Impact of Personal Relevance on Acquisition and Generalization of Script Training for Aphasia: A Preliminary Analysis

Abstract

Personally relevant words and phrases were acquired, although not generalized, more successfully than generic words and phrases. Data supports the importance of personalization in script training, but the degree of that importance requires further investigation.

Script Templates

“…Table 1 provides a summary of 13 publications that provide evidence for this approach (Bilda, 2011; Cherney & Halper, 2008; Cherney, Halper, Holland, & Cole, 2008; Cherney, Halper, & Kaye, 2011; Cherney, Kaye & Van Vuuren, 2014; Cherney, Kaye, Lee, & Van Vuuren, 2015; Goldberg, Haley, & Jacks, 2012; Lee, Kaye, & Cherney, 2009; Manheim, Halper, & Cherney, 2009; Nobis-Bosch, Springer, Radermacher, & Huber, 2011; Van Vuuren & Cherney, 2014; Youmans, Holland, Munoz, & Bourgeois, 2005; Youmans et al, 2011). It is important to note that several of the publications present different analyses of data from the same set of subjects (e.g., Cherney et al, 2014, 2015; Van Vuuren & Cherney, 2014); however, overall, the studies were conducted by five different research groups and include over 60 unique participants. Participant characteristics, specifics of the intervention, outcome measures, and results are compared in Table 1.…”

Can Script Training Improve Narrative and Conversation in Aphasia across Etiology?

“…29,38 There is some evidence supporting an advantage for acquisition (but not SCRIPT TRAINING ACROSS APHASIA ETIOLOGY/HUBBARD ET AL generalization) of personally relevant content versus generic content. 40 Additional nascent evidence from our work and others 41 indicates that personally relevant scripts are motivating to PWSAs, facilitating buy-in and practice time.…”

“…Personally relevant words were also acquired more easily than generic words. 40 In summary, script training with AphasiaScripts has yielded positive results for different aphasia types and severities. Furthermore, intensity of training, content difficulty, level of cueing support, and personally relevant content contributed to treatment success.…”

“…11,15,41,64 Additionally, increases in speech-language pathologists (SLPs) ratings of participants' oral reading accuracy on the Naming and Oral Reading in Aphasia rating scale have been reported. 12,14,40 AphasiaScripts has served as a vehicle for Cherney and colleagues to elegantly and systematically examine treatment intensity, 41 response to treatment, 15,41 cueing support (highvs. low-cueing support) 12,40,64 and script difficulty.…”

“…12,14,40 AphasiaScripts has served as a vehicle for Cherney and colleagues to elegantly and systematically examine treatment intensity, 41 response to treatment, 15,41 cueing support (highvs. low-cueing support) 12,40,64 and script difficulty. 14 For most of their studies, participants were required to practice at home daily with the software for at least 30 minutes.…”