A randomized crossover single-case series comparing blocked versus random treatment for anomia.

Only 10 people took part and there was no untreated control group, so this is a small single-case series rather than proof that one schedule is better. Four of the ten participants improved most with whichever schedule they happened to receive first, so the order of treatment may account for some of the results. Naming was probed very often, and improvement on an untrained word list that was also probed often suggests that practice at the test itself, rather than the treatment, may have inflated some of the gains. Follow-up was a single point three months after the end of treatment, so words from the earlier phases had to survive six weeks longer than words from the final phase. Participants varied widely in their aphasia type, severity and apraxia of speech, making it hard to tell how much individual differences rather than the schedules drove the results.

The authors state that they have no conflicts of interest to declare. No funding source is named in the text provided.

Do not read this as showing random practice is better for everyone. The group advantage was small, two participants maintained trained words better after blocked practice, and four of ten improved most with whichever schedule they were given first, so order may explain part of the pattern.