Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Purpose: The present meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of anomia treatment in bilingual and multilingual persons with aphasia (BPWAs) by assessing the magnitudes of six anomia treatment outcomes. Three of the treatment outcomes pertained to the “trained language”: improvement of trained words (treatment effect [TE]), within-language generalization of semantically related untrained words (WLG-Related), and within-language generalization of unrelated words (WLG-Unrelated). Three treatment outcomes were for the “untrained language”: improvement of translations of the trained words (cross-language generalization of trained words [CLG-Tx]), cross-language generalization of semantically related untrained words (CLG-Related), and cross-language generalization of unrelated untrained words (CLG-Unrelated). This study also examined participant- and treatment-related predictors of these treatment outcomes. Method: This study is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the number CRD42023418147. Nine electronic databases were searched to identify word retrieval treatment studies of poststroke BPWAs of at least 6 months postonset. Pre- and posttreatment single-word naming scores were extracted for each eligible participant and used to calculate effect sizes (within-case Cohen's d ) of the six treatment outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to assess weighted mean effect sizes of the treatment outcomes across studies. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to examine the effects of participant-related variables (pretreatment single-word naming and comprehension representing poststroke lexical processing abilities) and treatment-related variables (type, language, and duration). The methodological quality of eligible studies and the risk of bias in this meta-analysis were assessed. Results: A total of 17 published studies with 39 BPWAs were included in the meta-analysis. The methodological quality of the included studies ranged from fair ( n = 4) to good ( n = 13). Anomia treatment produced a medium effect size for TE ( M = 8.36) and marginally small effect sizes for WLG-Related ( M = 1.63), WLG-Unrelated ( M = 0.68), and CLG-Tx ( M = 1.56). Effect sizes were nonsignificant for CLG-Related and CLG-Unrelated. TE was significantly larger than the other five types of treatment outcomes. TE and WLG-Related effect sizes were larger for BPWAs with milder comprehension or naming impairments and for treatments of longer duration. WLG-Unrelated was larger when BPWAs received phonological treatment than semantic and mixed treatments. The overall risk of bias in the meta-analysis was low with a potential risk of bias present in the study identification process. Conclusions: Current anomia treatment practices for bilingual speakers are efficacious in improving trained items but produce marginally small within-language generalization and cross-language generalization to translations of the trained items. These results highlight the need to provide treatment in each language of BPWAs and/or investigate other approaches to promote cross-language generalization. Furthermore, anomia treatment outcomes are influenced by BPWAs' poststroke single-word naming and comprehension abilities as well as treatment duration and the provision of phonological treatment. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25595712
Purpose: The present meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of anomia treatment in bilingual and multilingual persons with aphasia (BPWAs) by assessing the magnitudes of six anomia treatment outcomes. Three of the treatment outcomes pertained to the “trained language”: improvement of trained words (treatment effect [TE]), within-language generalization of semantically related untrained words (WLG-Related), and within-language generalization of unrelated words (WLG-Unrelated). Three treatment outcomes were for the “untrained language”: improvement of translations of the trained words (cross-language generalization of trained words [CLG-Tx]), cross-language generalization of semantically related untrained words (CLG-Related), and cross-language generalization of unrelated untrained words (CLG-Unrelated). This study also examined participant- and treatment-related predictors of these treatment outcomes. Method: This study is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the number CRD42023418147. Nine electronic databases were searched to identify word retrieval treatment studies of poststroke BPWAs of at least 6 months postonset. Pre- and posttreatment single-word naming scores were extracted for each eligible participant and used to calculate effect sizes (within-case Cohen's d ) of the six treatment outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to assess weighted mean effect sizes of the treatment outcomes across studies. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to examine the effects of participant-related variables (pretreatment single-word naming and comprehension representing poststroke lexical processing abilities) and treatment-related variables (type, language, and duration). The methodological quality of eligible studies and the risk of bias in this meta-analysis were assessed. Results: A total of 17 published studies with 39 BPWAs were included in the meta-analysis. The methodological quality of the included studies ranged from fair ( n = 4) to good ( n = 13). Anomia treatment produced a medium effect size for TE ( M = 8.36) and marginally small effect sizes for WLG-Related ( M = 1.63), WLG-Unrelated ( M = 0.68), and CLG-Tx ( M = 1.56). Effect sizes were nonsignificant for CLG-Related and CLG-Unrelated. TE was significantly larger than the other five types of treatment outcomes. TE and WLG-Related effect sizes were larger for BPWAs with milder comprehension or naming impairments and for treatments of longer duration. WLG-Unrelated was larger when BPWAs received phonological treatment than semantic and mixed treatments. The overall risk of bias in the meta-analysis was low with a potential risk of bias present in the study identification process. Conclusions: Current anomia treatment practices for bilingual speakers are efficacious in improving trained items but produce marginally small within-language generalization and cross-language generalization to translations of the trained items. These results highlight the need to provide treatment in each language of BPWAs and/or investigate other approaches to promote cross-language generalization. Furthermore, anomia treatment outcomes are influenced by BPWAs' poststroke single-word naming and comprehension abilities as well as treatment duration and the provision of phonological treatment. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25595712
BackgroundOver 50% of individuals with aphasia face ongoing word‐finding issues. Studies have found phonologically oriented therapy helpful for English speakers, but this has not yet been studied in French. It is essential to assess the effectiveness of such a therapy in French, considering the distinct linguistic typologies between both languages, which may impact the outcomes of phonologically oriented interventions.AimThis paper evaluates the effectiveness of French Phonological Component Analysis (Fr‐PCA) on communication skills of individuals with chronic aphasia and the impact of individual factors on treatment success.Methods & ProceduresEighteen individuals with chronic aphasia received 15 h of Fr‐PCA therapy over 5 weeks. Naming accuracy for treated and untreated words was measured before and after therapy, as well as at 3‐ and 6‐month follow‐ups. Secondary outcome measures included standardized tests measuring within‐level generalization (object and action naming) and across‐level generalization (repetition, verbal fluency, oral comprehension, communication effectiveness reported by a frequent communication partner).Outcomes & ResultsFr‐PCA led to improved accuracy for treated (17 participants out of 18) and untreated words (9 participants out of 18), with gains maintained at 6‐month follow‐up (7 participants out of 10 for treated and 6 participants out of 10 for untreated), and generalization to communication effectiveness reported by a frequent communication partner (11 participants out of 16). Age, apraxia of speech severity and initial anomia severity impacted therapy gains.Conclusions & ImplicationsThough more research is needed, results suggest Fr‐PCA benefits French individuals living with aphasia. Identifying individual factors influencing therapy gains could enable clinicians to improve therapy tailoring.WHAT THIS PAPER ADDSWhat is already known on this subject Phonological Component Analysis (PCA) improves naming of treated and untreated items in individuals living with aphasia. There is also evidence supporting long‐lasting benefits following PCA. However, PCA has never been studied in French, a language presenting with a different linguistic typology than English, and we know little as to which individual factors can influence PCA therapy benefits.What this paper adds to existing knowledge Through group‐level analyses on both personalized sets and standardized tests, this study shows that PCA constitutes an effective therapy protocol for francophone individuals living with aphasia. The gains are measured on treated and untreated items and generalized to levels other than naming, such as communication effectiveness. Individual factors such as age, initial anomia severity and apraxia of speech severity influence therapy outcomes.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? There is now evidence supporting PCA in French, a language with strong morphological‐phonological interactions. Furthermore, when working with individuals living with aphasia and severe anomia or apraxia of speech, gains can still be made, but might be longer to attain.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.