Combining treatment for written and spoken naming

Beeson, Pélagie M.; Egnor, Heather

doi:10.1017/s1355617706061005

Cited by 58 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With one extreme outlier removed from the effect sizes derived from 12 studies, the first, second, and third quartiles for the d statistic were 2.6, 3.9, and 5.8, corresponding to small-, medium-, and large-sized effects. These values offered initial benchmarks for the interpretation of the data in several recent single-subject studies in acquired alexia and agraphia (Beeson & Egnor, 2006;Beeson, Magloire, & Robey, 2005).…”

Section: How To Interpret the Magnitude Of The Effect Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Single-Subject Treatment Research: Lessons Learned from the Aphasia Literature

2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mandate for evidence-based practice has prompted careful consideration of the weight of the scientific evidence regarding the therapeutic value of various clinical treatments. In the field of aphasia, a large number of single-subject research studies have been conducted, providing clinical outcome data that are potentially useful for clinicians and researchers; however, it has been difficult to discern the relative potency of these treatments in a standardized manner. In this paper we describe an approach to quantify treatment outcomes for single-subject research studies using effect sizes. These values provide a means to compare treatment outcomes within and between individuals, as well as to compare the relative strength of various treatments. Effect sizes also can be aggregated in order to conduct meta-analyses of specific treatment approaches. Consideration is given to optimizing research designs and providing adequate data so that the value of treatment research is maximized.

show abstract

Section: How To Interpret the Magnitude Of The Effect Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Single-Subject Treatment Research: Lessons Learned from the Aphasia Literature

2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beeson and colleagues proposed benchmarks for aphasia treatment by reviewing 12 single case treatment studies for alexia and agraphia. They proposed, on the basis of the distribution of effect sizes observed in these 12 studies, that an effect size of 2 would be a small effect size (Beeson & Egnor, 2006;Beeson, Magloire, & Robey, 2005). However these more specific benchmarks only allow to determine whether a given effect size is large relative to other studies having treated the same type of linguistic impairment in the same type of patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working memory treatment in aphasia: A theoretical and quantitative review

Majerus

2018

Journal of Neurolinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TWorking memory (WM) is a frequent and long-lasting deficit in patients with aphasia. Progress has been made in our understanding of the nature of WM impairment, by considering deficits at the level of maintenance of item and serial order information (short-term memory), deficits at the level of attentional control, and their complex interactions with language impairment. However, WM treatment studies in aphasic patients remain scarce. This theoretical and quantitative review of 15 single-case treatment studies (24 patients) reveals that WM treatment in aphasic patients is associated with robust near transfer effects and smaller far transfer effects. WM treatment can also raise verbal WM capacity to normal range performance levels. The specificity of WM treatment is more difficult to establish as control tasks/treatments are associated with treatment effects of comparable size as far transfer effects. Existing treatments cover phonological maintenance and control of attention components of WM but do not target difficulties at the level of item interference or serial order processing. In order to improve the specificity of WM treatments, future studies should define WM impairment and treatment targets in a more precise and theoretically informed manner. Also, although the vast majority of reviewed studies meet minimal methodological requirements for single case experimental designs, the use of a larger number of baseline, treatment and control measures is recommended. Finally, publication of treatment studies with negative outcomes should be encouraged as it is currently difficult to estimate the impact of publication bias on observed treatment effects.

show abstract

“…The calculations were based on all results from the baseline phase and on those from the last three measurements in the intervention phase (Beeson & Robey, 2006). The relative strength of the treatment effect was interpreted as a small, medium or large effect size, corresponding to a d-index of 2.6, 3.9 and 5.8, respectively (Beeson & Egnor, 2006;Beeson & Robey, 2006). The ratings in the COAST scales were analysed as percentages of full score, as recommended by Long et al (2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects on communication from intensive treatment with semantic feature analysis in aphasia

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Anomia, a persistent and frequent symptom of aphasia after stroke, obstructs the transfer of information in conversation, which can have serious consequences for participation in everyday social interaction with significant others and in society. Aims: This study aimed to replicate the findings of Coelho and his colleagues, as well as Boyle, and Wambaugh and Ferguson regarding the use of semantic feature analysis (SFA) for individuals with aphasia after stroke. Its main purpose was to explore whether intervention could (1) increase the ability to participate in conversation and (2) lead to positive changes in functional communication as perceived by the participants themselves and their significant others. Methods & Procedures:In this multiple-baseline across-subjects-design study, three participants with chronic aphasia were treated with intensive training using SFA. Treatment outcome was assessed with repeated measures of confrontation naming of actions and objects and with quantitative ratings of the quality of speech as well as communicative participation in conversation. The ratings were made by independent assessors blinded as to what phase of the study the data were obtained from. In addition, a questionnaire measuring perceived functional communication as reported by the participants and their significant others was administered before and after the training as well as at a follow-up session 10-12 weeks after the training was completed. Outcome & Results: Only minor treatment outcomes were apparent in this study. Visual inspection of the results showed a slight increase in the ability to participate in conversation for two of the three participants as well as a fall in the number of complex paraphasias for one of them and an increase in self-corrections for two. There was no improvement in the participants' confrontation-naming ability. Two of the three participants rated their own functional communication skills higher at follow-up than before training while the third participant reported no change. As regards the ratings by significant others at follow-up versus before training, there was one slight decrease, one slight increase, and one considerable increase. Conclusions: Treatment with SFA might improve communicative skills and increase participation in everyday conversation despite not having a measurable effect on confrontation-naming ability in a formal assessment situation. Further research is needed to identify the individuals with aphasia who can benefit from treatment with SFA and to determine the nature of its impact on communicative participation.

show abstract

Combining treatment for written and spoken naming

Cited by 58 publications

References 42 publications

Evaluating Single-Subject Treatment Research: Lessons Learned from the Aphasia Literature

Evaluating Single-Subject Treatment Research: Lessons Learned from the Aphasia Literature

Working memory treatment in aphasia: A theoretical and quantitative review

Effects on communication from intensive treatment with semantic feature analysis in aphasia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About