Aphasia, Aphasia, Acquired, Aphasia, Anomic, Aphasia, Broca, Aphasia, Conduction, Aphasia, Expressive, Aphasia Following Cerebral Infarction, Aphasia, Mixed, Aphasia Non Fluent, Aphasia, Rehabilitation
Conditions
Keywords
Aphasia, Anomia, Stroke, Communication, Language
Brief summary
The goal of this clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness of traditional Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) treatment to a modified SFA protocol that includes Metacognitive Strategy Training (SFA+MST) for adults with acquired aphasia. The main questions it aims to answer are: * What are the comparative outcomes in picture naming accuracy and strategy use during picture naming following 2 months of traditional SFA versus SFA + MST in adults with acquired aphasia? * What are the comparative outcomes in percent of informative content and rate of informative content during spontaneous speech production following 2 months of traditional SFA versus SFA + MST in adults with acquired aphasia? Researchers will compare outcomes between these two treatments to see if SFA+MST yields larger effects in picture naming and spontaneous speech outcomes than traditional SFA. Participants will complete: * 5-7 pre-treatment assessment sessions where they will be asked to name pictures, tell stories/describe pictures, answer questions, and complete questionnaires, * 3 treatment sessions of SFA \*OR\* SFA+MST per week for 8 weeks, for a total of 24 sessions, * 7 weekly probes (i.e., short, intermittent assessments throughout the treatment phase), * 3 post-treatment assessment sessions immediately after treatment ends, where they will complete the same assessment tasks as they did pre-treatment (e.g., naming pictures, telling stories, etc.), * 2 retention assessment sessions, one 30 days and the other 60 days following the final treatment session, where they will be asked to name pictures, tell stories/describe pictures, and describe what they learned during the study.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALSemantic Feature Analysis (traditional)
This treatment involves naming pictures of objects, describing the objects' features (e.g., category membership, physical attributes, etc.), and creating sentences using the objects' names. It does not include direct metacognitive strategy training.
BEHAVIORALSemantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy Training
This treatment involves metacognitive teaching and practice, naming pictures of objects, describing the objects' features (e.g., category membership, physical attributes, etc), creating sentences using the objects' names, debriefing on overall performance, and discussing recent and future opportunities for strategy implementation in real life.
Sponsors
Teachers College, Columbia University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 89 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Have aphasia due to a single acute event (e.g., left-hemisphere stroke, traumatic brain injury) * Be at least six-months post aphasia-onset, * Be a proficient English speaker, * Have normal or corrected to normal hearing (i.e., hearing aids) and vision (i.e., eyeglasses), * Have no history of neurodegenerative disease (e.g., dementia), severe motor speech disorder, significant mental illness, psychiatric disorder, drug/alcohol abuse, or neurological condition that could influence their cognitive, language, and memory systems
Exclusion criteria
* A history of neurodegenerative disease (e.g., dementia), severe motor speech disorder, significant mental illness, psychiatric disorder, drug/alcohol abuse, or neurological condition that could influence their cognitive, language, and memory systems, * Children under the age of 18, * Adults over the age of 89, * Uncorrected hearing and vision.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Confrontation naming accuracy | Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months | Participants will complete a 60-item confrontation naming assessment before, during, and after treatment. We will calculate the total number of items that participants name accurately across study phases. |
| Independent word-finding strategy use | Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months | Using the 60-item confrontation naming assessment, we will evaluate instances in which participants independently use a specific word-finding strategy (describing or talking around the word) in instances where they cannot name items successfully, and calculate the proportions of incorrect responses with and without strategy use across study phases. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Discourse informativeness | Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months | Participants will describe picture scenes and tell stories. We will calculate the amount of informative content in their descriptions/stories using Content Information Unit (%CIU; Nicholas \& Brookshire, 1993) analysis for descriptions/stories across study phases. |
| Discourse efficiency | Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months | Participants will describe picture scenes and tell stories. We will calculate the rate of informative content in their descriptions/stories using Content Information Unit (CIU/minute; Nicholas \& Brookshire, 1993) analysis for descriptions/stories across study phases. |
Countries
United States
Contacts
CONTACTVictoria Tilton-Bolowsky, Ph.D. CCC-SLP
Outcome results
None listed