Using Family Members or Close Friends as Informants About Participation Goals for Older Adults With and Without Aphasia Client-centered care is a stated focus for many rehabilitation programs, but personalized goal-setting presents unique challenges for people with aphasia (PWA). A potential solution for clinicians is to enlist the help of family members or close friends to determine what life activities should be addressed. In this article, we review ... Article
Free
Article  |   April 2012
Using Family Members or Close Friends as Informants About Participation Goals for Older Adults With and Without Aphasia
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Katarina L. Haley
    Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Department of Allied Health Sciences at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
  • Thomas Wangerman
    Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Department of Allied Health Sciences at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
  • Katarina L. Haley, PhD, is Associate Professor in the Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and codirector of the UNC Center for Aphasia and Related Disorders. Her research interests are in the clinical management of aphasia and apraxia of speech.
    Katarina L. Haley, PhD, is Associate Professor in the Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and codirector of the UNC Center for Aphasia and Related Disorders. Her research interests are in the clinical management of aphasia and apraxia of speech.×
  • Thomas Wangerman, MS, is a recent graduate from the Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Department of Allied Health Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is currently working as a speech-language pathologist in a rehabilitation setting.
    Thomas Wangerman, MS, is a recent graduate from the Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Department of Allied Health Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is currently working as a speech-language pathologist in a rehabilitation setting.×
  • © 2012 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Article Information
Special Populations / Older Adults & Aging / Language Disorders / Aphasia / Articles
Article   |   April 2012
Using Family Members or Close Friends as Informants About Participation Goals for Older Adults With and Without Aphasia
SIG 2 Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders, April 2012, Vol. 22, 12-17. doi:10.1044/nnsld22.1.12
SIG 2 Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders, April 2012, Vol. 22, 12-17. doi:10.1044/nnsld22.1.12

Client-centered care is a stated focus for many rehabilitation programs, but personalized goal-setting presents unique challenges for people with aphasia (PWA). A potential solution for clinicians is to enlist the help of family members or close friends to determine what life activities should be addressed. In this article, we review two main reasons this solution is not ideal. First, we discuss how negative effects on autonomy and motivation may be instigated unintentionally. Next, we consider to what extent accurate input can be assumed by proxy responders. We conclude by reporting the results of a small study showing that congruence about activity choices among family members or friends not affected by aphasia is similar to previously reported congruence in families with a history of aphasia. These results suggest that ability to predict life activity preferences in others is limited, regardless of the presence of aphasia. We contend that although the input and participation of significant others is often critical to positive rehabilitation outcomes, the value of this input lies in its relationship to the priorities identified by the individual with aphasia, not in the potential for replacing it.

Interventions targeting life participation and engagement in meaningful activities for people with aphasia (PWA) require that clinicians learn about their clients' life experiences, hopes, cultural preferences, and personal priorities. Unfortunately, the presence of aphasia, particularly in its more severe forms, limits standard mechanisms for collecting this knowledge and can be perceived as an overwhelming barrier by some clinicians (Leach, Cornwell, Fleming, & Haines, 2010). The recruitment of family members and friends as informants may superficially provide a way to work around communication challenges. However, this approach introduces other problems for psychosocial well-being, motivation, and information accuracy.
Psychosocial and Motivational Effects
In some circumstances, the linkage between rehabilitation goals and pursued life participation may be based exclusively on input from family members or close friends as informants. With this approach, clinicians identify functional treatment goals by evaluating their understanding of the individual's impairments relative to descriptions from significant others about former or current life activities, interests, and relationships (Leach et al., 2010). The PWA may be neglected entirely in the process or consulted for approval only after preliminary goals have been identified.
Another approach is to interview the PWA directly, but have family members or friends present for support and supplemental input. Somewhat less predictably, this approach may also recruit significant others as informants, rather than as facilitators or providers of supplemental input. Croteau and colleagues have shown that in three-way interactions among the clinician, the PWA, and a family member, family members often respond to questions directed to the PWA and in other ways take over the conversation floor (Croteau, Dorze, & Baril, 2007; Croteau, Vychytil, Larfeuil, & Le Dorze, 2004). Given the same interview situation, family members for individuals without neurological involvement, in contrast, retain an observational role and participate only if their input is solicited directly (Manzo, Blonder, & Bums, 1995). The observation that this speaking-for behavior is more common when the aphasia is severe (Croteau, Le Dorze, & Morin, 2008) indicates that it is linked to the extent of predicted or experienced communication challenges and, therefore, intentional.
When asked, PWA acknowledge being “spoken for” as a common source of frustration (Gillespie, Murphy, & Place, 2010). They report feeling forgotten or unimportant in these situations and perceive their social status and competence to be diminished. At the same time, many express a pragmatic need to accept the help that is offered (Gillespie et al., 2010) and even take the initiative to solicit assistance and approval (Croteau et al., 2004; Manzo et al., 1995). In interview settings, PWA may not consider effortful communicative attempts worthwhile and may instead defer to significant others who they believe can respond more efficiently. By accepting that family members or friends take on this role of speaking for them, PWA experience a loss of autonomy (LeDorze & Brassard, 1995). In a similar way, family members report a perceived conflict between supporting their loved one's social participation and respecting his or her autonomy (Gillespie et al., 2010). The achieved balance may vary extensively both within and among individuals (Purves, 2009) and depending on the communication requirements of the situation. In some circumstances, the significant other may take a leading role in conveying information by answering questions directly and/or by correcting the PWA. In other circumstances, the significant other may serve as a spokesperson who relays and facilitates content that is initiated and determined by the PWA (Goodwin, 1995; Simmons-Mackie, Kingston, & Schultz, 2004). Relinquishment of autonomy is less likely in these cases.
The consequences of not contributing as a central informant or decision-maker in the planning of one's own rehabilitation program extend beyond feeling superfluous or unimportant. Effective language and communication intervention is strongly affected by intrinsic motivation, and autonomy is known to be a critical factor for intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For further details about the link between personal investment in rehabilitation goals and positive treatment outcomes, the reader is referred to the articles in this issue by Helm-Estabrooks and Whiteside and by Womack.
Negative psychosocial and motivational consequences of relying on others to convey one's preferences are magnified when the responder misunderstands, interjects his or her own preferences, or otherwise gives incorrect information. The consequences can be particularly detrimental when the purpose of the interview is to develop a meaningful and functional rehabilitation plan. If significant others are not able to predict the responses of PWA, then the very individual for whom the plan is developed may consider the treatment goals not worth the effort or even counterproductive to personal priorities. In the next section, we consider variations in agreement between PWA and their family members or close friends.
Agreement Between Proxy and Intended Respondents
Because family members and friends do not have direct access to the thoughts of PWA, they must infer those thoughts from discussions, observations, previous joint experiences, or indirectly related knowledge. There are several reasons significant others are likely to have limited ability to predict what life activities their loved one with aphasia prefers to focus on in his or her rehabilitation program. We consider first the accuracy with which such predictions reasonably can be made about any individual, regardless of the presence of aphasia, and then the potential complications that may be introduced by the aphasia.
In health-care and survey research, proxies are often used to learn about behaviors and priorities in individuals who, for practical or convenience reasons, cannot be consulted directly. A diverse body of research shows that congruence can vary substantially depending on the topic and circumstances for the interview (Moore, 1988). Results show that proxy and primary respondents often give widely different input even for behavior that is seemingly observable, such as level of difficulty walking (Powell, Johnston, & Johnston, 2007). For these reasons, proxy data are usually aggregated across multiple measures and sometimes transformed mathematically to account for known response bias in the dataset (e.g., Skolarus et al., 2010). Obviously, such adjustments are less suitable for individual respondents and their significant others and for rehabilitation planning involving concrete life participation goals. If the ambition is restricted to the identification of general areas of interest, a reasonably comprehensive questionnaire given to proxy and primary respondents may reveal consistent preference patterns, such as interest in the arts or in strenuous physical activities. However, in light of the often reported lack of agreement in proxy-respondent research, agreement at the level of individual activity preferences—such as whether the person would like to attend concerts or walk for exercise—cannot be assumed.
For families affected by aphasia, additional complicating factors for predicting activity preferences include the onset of new impairments, altered family dynamics and responsibilities (Knapp & Hewison, 1999; Williams et al., 2006), and the presence of communication difficulties. Much proxy research in the area of stroke has targeted aspects of quality of life and has shown only modest correlations between stroke survivors and family members or close friends (Williams et al., 2006). Consistent response differences have also emerged. For example, in agreement with the broader literature on health conditions, stroke research has shown that proxy responders rate quality of life for their family member lower than the stroke survivors do themselves (Sneeuw, Aaronson, de Haan, & Limburg, 1997; Williams et al., 2006), and research specific to PWA is consistent with these results (Cruice, Worrall, Hickson, & Murison, 2005; Hilari, Owen, & Farrelly, 2007).
Based on this evidence, the most substantiated conclusion is that family members or friends have only limited ability to identify preferred life activities for PWA. We tested this prediction in a recent study by conducting separate interviews with 10 PWA and 10 family members about preferred life activities for the PWA (Haley, Womack, Helm-Estabrooks, Lovette, & Goff, in press). To maintain both breadth and specificity of the discussion, while accommodating for the presence of aphasia, we used a pictorially based interview material, the Life Interests and Values cards (LIV cards; Haley, Womack, Helm-Estabrooks, Caignon, & McCulloch, 2010), for both groups of respondents, asking the family members without aphasia to respond the way they thought the PWA would respond. Overall point-to-point agreement between PWA and family members was 71%, which we considered unsatisfactory for the purpose of treatment planning. Upon soliciting input from both groups about response differences, it became evident that the vast majority of disagreements were attributed to the family members not knowing about activity preferences the PWA had or responding the way they hoped, rather than believed, the PWA would respond. PWA, on the other hand, almost always persisted in their original activity choices and expressed satisfaction with the opportunity to convey them.
Although the results of this study highlight differences between PWA and family members, they do not indicate whether the limited agreement between family members and PWA was caused simply by the inherent challenge of predicting the subjective preferences of another person or if it was also affected by the presence of aphasia. Although indirect support for a general account is suggested by the fact that we did not find a relationship between aphasia severity and level of agreement, the study did not address whether the presence of aphasia was a contributing factor.
Predictions Among Family Members or Close Friends Not Affected by Aphasia
One way to address the potential influence of aphasia on level of agreement between proxy and primary respondent is to give the same instrument to family members who have not been affected by aphasia. To this end, we conducted a small study (approved by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Institutional Review Board). Over the course of 2 days, we conducted face-to-face interviews with older adults at a local senior center. Twenty individuals volunteered to participate. They reported no neurologic disorder and no other medical condition that could influence their ability to participate in common life activities. Interviews were conducted using standard procedures for the LIV cards (Haley et al., 2010).
All participants were asked to recruit a family member or close friend to complete a questionnaire anonymously. We stressed that the questionnaire should be filled out by the friend or family member alone, without input from the participant. Participants were given a pre-addressed envelope to give to the friend or family member they recruited. Inside the envelope was a set of instructions, a form that requested basic demographic information, and a copy of the LIV card questionnaire intended for family members or friends of people with aphasia and published in the LIV card manual. The instructions asked questionnaire respondents to put themselves in the shoes of the study participant and respond to the questionnaire the way he or she would respond. The LIV card questionnaire lists the same life activities that are depicted in the LIV card material, with check boxes for indicating preferences. Recruited family members or friends were asked to check activities they thought the person wanted to do more of and to return the questionnaire via mail within 1 week. Twelve questionnaires were returned and linked to the corresponding face-to-face interview responses on an activity-by-activity basis. Demographics and agreement for the 12 pairs of PWA-friend of family member pairs are provided in Table 1.
Results
Activity-by-activity agreement between interviewees and their family members or friends ranged from 54% to 85% and had a mean of 72%. The agreement is strikingly similar to the rates we obtained for PWA and their family members or friends (range 60% to 88%, mean 71%). Agreement was comparable across the four LIV card categories (home and community activities: 70%, creative and relaxing activities: 74%, physical activities: 68%, social activities; 76%).
Table 1. Participant Demographics and Percent Agreement About Preferred Life Activities
Participant Demographics and Percent Agreement About Preferred Life Activities×
Participant gender, age Friend/family member gender, age range Relationship, frequency of contact Percent agreement
F, 69 M, 61–70 Spouse, daily 54%
F, 83 M, 71–80 Spouse, daily 60%
M, 66 F, 61–70 Spouse, daily 65%
F, 86 F, > 80 Friend, once a week 69%
F, 93 F, 71–80 Sibling, 2–4 times a week 71%
F, 81 M, 41–50 Son-in-law, 2–4 times a week 72%
M, 85 F, > 80 Spouse, daily 73%
M, 74 F, 71–80 Spouse, daily 74%
M, 74 M, 41–50 Son, once a week 74%
F, 85 F, 51–60 Daughter, once a month 81%
M, 75 F, 51–60 Daughter, several times a year 82%
M, 73 F, 61–70 Spouse, daily 85%
Table 1. Participant Demographics and Percent Agreement About Preferred Life Activities
Participant Demographics and Percent Agreement About Preferred Life Activities×
Participant gender, age Friend/family member gender, age range Relationship, frequency of contact Percent agreement
F, 69 M, 61–70 Spouse, daily 54%
F, 83 M, 71–80 Spouse, daily 60%
M, 66 F, 61–70 Spouse, daily 65%
F, 86 F, > 80 Friend, once a week 69%
F, 93 F, 71–80 Sibling, 2–4 times a week 71%
F, 81 M, 41–50 Son-in-law, 2–4 times a week 72%
M, 85 F, > 80 Spouse, daily 73%
M, 74 F, 71–80 Spouse, daily 74%
M, 74 M, 41–50 Son, once a week 74%
F, 85 F, 51–60 Daughter, once a month 81%
M, 75 F, 51–60 Daughter, several times a year 82%
M, 73 F, 61–70 Spouse, daily 85%
×
Conclusions
The similar levels of agreement among close friends or family members who were and were not affected by aphasia indicate that knowledge about another person's activity preferences is inherently limited and may have little to do with the presence of aphasia. However, the consequences of the modest levels of agreement are likely to be more substantial for PWA, because they are often dependent on significant others to help them accomplish their life goals.
Although communication barriers seemingly can be avoided by using family members or close friends as informants about life participation priorities in people with aphasia, there are strong psychosocial, motivational, and validity reasons to avoid this approach and to instead consult PWA directly by making appropriate accommodations to the interview process. The important perspectives of family members or close friends can then be considered in a collaborative goal-setting process.
References
Croteau, C., Dorze, G. L., & Baril, G. (2007). Development of a procedure to evaluate the contributions of persons with aphasia and their spouses in an interview situation. Aphasiology, 21(6-8), 791–801. [Article]
Croteau, C., Dorze, G. L., & Baril, G. (2007). Development of a procedure to evaluate the contributions of persons with aphasia and their spouses in an interview situation. Aphasiology, 21(6-8), 791–801. [Article] ×
Croteau, C., Le Dorze, G., & Morin, C. (2008). The influence of aphasia severity on how both members of a couple participate in an interview situation. Aphasiology, 22(7-8), 802–812. [Article]
Croteau, C., Le Dorze, G., & Morin, C. (2008). The influence of aphasia severity on how both members of a couple participate in an interview situation. Aphasiology, 22(7-8), 802–812. [Article] ×
Croteau, C., Vychytil, A. M., Larfeuil, C., & Le Dorze, G. (2004). “Speaking for” behaviours in spouses of people with aphasia: A descriptive study of six couples in an interview situation. Aphasiology, 18(4), 291–312. [Article]
Croteau, C., Vychytil, A. M., Larfeuil, C., & Le Dorze, G. (2004). “Speaking for” behaviours in spouses of people with aphasia: A descriptive study of six couples in an interview situation. Aphasiology, 18(4), 291–312. [Article] ×
Cruice, M., Worrall, L., Hickson, L., & Murison, R. (2005). Measuring quality of life: Comparing family members' and friends' ratings with those of their aphasic partners. Aphasiology, 19(2), 111–129. [Article]
Cruice, M., Worrall, L., Hickson, L., & Murison, R. (2005). Measuring quality of life: Comparing family members' and friends' ratings with those of their aphasic partners. Aphasiology, 19(2), 111–129. [Article] ×
Gillespie, A., Murphy, J., & Place, M. (2010). Divergences of perspective between people with aphasia and their family caregivers. Aphasiology, 24(12), 1559–1575. [Article]
Gillespie, A., Murphy, J., & Place, M. (2010). Divergences of perspective between people with aphasia and their family caregivers. Aphasiology, 24(12), 1559–1575. [Article] ×
Goodwin, C. (1995). Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 233–260. [Article]
Goodwin, C. (1995). Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 233–260. [Article] ×
Haley, K. L., Womack, J., Helm-Estabrooks, N., Caignon, D., & McCulloch, K. (2010). Life Interests and Values cards. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Available online at www.livcards.org
Haley, K. L., Womack, J., Helm-Estabrooks, N., Caignon, D., & McCulloch, K. (2010). Life Interests and Values cards. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Available online at www.livcards.org×
Haley, K. L., Womack, J., Helm-Estabrooks, N., Lovette, B., & Goff, R. (in press). Supporting autonomy for people with aphasia: Use of the Life Interests and Values cards. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation.
Haley, K. L., Womack, J., Helm-Estabrooks, N., Lovette, B., & Goff, R. (in press). Supporting autonomy for people with aphasia: Use of the Life Interests and Values cards. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation.×
Hilari, K., Owen, S., & Farrelly, S. J. (2007). Proxy and self-report agreement on the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 78(10), 1072–1075. [Article]
Hilari, K., Owen, S., & Farrelly, S. J. (2007). Proxy and self-report agreement on the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 78(10), 1072–1075. [Article] ×
Knapp, P., & Hewison, J. (1999). Disagreement in patient and carer assessment of functional abilities after stroke. Stroke, 30(5), 934–938. [Article] [PubMed]
Knapp, P., & Hewison, J. (1999). Disagreement in patient and carer assessment of functional abilities after stroke. Stroke, 30(5), 934–938. [Article] [PubMed]×
Leach, E., Cornwell, P., Fleming, J., & Haines, T. (2010). Patient centered goal-setting in a subacute rehabilitation setting. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(2), 159–172. [Article] [PubMed]
Leach, E., Cornwell, P., Fleming, J., & Haines, T. (2010). Patient centered goal-setting in a subacute rehabilitation setting. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(2), 159–172. [Article] [PubMed]×
LeDorze, G., & Brassard, C. (1995). A description of the consequences of aphasia on aphasic persons and their relatives and friends, based on the WHO model of chronic diseases. Aphasiology, 9(3), 239–255. [Article]
LeDorze, G., & Brassard, C. (1995). A description of the consequences of aphasia on aphasic persons and their relatives and friends, based on the WHO model of chronic diseases. Aphasiology, 9(3), 239–255. [Article] ×
Manzo, J. F., Blonder, L. X., & Bums, A. F. (1995). The social-interactional organisation of narrative and narrating among stroke patients and their spouses. Sociology of Health & Illness, 17(3), 307–327. [Article]
Manzo, J. F., Blonder, L. X., & Bums, A. F. (1995). The social-interactional organisation of narrative and narrating among stroke patients and their spouses. Sociology of Health & Illness, 17(3), 307–327. [Article] ×
Moore, J. C. (1988). Self/proxy response status and survey response quality. Journal of Official Statistics, 4(2), 155–172.
Moore, J. C. (1988). Self/proxy response status and survey response quality. Journal of Official Statistics, 4(2), 155–172.×
Powell, R., Johnston, M., & Johnston, D. W. (2007). Assessing walking limitations in stroke survivors: Are self-reports and proxy-reports interchangeable? Rehabilitation Psychology, 52(2), 177–183. [Article]
Powell, R., Johnston, M., & Johnston, D. W. (2007). Assessing walking limitations in stroke survivors: Are self-reports and proxy-reports interchangeable? Rehabilitation Psychology, 52(2), 177–183. [Article] ×
Purves, B. A. (2009). The complexities of speaking for another. Aphasiology, 23(7-8), 914–925. [Article]
Purves, B. A. (2009). The complexities of speaking for another. Aphasiology, 23(7-8), 914–925. [Article] ×
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. [Article] [PubMed]
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. [Article] [PubMed]×
Simmons-Mackie, N., Kingston, D., & Schultz, M. (2004). “Speaking for another”: The management of participant frames in aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13(2), 114–127. [Article] [PubMed]
Simmons-Mackie, N., Kingston, D., & Schultz, M. (2004). “Speaking for another”: The management of participant frames in aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13(2), 114–127. [Article] [PubMed]×
Skolarus, L. E., Sánchez, B. N., Morgenstern, L. B., Garcia, N. M., Smith, M. A., Brown, D. L., & Lisabeth, L. D. (2010). Validity of proxies and correction for proxy use when evaluating social determinants of health in stroke patients. Stroke, 41(3), 510–515. [Article] [PubMed]
Skolarus, L. E., Sánchez, B. N., Morgenstern, L. B., Garcia, N. M., Smith, M. A., Brown, D. L., & Lisabeth, L. D. (2010). Validity of proxies and correction for proxy use when evaluating social determinants of health in stroke patients. Stroke, 41(3), 510–515. [Article] [PubMed]×
Sneeuw, K. C. A., Aaronson, N. K., de Haan, R. J., & Limburg, M. (1997). Assessing quality of life after stroke: The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke, 28(8), 1541–1549. [Article] [PubMed]
Sneeuw, K. C. A., Aaronson, N. K., de Haan, R. J., & Limburg, M. (1997). Assessing quality of life after stroke: The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke, 28(8), 1541–1549. [Article] [PubMed]×
Williams, L. S., Bakas, T., Brizendine, E., Plue, L., Tu, W., Hendrie, H., & Kroenke, K. (2006). How valid are family proxy assessments of stroke patients' health-related quality of life? Stroke, 37(8), 2081–2085. [Article] [PubMed]
Williams, L. S., Bakas, T., Brizendine, E., Plue, L., Tu, W., Hendrie, H., & Kroenke, K. (2006). How valid are family proxy assessments of stroke patients' health-related quality of life? Stroke, 37(8), 2081–2085. [Article] [PubMed]×
Table 1. Participant Demographics and Percent Agreement About Preferred Life Activities
Participant Demographics and Percent Agreement About Preferred Life Activities×
Participant gender, age Friend/family member gender, age range Relationship, frequency of contact Percent agreement
F, 69 M, 61–70 Spouse, daily 54%
F, 83 M, 71–80 Spouse, daily 60%
M, 66 F, 61–70 Spouse, daily 65%
F, 86 F, > 80 Friend, once a week 69%
F, 93 F, 71–80 Sibling, 2–4 times a week 71%
F, 81 M, 41–50 Son-in-law, 2–4 times a week 72%
M, 85 F, > 80 Spouse, daily 73%
M, 74 F, 71–80 Spouse, daily 74%
M, 74 M, 41–50 Son, once a week 74%
F, 85 F, 51–60 Daughter, once a month 81%
M, 75 F, 51–60 Daughter, several times a year 82%
M, 73 F, 61–70 Spouse, daily 85%
Table 1. Participant Demographics and Percent Agreement About Preferred Life Activities
Participant Demographics and Percent Agreement About Preferred Life Activities×
Participant gender, age Friend/family member gender, age range Relationship, frequency of contact Percent agreement
F, 69 M, 61–70 Spouse, daily 54%
F, 83 M, 71–80 Spouse, daily 60%
M, 66 F, 61–70 Spouse, daily 65%
F, 86 F, > 80 Friend, once a week 69%
F, 93 F, 71–80 Sibling, 2–4 times a week 71%
F, 81 M, 41–50 Son-in-law, 2–4 times a week 72%
M, 85 F, > 80 Spouse, daily 73%
M, 74 F, 71–80 Spouse, daily 74%
M, 74 M, 41–50 Son, once a week 74%
F, 85 F, 51–60 Daughter, once a month 81%
M, 75 F, 51–60 Daughter, several times a year 82%
M, 73 F, 61–70 Spouse, daily 85%
×
We've Changed Our Publication Model...
The 19 individual SIG Perspectives publications have been relaunched as the new, all-in-one Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups.