed words as a proportion of total words.
Syntactic complexity. Next, each sample was coded so
that a variety of syntactic variables could be identified. This
included identification of independent clauses and three
types of subordinate clauses (i.e., nominal, adverbial, and
relative). Subordinate clauses that contained nonfinite verbs
were included in the analysis if they contained a subject
that was different than the subject in the matrix clause (e.g.,
You have got [no-one to help you] ). A second researcher
checked the coding of subordinate clauses to verify that they
had been identified correctly. The level of agreement between
the two investigators on the coding of subordinate clauses
was 99%. The identification of the different clause types was
used to determine the following: (a) use of nominal, adver-
bial, and relative clauses as a percentage of the T-units per
sample; (b) clause density, which is defined as the total num-
ber of independent and subordinate clauses divided by the
total number of T-units in each sample; and (c) proportion
of T-units with subordinate clauses that were themselves
embedded inside a subordinate clause (e.g., I think [team
sports are better [because [if you injure yourself] then you’ve
got other people to take your place]].)
Language content. Each language sample was examined
for essential elements of persuasive argument, including

Table 4. Definitions and examples of independent and dependent clauses provided by the study participants.

Clause type Definition Example

Independent clause Contains a subject and a main verb and can stand Team sports are more fun.
on its own to express a complete thought.
Subordinate clause Contains a subject and a main verb but must be linked
to an independent clause to express a complete thought.
There are three main types of subordinate clauses:
nominal, adverbial, and relative.
Nominal clause Acts as the subject or more commonly as the object I think (that they are both just the same).
of an independent clause.
Nonfinite clauses were included in the analysis if they You have got to encourage (them to do better).
contained a subject that was different to the subject
in the matrix clause.
Adverbial clause Expresses condition, time, or reason. Team sports are good (because you learn
social ways of doing stuff ).
Relative clause Describes the preceding noun. And then there are sports (that are sort of
individual and team) like car racing.
Describes the preceding sentence. You get to bond with other people (which is
good for your interacting skills).

Moran et al.: Persuasive Discourse in Adolescents 269

number of supporting reasons, number of tangentially related
utterances, and the speaker’s attitude. The definition of
supporting reasons was adapted from previous research (e.g.,
Clark & Delia, 1976; Nippold et al., 2005). Supporting
reasons had to be distinct and were counted only once re-
gardless of whether they were repeated or not. Furthermore,
the supporting reason had to serve a persuasive function. That
is, it had to state an advantage about individual versus team
sports and not simply a fact or statement about sports. For
instance, Team sports are better because you have other team
mates to rely on if you make a mistake would count as a
supporting reason. On the other hand, an utterance such as
Rugby is a team sport would not count as a supporting rea-
son because it does not support an opinion either way. Like-
wise, utterances that stated advantages that could be used to
argue for either individual or team sports were not credited.
For instance, Individual sports like swimming can be good
because you have to strive at it was not counted as a sup-
porting reason because the argument could hold for either
team or individual sports. Supporting reasons that served a
persuasive function were credited regardless of whether or
not they supported the original claim. Examples of different
types of supporting reasons proposed by the participants in
this study are provided in Table 5.
An utterance was coded as tangentially related if it was
related to the topic (i.e., sports) but did not serve a persuasive
function. Utterances that were coded as tangentially related
included those that simply described a sport or provided
some facts about sports but did nothing to further the speak-
er’s point of view (e.g., One sport is tennis and with tennis
you have a tennis racket and a net). Tangentially related
utterances also included statements that did not make sense
pragmatically (e.g., And with a team, it is quite hard to learn
from a team because you don’t know what they are doing),
as well as utterances where the stated advantage/disadvantage
could be attributed to either team or individual sports (e.g.,
Individual sports like swimming can be good because you
have to strive at it.)
Finally, attitude was scored for whether the discourse
expressed a single attitude or a mixed attitude. Adapted from
Nippold et al. (2005), attitude was based on whether the
supporting reasons indicated a preference of one type of sport
over another or whether the reasons supported both types
of sport. Although some individuals stated a mixed claim
(e.g., I like both), credit was only given to a mixed claim if
the reasons supported both arguments.
After examining all of the transcripts according to the
coding criteria for language content, a second investigator
double checked each transcript and flagged any disagree-
ments with the first investigator. The following levels of
agreement were reached: number of supporting reasons
(91%), number of tangentially related utterances (97%),
and speaker’s attitude (89%). Any disagreements were then
resolved to 100% agreement through discussion.
Statistical Analysis
To examine group effects, a t test for independent means
(2-tailed) was performed on each factor of interest. When
the significance level for Levene’s Test for Equality of

Table 5. Examples of supporting reasons for individual versus team sports provided by the study participants.

Reason Example of reason

Work together to accomplish things You accomplish something that you might not be able to accomplish yourself.
Push each other to do better You don’t want to disappoint your team members.
Share the victory When you are playing cricket, if you hit the ball far enough they pat you on
the back and say well done.
Social activities associated with team sports After the game if you’re older you can have a few drinks.
Interaction with others You get to work with other people.
Variety of roles within a team Get to do different jobs.
Make friends I really like the team because you get to know people and you make lots of
new friends.
Help each other out You can help each other in the game.
Learn things from others Learn skills like working in a team that can make you better in the workforce.
Less pressure In a team sport if you decide not to have the ball anymore you can pass it to
someone else.
Shared responsibility for losing/winning If you fail you know you haven’t worked as hard as the others whereas in a team
it’s not all the blame that falls just on you.
Loneliness In individual sport you practice by yourself so you can end up feeling lonely.
Time on your own Individual is better because I like doing things on my own.
Do it on your own schedule Bike riding you can go as fast as you want to.
Don’t have to listen to anyone else Don’t have to listen to anyone.
Self-reliance You did it by yourself with no one’s help.

270 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 264–275 • July 2012
Variances was ≤.05, then the version of the t test that does Table 6. Measures of language productivity, syntactic
not assume equal variances was used. An alpha level of .05 complexity, language content, and working memory with
independent t test results.
was used for all statistical tests. In addition, the practical
significance of the results was assessed using Cohen’s
d statistic (Cohen, 1988). Cohen proposed the following Measure ABI AMP t p d
guidelines for the interpretation of effect sizes: small
d = .2, medium d = .5, and large d = .8.
Total number of T-units
M 21.88 23.25 .25 .80 .12
SD 12.90 8.89
RESULTS Range 9–45 11–31

This study compared the performance of adolescents Total length of T-unit in words
M 15.09 13.19 1.11 .30 .55
with ABI and their AMPs on a spoken persuasive discourse SD 4.72 1.16
task. The results for group comparisons on measures of Range 9.6–24.2 11.5–15.0
language productivity, syntactic complexity, language con- Total number of unmazed words
tent, and WM are reported in Table 6. For the measures M 287.75 303.75 .26 .80 .17
of language productivity and syntactic complexity, there SD 135.22 114.28
were no statistically significant group differences except Range 154–580 157–432
for maze words as a proportion of total words. The effect Maze words as proportion of total words
size for this variable was very large, with the group with M 15.63 7.50 2.93 .02 1.47
ABI producing almost twice as many maze words as a SD 7.09 3.34
Range 6–27 2–19
proportion of total words than the AMPs. In addition, very
large effects sizes were obtained for clause density and total Nominal clause usea
M 37.00 22.25 1.14 .27 .56
number of multiple embeddings. Thus, although these re-
SD 36.05 6.06
sults were not statistically significant, there were clinically Range 10–122 14–35
significant group differences for both of these variables.
Adverbial clause usea
Surprisingly, the group with ABI outperformed the AMP M 57.00 46.13 .70 .50 .35
group on measures of clause density and total number of SD 38.0 22.0
multiple embeddings. Thus, as a group, the adolescents Range 27–133 21–82
with ABI produced a greater number of embedded clauses Relative clause usea
per T-unit, and they also produced more T-units that con- M 17.87 9.25 1.41 .19 .71
tained an embedded clause that was itself embedded in SD 15.87 6.84
another clause. Range 0–44 0–24
For the measures of language content, the following Clause density
variables were both statistically and clinically significant: M 2.12 1.77 1.96 .08 1.01
SD .43 .24
total number of supporting reasons and total number of Range 1.59–2.89 1.45–2.18
tangentially related utterances. On average, the AMP
Total number of multiple embeddingsa
group produced more than twice as many supporting
M 19.63 7.75 2.21 .06 1.10
reasons as the group with ABI. Furthermore, the group SD 14.38 4.95
with ABI produced more than twice as many utterances Range 5–38 0–17
that were only tangentially related to the topic. Group Total number of supporting reasons
differences in speaker attitude (mixed vs. single) were M 2.25 5.88 5.09 <.001 2.54
determined using the Fisher Exact Test. The Fisher Exact SD 1.58 1.25
test was chosen because of the small sample size. Al- Range 1–5 4–8
though the AMP group produced more arguments with Total number of tangentially related utterances
a mixed attitude, this difference was not statistically M 12.38 5.25 2.37 .033 1.19
significant (p = .25). SD 6.84 5.06
Range 3–21 1–18
For WM, there was a statistically significant difference
between the two groups on the CLPT, with the AMP group CLPTb
M 24.63 29.13 3.62 .003 1.81
scoring significantly higher than the group with ABI. A large SD 2.92 1.96
effect size was also noted. To determine whether WM was Range 20–28 27–33
related to measures of language productivity, syntactic com-
plexity, and language content, Pearson product–moment a
Reported as percentage of T-units per sample. bCLPT results are
correlation coefficients were calculated using participants’ number of words recalled. No norms were >12;0. Higher scores
scores on the CLPT and their scores on each of the dependent represent greater working memory capacity.

Moran et al.: Persuasive Discourse in Adolescents 271

variables. None of the correlations was statistically signifi- Given that persuasion is a later developing form of
cant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 7). discourse, we might expect that individuals with ABI
would perform more poorly on measures of syntactic
complexity than their typically developing peers. How-
ever, this is not what we found. In fact, the group with ABI
DISCUSSION actually produced greater clause density and more multi-
Persuasive discourse is frequently used in social and ple embeddings than the AMP group, and although these
academic settings and so is of great importance in the study group differences were not statistically significant, the
of adolescent language. The aim of this study was to exam- effect sizes were large. Closer inspection of the data re-
ine the performance of adolescents with ABI on spoken vealed that the group differences in syntactic complexity
persuasive discourse. Specifically, the authors examined were almost entirely due to the responses of a single par-
whether adolescents with ABI differed from AMPs on ticipant who produced multiple productions of one partic-
language productivity, syntactic complexity, and language ular syntactic structure that consisted of a relative clause
content measures when performing a spoken persuasive embedded under an adverbial clause of reason. Some exam-
discourse task. In addition, the relationship between WM ples of this construction produced by this participant in-
and discourse production was explored. clude, You can’t feel left out [cos you’re the one [who’s
doing the paddling]] and You might not get passed the ball
[because they might want to pass it to somebody [who’s
Language Productivity and
better at playing]]. Thus, although one participant with
Syntactic Complexity ABI produced many repetitions of one particular complex
The first question addressed by the study was whether syntactic construction, in general, there was little differ-
adolescents with ABI differed from AMPs on language ence between the two groups on measures of syntactic
productivity and syntactic complexity. As in the majority complexity. The lack of a group difference on this measure
of studies looking at narrative discourse and ABI, we found was particularly perplexing given the low performance
no statistically significant group differences on any of the of the group with ABI on the Written Grammar subtest of
measures of language productivity except for number of the TOAL–3. One explanation for the disparity between
mazes. Consistent with Biddle et al.’s (1996) description of performance on the standardized test and the persuasive
personal narratives following ABI, the group with ABI was task is that standardized tests like the TOAL–3 put a par-
much less efficient at producing persuasive discourse than ticularly large load on memory, and the memory demands
the AMP group. This was evidenced by a significantly greater of these tests can result in reduced performance (Moran
use of mazes, despite having sentences that were of similar & Gillon, 2004; Turkstra & Holland, 1998).
length.
Language Content
Table 7. Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients
calculated between working memory and measures of The second question addressed by this study was whether
language productivity, syntactic complexity, and language adolescents with ABI differed from AMPs on language
content (N = 16). content measures in a spoken discourse task. In order to
investigate this research question, participants’ discourse
was coded for the number of supporting reasons as well as
Correlation the number of tangentially related reasons produced. The
Dependent variable coefficient p value
speaker’s attitude as to whether team sports or individual
sports were better was also evaluated. The findings revealed
Total number of T-units –.160 .553 significant differences between the two groups in the number of
Total length of T-unit in words –.365 .165 supporting reasons and the number of tangentially related
Total number of unmazed words –.262 .327
reasons. There were no group differences as to whether a single
Maze words as proportion –.212 .431
of total words or mixed attitude was expressed.
Nominal clause usea –.478 .061 The results for the language content measures are con-
Adverbial clause usea –.192 .476 sistent with other discourse production studies that have
Relative clause usea –.023 .934 shown that individuals with ABI generally produce less
Clause density –.478 .061
content than typically developing peers (e.g., Chapman,
Total number of multiple embeddingsa –.373 .155
Total number of supporting reasons .387 .138 1997; Coelho, 2002). The current study extends previous
Total number of tangentially –.152 .575 findings to show that individuals with ABI attempt to
related utterances provide sufficient information when producing a persua-
sive argument, but the information put forward is often
a
Reported as percentage of T-units per sample. irrelevant. Hence, the individuals with ABI attempt to fulfil

272 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 264–275 • July 2012
the expectations of a persuasive argument by providing rea-
sons, but these reasons do not always support their point of view.
WM and Discourse
The third question addressed whether WM was associ-
ated with performance on a spoken discourse task in adoles-
cents with and without ABI. The group with ABI scored
significantly more poorly on the CLPT, a measure of WM,
suggesting that they have reduced WM capacity. Despite
the group differences in overall WM capacity, however, WM
did not appear to influence performance on the spoken dis-
course task. This is in contrast to Hay and Moran (2005),
where WM was significantly correlated with expository
discourse production. The differences may be due in part to
the different type of discourse being evaluated (expository
vs. persuasive). However, it is more likely that task elicita-
tion factors affected the outcome. In the Hay and Moran
study, the task was an expository retelling task, whereas in
the current study, it was a generation task.
Another potential explanation for the lack of correlation
between WM and production is that the demands of the task
may not have exceeded the WM capacity of the participants
with ABI. One reason that the task may have been “easy” for
participants with ABI is that the topic was highly familiar
(individual vs. team sports) and therefore did not challenge
the participants to draw on other knowledge. With regard
to language processing, it has been shown that topics that
are highly familiar are less taxing on WM. For instance,
Yekovick, Walker, Ogle, and Thompson (1990) demon-
strated that domain knowledge was related to the quick-
ness and ease of generating inferences in spoken discourse.
Finally, it is possible that the lack of correlation could be
due to the small sample size. Large population studies that
examine both WM and persuasion are warranted.
Future Research
The purpose of this study was to compare the spoken
persuasive discourse of adolescents with ABI and their
typically developing peers. There are a number of influences
that require consideration both in interpreting the findings
of the current study and in directing future research. Factors
that have already been shown to influence persuasive dis-
course production include age of production, topic, moti-
vation of the speaker, and modality. In this study, age of
production was restricted to adolescence. Although there
have been a few studies that looked at how persuasion
changes over time (e.g., Nippold et al., 2005), a larger body
of normative data across the age range would provide a
stronger base for determining the performance of clinical
populations. In the current study, a closely matched peer
group was sought so that educational level and socio-
economic status were similar. However, it is unknown
whether the peer group would be considered within normal
limits with respect to their spoken persuasive discourse
skills. Therefore, a normative sample of spoken persuasive
discourse across the age ranges is warranted.
Topic choice has also been shown to affect the quantity
and quality of discourse that is produced (e.g., Kroll, 1984).
It is thought that topics with a clear purpose that are
of interest to the producer may be more likely to produce
output of high quality. It is possible that participants did not
perceive a clear purpose or interest in the topic of whether
they preferred individual or team sports. In fact, most par-
ticipants provided reasons why both were good, so it would
appear that the participants had no strong feelings either way.
Alternatively, a topic such as “cruelty to animals” might
be more likely to elicit strong opinions and a greater variety
of arguments.
Another aspect of task elicitation worth considering is the
specific modality. Written discourse often results in the use
of more formal, sophisticated syntactic structures than is
typically warranted for spoken discourse (Scott, 2004). For
example, Scott (2004) reported that children used more
adverbial clauses in a written version of discourse than in
a spoken version. Therefore, the written modality may be
more effective in finding differences across populations.
Written discourse also tends to be a more challenging modal-
ity in terms of processing demands and so may better high-
light any influence of WM (Scott, 2004).
Finally, examination of a broader range of cognitive and
executive functions and discourse production is warranted.
In a study of cognitive influences on persuasive discourse,
Nippold and Ward-Lonergan (2010) found that verbal ana-
logical reason was associated with number of reasons, length
of utterance in words, and a flexible attitude. In addition,
Douglas (2010) described a range of executive functions that
were associated with conversational abilities, including topic
maintenance and relevance.
Persuasive discourse is a widely employed genre, and
an individual’s ability to use it well may determine whether
or not he or she succeeds in school, employment, and/or
socially. Future research is required in this important area
so that professionals who work with individuals with ABI
can better help their students to express themselves more
effectively.
REFERENCES
Accident Compensation Corporation. (2010). Active rehabil-
itation services for traumatic brain injury. Retrieved from
http:/www.acc.co.nz.
Baddeley, A. D. (1976). The psychology of memory. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Bartsch, K., London, K., & Campbell, M. D. (2007). Children’s
attention to beliefs in interactive persuasion tasks. Developmental
Psychology, 43, 111–120.
Moran et al.: Persuasive Discourse in Adolescents 273
Biddle, K. R., McCabe, A., & Bliss, L. S. (1996). Narrative
skills following traumatic brain injury in children and adults.
Journal of Communication Disorders, 29(6), 446–469.
Blosser, J. L., & dePompeii, R. (2003). Pediatric traumatic
brain injury: Proactive intervention. New York, NY: Delmar
Learning.
Brookshire, B. L., Chapman, S. B., Song, J., & Levin, H. S.
(2000). Cognitive and linguistic correlates of children’s dis-
course after closed head injury: A three-year follow-up.
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6,
741–751.
Cain, K., Bryant, P., & Oakhill, J. (2004). Children’s reading
comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working
memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42.
Chapman, S. B. (1997). Cognitive-communication abilities in
children with closed head injury. American Journal of Speech-
Language Pathology, 6(2), 50–58.
Chapman, S. B., Culhane, K. A., Levin, H. S., Harward, H.,
Mendelsohn, D., Ewing-Cobbs, L., . . . Bruce, D. (1992).
Narrative discourse after closed head-injury in children and
adolescents. Brain and Language, 43(1), 42–65.
Chapman, S. B., Gamino, J. F., Cook, L. G., Hanten, G., Li, X.,
& Levin, H. S. (2006). Impaired discourse gist and working
memory in children after brain injury. Brain and Language,
97, 178–188.
Chapman, S. B., Watkins, R., Gustafoson, C., Moore, S.,
Levin, H. S., & Kufera, J. A. (1997). Narrative discourse
in children with closed head injury: Children with language
impairment and typically developing children. American Journal
of Speech-Language Pathology, 6(2), 66–76.
Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1976). The development of func-
tional persuasive skill in childhood and early adolescence.
Child Development, 1, 1008–1014.
Coelho, C. A. (1995). Discourse production deficits following
traumatic brain injury: A critical review of the recent literature.
Aphasiology, 9(5), 409–429.
Coelho, C. 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.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and learning the writing of
persuasive/argumentative discourse. Canadian Journal of
Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 15, 348–359.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences
in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behaviour, 19, 450–466.
Dennis, M. (1989). Language and the young damaged brain. In
T. Boll & B. K. Bryant (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology and
brain function: Research, measurement and practice (pp. 89–123).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Devito, J. A. (2003). The essential elements of public speaking.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
274 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 264–275 • July 2012
Douglas, J. (2010). Relation of executive functioning to pragmatic
outcome following severe traumatic brain injury. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 365–382.
Ewing-Cobbs, L., Brookshire, B., Scott, M. A., & Fletcher,
J. M. (1998). Children’s narratives following traumatic brain
injury: Linguistic structure, cohesion, and thematic recall.
Brain and Language, 61, 395–419.
Ewing-Cobbs, L., Fletcher, J. M., Levin, H. S., & Eisenberg,
H. M. (1987). Language functions following closed head injury
in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical and Experi-
mental Neuropsychology, 9, 575–592.
Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive
discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32, 135–153.
Gaulin, C. A., & Campbell, T. F. (1994). Procedure for assessing
verbal working memory in normal school-age children: Some
preliminary data. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 55–64.
Hagen, C. (1998). The Rancho Levels of Cognitive Functioning:
The Revised Levels—Third Edition. Downy, CA: Rancho Los
Amigos Medical Center.
Hammill, D. D., Brown, V. L., Larsen, S. C., & Wiederholt, J. L.
(1994). Test of Adolescent and Adult Language—Third Edition.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Hay, E., & Moran, C. (2005). Discourse formulation in children
with closed head injury. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 14, 324–336.
Jordan, F. M., Cannon, A., & Murdoch, B. E. (1992). Lan-
guage abilities of mildly closed head injured (CHI) children
10 years post-injury. Brain Injury, 6(1), 39–44.
Jordan, F. M., & Murdoch, B. E. (1994). Severe closed head
injury in childhood: Linguistic outcomes into adulthood.
Brain Injury, 8(6), 501–508.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of
comprehension: Individual differences in working memory.
Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149.
Kellogg, R. T. (2004). Working memory components in written
sentence generation. American Journal of Psychology, 117(3),
341–361.
Knudson, R. E. (1992). The development of written argumenta-
tion: An analysis and comparison of argumentative writing at
four grade levels. Child Study Journal, 22, 167–184.
Kroll, B. W. (1984). Audience adaptation in children’s persuasive
letters. Written Communication, 1, 407–427.
Langlois, J. A., Rutland-Brown, W., & Thomas, K. E. (2005).
The incidence of traumatic brain injury among children in the
United States: Differences by race. Journal of Head Trauma
Rehabilitation, 20(3), 229–238.
Light, L., & Anderson, P. A. (1985). Working memory capacity,
age, and memory for discourse. Journal of Gerontology, 40,
737–747.
Mar, R. A. (2004). The neuropsychology of narrative: Story
comprehension, story production and their interrelation.
Neuropsychologia, 42, 1414–1434.
McCutcheon, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working
memory in text composition. Educational Psychology Review,
8, 299–335.
Miller, J. F., & Chapman, R. S. (2010). SALT: Systematic
Analysis of Language Transcripts [Computer software]. Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Waisman Center,
Language Analysis Laboratory.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H.,
Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity
of executive functions and their contributions to complex
“frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive
Psychology, 41, 49–100.
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory:
Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control.
Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Moran, C., & Gillon, G. T. (2004). Language and memory
profiles of adolescents with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury,
18(3), 273–288.
New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2007). Level 1
English examination: Produce formal writing. Retrieved from
http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/assessment.
Nippold, M. A. (2007). Later language development: School-age
children, adolescents, and young adults (3rd ed.). Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.
Nippold, M. A., Hesketh, L. J., Duthie, J. K., & Mansfield, T. C.
(2005). Conversational versus expository discourse: A study
of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and adults.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48,
1048–1064.
Nippold, M. A., & Ward-Lonergan, J. M. (2010). Argumenta-
tive writing in pre-adolescents: The role of verbal reasoning.
Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 26, 238–248.
Nippold, M. A., Ward-Lonergan, J. M., & Fanning, J. L.
(2005). Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults:
A study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 125–138.
Rappaport, M. (2005). The Disability Rating and Coma/Near-
Coma Scales in evaluating severe head injury. Neuropsycholog-
ical Rehabilitation, 15, 442–453.
Scott, C. M. (2004). Syntactic ability in children and adolescents
with language and learning disabilities. In R. Berman (Ed.),
Language development across childhood and adolescence
(Vol. 3, pp. 111–133). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language perfor-
mance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository
discourse of school-age children with language learning dis-
abilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
43, 324–339.
Semel, W., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical
Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fourth Edition.
San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Turkstra, L. S. (1999). Language testing in adolescents with brain
injury: A consideration of the CELF–3. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 132–140.
Turkstra, L. (2000). Should my shirt be tucked in or left out?
The communication context of adolescence. Aphasiology, 14,
349–364.
Turkstra, L. S., & Holland, A. (1998). Assessment of syntax
after adolescent brain injury: Effects of memory on test per-
formance. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
41, 137–149.
Yekovich, F. R., Walker, C. H., Ogle, L. T., & Thompson, M. A.
(1990). The influence of domain knowledge on inferencing in
low-aptitude individuals. In A. C. Grasser & G. H. Bower (Eds.),
Inferences and text comprehension (pp. 259–277). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Youse, K. M., & Coelho, C. A. (2005). Working memory and
discourse production abilities following closed-head injury.
Brain Injury, 19, 1001–1009.
Moran et al.: Persuasive Discourse in Adolescents 275
Copyright of Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools is the property of American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.