Word-Retrieval Treatment for Aphasia: Semantic Feature Analysis
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00125242|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : July 29, 2005
Results First Posted : December 24, 2014
Last Update Posted : December 24, 2014
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Aphasia Language Disorders Speech Disorders||Behavioral: Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)Training||Not Applicable|
The purpose of the proposed research is to examine the effects of a semantically-oriented treatment on word retrieval in persons with aphasia. The planned investigations are designed to further the development of semantic feature training so that it may serve as not only a mechanism for improving disrupted lexical semantic processing, but also as a compensatory strategy during word retrieval failures. The proposed research will also address the issue of exemplar typicality (Kiran & Thompson, 2003) by examining the effects of training typical versus atypical exemplars of various categories with individuals with different types of aphasia. A series of 24 single subject experimental designs will be conducted in the context of a group design to address the following experimental questions:
- Will training atypical examples of living and artifact noun categories using semantic feature training result in a significantly different outcome* than training typical examples of living and artifact noun categories?
- Will training of one category of nouns using semantic feature training result in improved retrieval of untrained categories of nouns?
- Will effects of semantic feature training vary across aphasia types?
- Will semantic feature training result in increased production of content during discourse?
Will generalization to untrained typical examples vary across generalization lists that are repeatedly exposed and those that are limited in exposure? (i.e., Does repeated exposure appear to contribute to generalization?)
- Outcome measure will reflect acquisition, response generalization within category, and response generalization across category effects of treatment.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||110 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||Word-Retrieval for Aphasia: Facilitation of Generalization|
|Study Start Date :||July 2005|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||February 2009|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||April 2013|
Experimental: Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)
Word retrieval treatment for aphasia.
Behavioral: Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)Training
SFA entails having the speech-language pathologist (SLP) guide the participant through generation of pertinent semantic features for pictured treatment items (e.g., category membership, physical description, location of item in context, personal associations, action associated with item). For some participants, treatment items were grouped according to typicality of category membership (e.g,, a robin-typical bird and penguin-atypical bird). Training of atypical items may stimulate a broader semantic activation of the category and thus, may promote greater generalization. Treatment was applied sequentially to sets of items in the context of single-subject, multiple baseline designs. In this way, replication of treatment effects could be evaluated within and across participants. Treatment was administered by certified SLPs three times per week until prescribed accuracy levels were met during nontreatment probes or a maximum number of treatment sessions was completed.
No Intervention: Participants for Stimuli Development
Non-brain-injured participants provided data for development of treatment stimuli.
- Word Retrieval Accuracy [ Time Frame: End of treatment and at 6 weeks post treatment ]Accuracy of naming of pictured treated and untreated items was assessed in probes conducted separate from treatment. Probes were conducted repeatedly throughout the study, from baseline (prior to treatment) to follow-up (6 weeks following treatment). All naming responses were scored using a 0-10 scale reflecting promptness and presence of errors; scores of 8-10 received an "accuate" score and scores of 0-7 received an "inaccurate" score. A percentage accuracy score was calculated for each experimental set of items for every probe session. Baseline probe scores were compared to end of treatment and follow-up probe scores to obtain individual effect sizes for each experimental list of items for each participant (i.e., several effect sizes were calculated for each participant). All effect sizes were utlized to obtain an average effect size for each participant; these averages were then utlized to obtain a group average.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00125242
|United States, Utah|
|VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City|
|Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, 84148|
|Principal Investigator:||Julie L. Wambaugh, PhD||VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City|