Complexity and Feedback During Script Training in Aphasia: A Feasibility Study.
Leora R Cherney, Sarel Van Vuuren
PMID 35304120WHAT IT FOUND
Sixteen people with chronic aphasia improved accuracy and rate on trained scripts after three weeks of computer-based training.
Using more complex scripts led to greater accuracy gains than simpler ones. Feedback type made no difference. The study was a small feasibility trial without a control group.
Key findings
01Training significantly improved accuracy and rate on the practiced scripts, with gains maintained at 3, 6, and 12 weeks post-treatment.
02High-complexity scripts produced significantly larger accuracy gains than low-complexity scripts at maintenance, with an increase of 9.9 ± 4.3%.
03There was no significant difference in accuracy gains between the high-feedback and low-feedback conditions at post-treatment or maintenance.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size was very small (16 participants), and the study was explicitly designed as a feasibility pilot. There was no between-subject control group (e.g., no-treatment or alternative-treatment control), so it is unclear how much of the improvement was due to the specific training versus general practice or time. The study was underpowered to detect differential effects on rate (words per minute), and this data was excluded from the complex analysis. Two participants were excluded from the secondary analysis of complexity and feedback because they did not respond to treatment, reducing the effective sample size for those comparisons to 14. Ceiling effects were noted, as some participants approached maximum accuracy scores, which may have masked differences between conditions.
Declared interests
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (N.I.H., Extramural). No other conflicts of interest are explicitly detailed in the provided text beyond the funding source.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the lack of significant difference between feedback conditions as proof that feedback is unimportant. The study was a small feasibility trial with no control group, and the feedback manipulation was limited to self-rating versus length rating. The primary finding of improvement is based on pre-post changes without a comparator, so it does not prove the treatment is superior to standard care or no care.