Purpose: Spoken discourse is integral to everyday communication; improving discourse outcomes is a primary goal for individuals with aphasia and their families. Consequently, the application of discourse analysis in aphasia assessment and treatment has gained increasing attention in both research and clinical settings. Despite its recognized value among researchers and clinicians, several barriers—such as limited time, inadequate training, and lack of resources—continue to impede the widespread use of discourse analysis into clinical practice. To facilitate its broader adoption, speech-language pathologists require access to comprehensive resources that include information on discourse tasks, outcome measures, psychometric properties, and practical examples of how to implement spoken discourse assessments effectively. The purpose of this tutorial is to equip clinicians with this knowledge, promoting the consistent and effective application of discourse analysis in clinical settings.Method: This tutorial, developed by members of the FOQUSAphasia Writing Group—comprising both researchers and clinical practitioners—offers an overview of recommended spoken discourse collection and analysis procedures, outcome measures, and their psychometric properties, as well as factors to consider when planning to conduct discourse assessments. It includes a series of case studies (severe aphasia, latent or very mild aphasia, bilingual aphasia, and primary progressive aphasia) that illustrate the utility of discourse analysis for varied clinical contexts and shows how the choice of tasks and measures can reveal meaningful insights tailored to the individual being assessed. In addition, the tutorial provides practical recommendations and considerations for incorporating discourse analysis into clinical aphasia services, along with suggestions for future research.Conclusions: Spoken discourse production can be an important indicator of communication ability in individuals with aphasia. This tutorial is intended to support clinicians by providing evidence-based, practical ways for integrating discourse analysis into aphasia assessment and treatment. Our collation of information and case studies should encourage clinicians to apply spoken discourse-based approaches, ultimately improving outcomes for individuals with aphasia.Supplemental Material S1. Reliability and validity evidence supporting the use of spoken discourse variables at different cognitive-linguistic levels.Supplemental Material S2. Discourse sample excerpts from Cases 3 (Zulfekar) and 4 (James).Supplemental Material S3. Supplementary references.Dutta, M., Murray, L. L., Park, H., Burklow, E., Bose, A., Kim, H., Greenslade, K., Ramage, A. E., Combs, C., Balasubramanian, A., & Casilio, M. (2025). Let’s chat about spoken discourse: A tutorial to support use of spoken discourse analysis when providing aphasia clinical services. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 34(4), 1931–1966. https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_AJSLP-24-00534

Purpose: Spoken discourse is integral to everyday communication; improving discourse outcomes is a primary goal for individuals with aphasia and their families. Consequently, the application of discourse analysis in aphasia assessment and treatment has gained increasing attention in both research and clinical settings. Despite its recognized value among researchers and clinicians, several barriers—such as limited time, inadequate training, and lack of resources—continue to impede the widespread use of discourse analysis into clinical practice. To facilitate its broader adoption, speech-language pathologists require access to comprehensive resources that include information on discourse tasks, outcome measures, psychometric properties, and practical examples of how to implement spoken discourse assessments effectively. The purpose of this tutorial is to equip clinicians with this knowledge, promoting the consistent and effective application of discourse analysis in clinical settings.Method: This tutorial, developed by members of the FOQUSAphasia Writing Group—comprising both researchers and clinical practitioners—offers an overview of recommended spoken discourse collection and analysis procedures, outcome measures, and their psychometric properties, as well as factors to consider when planning to conduct discourse assessments. It includes a series of case studies (severe aphasia, latent or very mild aphasia, bilingual aphasia, and primary progressive aphasia) that illustrate the utility of discourse analysis for varied clinical contexts and shows how the choice of tasks and measures can reveal meaningful insights tailored to the individual being assessed. In addition, the tutorial provides practical recommendations and considerations for incorporating discourse analysis into clinical aphasia services, along with suggestions for future research.Conclusions: Spoken discourse production can be an important indicator of communication ability in individuals with aphasia. This tutorial is intended to support clinicians by providing evidence-based, practical ways for integrating discourse analysis into aphasia assessment and treatment. Our collation of information and case studies should encourage clinicians to apply spoken discourse-based approaches, ultimately improving outcomes for individuals with aphasia.Supplemental Material S1. Reliability and validity evidence supporting the use of spoken discourse variables at different cognitive-linguistic levels.Supplemental Material S2. Discourse sample excerpts from Cases 3 (Zulfekar) and 4 (James).Supplemental Material S3. Supplementary references.Dutta, M., Murray, L. L., Park, H., Burklow, E., Bose, A., Kim, H., Greenslade, K., Ramage, A. E., Combs, C., Balasubramanian, A., & Casilio, M. (2025). Let’s chat about spoken discourse: A tutorial to support use of spoken discourse analysis when providing aphasia clinical services. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 34(4), 1931–1966. https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_AJSLP-24-00534

Purpose: Narration within a story grammar framework requires speakers to organize characters and events logically. Despite abundant research characterizing narrative deficits following a traumatic brain injury (TBI), the evolution of narrative story grammar over the first 2 years post-TBI has rarely been explored. This study analyzed story grammar in complex narratives of adults with and without severe TBI to (a) examine between-group differences and (b) investigate longitudinal changes over the first 2 years post-TBI.Method: Story grammar analyses of Cinderella narratives from 57 participants with TBI and 57 participants with no brain injury yielded measures of productivity (total number of episodes, total number of story grammar elements), elaboration (total number of elaborated–complete episodes, mean number of episodic elements per episode), and completeness (total number of incomplete episodes). Mann–Whitney U tests compared measures across groups; generalized estimating equation (GEE) models identified predictors of change, including recovery time (3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months post-TBI) and demographic/injury-related characteristics.Results: Between-group differences were statistically significant for all productivity and elaboration measures at 3, 6, and 9 months post-TBI; one productivity measure and one elaboration measure at 12 months; and none of the measures at 24 months. GEE models showed significant improvements in all productivity and elaboration measures over the first 24 months post-TBI, with educational attainment and duration of posttraumatic amnesia affecting recovery. Incomplete episodes only showed between-group differences at 12 months and did not capture recovery.Conclusion: Productivity and elaboration are key story grammar variables that (a) differentiate complex narration in individuals with and without severe TBI and (b) capture narrative improvements over the first 2 years post-TBI.Supplemental Material S1. Sex comparisons in the NBI group for each narrative variable.Greenslade, K. J., Bogart, E., Gyory, J., Jaskolka, S., & Ramage, A. E. (2024). Story grammar analyses capture discourse improvement in the first 2 years following a severe traumatic brain injury. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 33(2), 1004–1020. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00269

Purpose: Narration within a story grammar framework requires speakers to organize characters and events logically. Despite abundant research characterizing narrative deficits following a traumatic brain injury (TBI), the evolution of narrative story grammar over the first 2 years post-TBI has rarely been explored. This study analyzed story grammar in complex narratives of adults with and without severe TBI to (a) examine between-group differences and (b) investigate longitudinal changes over the first 2 years post-TBI.Method: Story grammar analyses of Cinderella narratives from 57 participants with TBI and 57 participants with no brain injury yielded measures of productivity (total number of episodes, total number of story grammar elements), elaboration (total number of elaborated–complete episodes, mean number of episodic elements per episode), and completeness (total number of incomplete episodes). Mann–Whitney U tests compared measures across groups; generalized estimating equation (GEE) models identified predictors of change, including recovery time (3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months post-TBI) and demographic/injury-related characteristics.Results: Between-group differences were statistically significant for all productivity and elaboration measures at 3, 6, and 9 months post-TBI; one productivity measure and one elaboration measure at 12 months; and none of the measures at 24 months. GEE models showed significant improvements in all productivity and elaboration measures over the first 24 months post-TBI, with educational attainment and duration of posttraumatic amnesia affecting recovery. Incomplete episodes only showed between-group differences at 12 months and did not capture recovery.Conclusion: Productivity and elaboration are key story grammar variables that (a) differentiate complex narration in individuals with and without severe TBI and (b) capture narrative improvements over the first 2 years post-TBI.Supplemental Material S1. Sex comparisons in the NBI group for each narrative variable.Greenslade, K. J., Bogart, E., Gyory, J., Jaskolka, S., & Ramage, A. E. (2024). Story grammar analyses capture discourse improvement in the first 2 years following a severe traumatic brain injury. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 33(2), 1004–1020. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00269