Adaptation of the Montreal Communication Evaluation Battery to European Portuguese

Kerr, Mônica de Souza; Pagliarin, Karina Carlesso; Casarin, Fabiola Schwengber; Mineiro, Ana; Ferré, Perrine; Joanette, Yves; Fonseca, Rochele Paz

doi:10.1590/S2317-64312015000200001563

Mônica de Souza Kerr

Clínica de Linguagem e Cognição – Clincog – São Paulo (SP), Brazil.

Karina Carlesso Pagliarin

Post-Graduate Program in Distúrbios da Comunicação Humana, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria – UFSM – Santa Maria (RS), Brazil.

Fabiola Schwengber Casarin

Clínica Espaço de Ser – Porto Alegre (RS), Brazil.

Ana Mineiro

Instituição de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Católica Portuguesa – Lisboa, Portugal.

Perrine Ferré

Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Yves Joanette

Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Rochele Paz Fonseca

Post-Graduate Program in Psychology, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul – PUCRS – Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Correspondence address: Mônica Kerr. R. Barata Ribeiro, 190, conjunto 11, Bela Vista, São Paulo (SP), Brazil, CEP: 01308-000. E-mail: monica_kerr@hotmail.com

Conflict of interests: No

Authors' contribution:MSK was responsible for collecting data and writing the manuscript; KCP was responsible for analyzing data and writing the manuscript; FSC was responsible for literature review and writing the manuscript; AM was responsible for co-advising the research, designing the study and revising the data;RPF was responsible for advising, creating, designing, and authorizing the use of the procedure; PF andYJ authorized and assisted in the whole process of adapting the instrument.

Participants	Step	n	Selection criterion
Specialists	New stimuli adapta-tion and develop-ment	10 (9 speech thera-pists and 1 psycholo-gist)	Mastery of theoretical assumptions of language neuropsychology related to language and communication constructs
Non-specialist Judges	Analysis by non-specialist judges	80 (46 university stu-dents, 7 pre-university students and 27 grad-uated professionals)	Effective representation of the general population, untrained in relation to neu-ropsychology knowledge, with over 8 years of formal study, aged between 18 and 80 years old
Expert Judges	Analysis by expert judges	5 (3 speech thera-pists, 1 neuropsy-chologist and 1 lin-guist)	Mastery of theoretical assumptions of language neuropsychology
Pilot 1	Pilot study 1	10 neurologically healthy subjects	Do not present neurological, visual or auditory impairments
Pilot 2	Pilot study 2	30 neurologically healthy subjects	Idem previous
Pilot 3	Pilot study 3	90 neurologically healthy subjects	Idem previous

Groups	18 - 40 years old			41 - 64 years old			65 - 80 years old
Education (years)	4-9	10-13	+ 13	4-9	10-13	+ 13	4-9	10-13	+ 13
n	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10
Gender (M/F)	8/2	3/7	5/5	3/7	1/9	0/10	0/10	8/2	8/2
Average age	36.1	18.3	25,4	50.5	54.2	52.1	72.7	74.1	70.8
SD	3.93	0.48	4,14	4.81	3.61	6.01	5.46	3.57	4.21
Average years of education	7.20	12.1	16,5	6.4	12.1	15.9	4.5	11.4	15.3
SD	1.32	0.57	0,71	1.96	0.57	1.1	1.58	1.17	1.64

Task	MAC-BR Stimulus	1º Procedure	2º Procedure /Results
Metaphor interpretation	O professor é um sonífero (The teacher is a sleeping pill)	O professor é um soporífero (The teacher is a soporific)	O professor é uma seca (The teacher is a hassle)
	Meu pai é um pavão (My father is a peacock)	O meu pai é um pavão (My father is a peacock)	Este rapaz é um troca-tintas This guy is a fumbler (substitution)
	Esta criança é uma pipoca (This child is a popcorn)	Esta criança é uma pipoca (This child is a popcorn)	Esta criança é um veludo (This child is a velvet) (substitution)
	Este homem joga dinheiro no lixo (This man throws money in the garbage)	Este homem atira dinheiro ao lixo (This man pitches money in the garbage)	*
	A mãe pisa em ovos com seus filhos (The mother walks on eggs with her children)	Idem	A mãe anda em pezinhos de lã com os filhos (The mother tiptoes with her children)
Narrative discourse	Marcos é um agricultor gaúcho (Marcos is a farmer from Rio Grande do Sul)	O Marcos é um agricultor alentejano (Marcos is a farmer from Alentejo)	O António é um agricultor alentejano (António is a farmer from Alentejo)
Narrative discourse	na sua fazenda… (in his farm…)	na sua quinta… (in his homestead…)	*
Speech acts interpretation	Você tem algum programa para o fim de semana? (Do you have any plan for the weekend?)	Tens algum programa para o fim de semana? (You have a plan for the weekend?)	Tens alguma coisa para fazer no fim-de-semana? (Do you have anything to do this weekend?)
	Esta sacola está muito pesada (This bag is too heavy)	Este saco está muito pesado (This sack is too heavy)	*
	O apartamento é bem claro (The apartment is very bright)	O apartamento é bem claro (The apartment is very bright)	O apartamento é muito luminoso (The apartment is well illuminated)
	Vou cozinhar massa hoje a noite (I will cook the pasta tonight)	Hoje a noite vou fazer massa (Tonight I will prepare the pasta)	Hoje a noite vou fazer bacalhau no forno (Tonight I will prepare baked cod)
	Eu adoro a cor que a gente escolheu para o carro (I love the color chosen for the car)	Eu adoro a cor que escolhemos para o carro (I love the color we chose for the car)	*
	Cristian, que demora (Cristian, what takes you so long?)	Cristian, que demora (Cristian, what takes you so long?)	Estás a lavar os dentes há 20 minutos (You have been washing your teeth for 20 minutes)
Semantic Judgement	Bomba – Fuzil (Bomb – Rifle)	Bomba - Espingarda (Bomb – Shotgun)	Granada – Espingarda (Grenade – Shotgun)
Semantic Judgement	Pia – Tanque (Basin – Sink)	Lavatório – Tanque (Washbasin – Sink)	Lavatório – Sanita (Lavatory – Loo)

Task	Analysis performed	Themes	Average	Standard deviation	Decision of the authors
Conversational speech	Judgement of the degree of simplicity to talk to another person for 2 minutes about the subjects presented	Family	9.01	6.78	Priority subjects for a dialogue with an average of ≥8.00 were selected (Family, work, leisure, healthy nutrition).
		Work	8.87	7
		Leisure	8.97	7.7
		Global warming	6.27	2
		Fires	6.45	2.8
		Present government	6.97	2.3
		Trânsito	7.34	2.4
		Healthy nutrition	8.16	5.08
Metaphor interpretation	Judgement of the level of familiarity of new metaphors and idioms	New metaphor 1	7.26	1.16	Idioms with an average of ≥8.00 were maintained 3 expert judges were contacted in order to confirm the maintenance of the metaphors. The judges agreed to consider them unfamiliar expressions, determining to maintain the stimuli.
		New metaphor 2	7.89	2.50
		New metaphor 3	6.69	1.79
		New metaphor 4	7.90	2.87
		New metaphor 5	7.40	2.02
		New metaphor 6	7.50	2.09
		New metaphor 7	6.56	1.79
		New metaphor 8	7.80	1.88
		New metaphor 9	5.98	3.36
		New metaphor 10	7.88	2.65
		Idiom 11	8.77	1.65
Metaphor interpretation	Judgement of the level of familiarity of new metaphors and idioms	Idiom 12	9.14	1.00	Idioms with an average of ≥8.00 were maintained 3 expert judges were contacted in order to confirm the maintenance of the metaphors. The judges agreed to consider them unfamiliar expressions, determining to maintain the stimuli.
		Idiom 13	8.8	1.72
		Idiom 14	9.25	0.89
		Idiom 15	9.24	1.17
		Idiom 16	9.31	0.90
		Idiom 17	8.06	2.63
		Idiom 18	9.38	0.89
		Idiom 19	8.54	2.17
		Idiom 20	9.24	1.06
Semantic judgement	Judgement of the familiarity of the words that compose the pairs of the semantic judgement task	Plum	9.63	0.43	From the authors' criteria, all the words were selected, as they displayed an average of ≥7.00.
		Lavatory	9.62	0.43
		Bean	9.66	0.39
		Train	9.66	0.39
		Horse	9.66	0.39
		Plane	9.66	0.39
		Calf	9.59	0.52
		Gold	9.64	0.39
		Apple	9.66	0.39
		Eagle	9.66	0.49
		Pencil	9.66	0.39
		Dish	9.67	0.39
		Rubber	9.66	0.39
		Pearl	9.62	0.49
		Silk	9.62	0.57
		Cotton	9.64	0.43
		Diamond	9.57	0.80
		Grenade	9.5	0.96
		Copper	9.51	0.96
		Rifle	9.55	0.84
Semantic judgement	Judgement of the familiarity of the words that compose the pairs of the semantic judgement task	Sppon	9.67	0.39	From the authors' criteria, all the words were selected, as they displayed an average of ≥7.00.
		Loo	9.6	0.59
		Radish	9.56	0.84
		Sparrow	9.66	0.39
Speech acts interpretation	People's judgement on the situations presented, considering them as not direct at all or extremely direct	Situation 1 direct	7.41	2.79	Direct situations with an average of ≥7,00 were selected as well as indirect situations with an average of ≤5,00 The authors modified situations 9 and 15, since both did not meet the selection criteria established.
		Situation 2 indirect	1.96	1.46
		Situation 3 indirect	1.96	1.33
		Situation 4 indirect	2.52	1.71
		Situation 5 direct	9.12	0.87
		Situation 6 direct	8.51	1.49
		Situation 7 indirect	3.34	2.19
		Situation 8 direct	8.36	1.59
		Situation 9 direct	4.51	2.90
		Situation 10 indirect	2.86	2.17
		Situation 11 indirect	2.17	1.31
		Situation 12 direct	7.25	2.81
		Situation 13 direct	8.51	1.69
		Situation 14 direct	8.66	1.33
		Situation 15 indirect	6.19	2.93
		Situation 16 direct	7.41	2.37
		Situation 17 indirect	4.92	1.8
		Situation 18 direct	8.61	1.3
		Situation 19 indirect	2.18	1.61
		Situation 20 indirect	2.28	1.67

Process examined	Task	Concordance
Discursive	Narrative discourse - complete	1
Pragmatics	Metaphor interpretation - explanation	0.97
Pragmatics	Interpretation of speech acts - explanation	0.94
Lexical-semantic	Semantic judgement	0.95

[1] Correspondence address: Mônica Kerr. R. Barata Ribeiro, 190, conjunto 11, Bela Vista, São Paulo (SP), Brazil, CEP: 01308-000. E-mail: monica_kerr@hotmail.com

Brasil

Brasil

Adaptation of the Montreal Communication Evaluation Battery to European Portuguese

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion