Reading comprehension treatment in aphasia: a systematic review

Purdy, Mary; Coppens, Patrick; Madden, Elizabeth Brookshire; Mozeiko, Jennifer; Patterson, Janet P.; Wallace, Sarah E.; Freed, Donald B.

doi:10.1080/02687038.2018.1482405

Cited by 25 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In many studies, there was an attempt to restore a damaged reading mechanism, with gains assessed typically through single word tasks, such as oral reading (see Leff & Behrmann, 2008 for review). A recent systematic review (Purdy, Coppens, Brookshire Madden, Mozeiko, Patterson, Wallace & Freed, 2018) identified just 15 articles that attempted to remediate reading comprehension at the text level. Approaches included oral reading techniques, such as Modified Multiple Oral Reading (Kim & Russo, 2010) and Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia (ORLA, Cherney, 2010); cognitive treatments, e.g., attempting to remediate underlying attention deficits (Coelho, 2005); hierarchical reading of increasingly complex texts (Katz & Wertz, 1992;1997) and strategic therapies (Cocks, Pritchard, Cornish, Johnson, & Cruice, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology-Enhanced Reading Therapy for People With Aphasia: Findings From a Quasirandomized Waitlist Controlled Study

Caute

Woolf

Wilson

et al. 2019

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study investigated the effects of technology-enhanced reading therapy for people with reading impairments, using mainstream assistive reading technologies alongside reading strategies. Method The study used a quasirandomized waitlist controlled design. Twenty-one people with reading impairments following stroke were randomly assigned to receive 14 hr of therapy immediately or after a 6-week delay. During therapy, participants were trained to use assistive reading technology that offered a range of features to support reading comprehension. They developed skills in using the technology independently and in applying the technology to their personal reading goals. The primary outcome measure assessed reading comprehension, using Gray Oral Reading Test–Fourth Edition (GORT-4). Secondary measures were as follows: Reading Comprehension Battery for Aphasia–Second Edition, Reading Confidence and Emotions Questionnaire, Communication Activities of Daily Living–Second Edition, Visual Analog Mood Scales, and Assessment of Living With Aphasia. Matched texts were used with the GORT-4 to compare technology-assisted and unassisted reading comprehension. Mixed analyses of variance explored change between T1 and T2, when the immediate group had received therapy but the delayed group had not, thus serving as untreated controls. Pretherapy, posttherapy, and follow-up scores on the measures were also examined for all participants. Results GORT-4 results indicated that the immediately treated group improved significantly in technology-assisted reading following therapy, but not in unassisted reading. However, the data were not normally distributed, and secondary nonparametric analysis was not significant. The control group was unstable over the baseline, improving significantly in unassisted reading. The whole-group analysis showed significant gains in assisted (but not unassisted) reading after therapy that were maintained at follow-up. The Reading Confidence and Emotions Questionnaire results improved significantly following therapy, with good maintenance of change. Results on all other secondary measures were not significant. Conclusions Technology-assisted reading comprehension improved following the intervention, with treatment compensating for, rather than remediating, the reading impairment. Participants' confidence and emotions associated with reading also improved. Gains were achieved after 14 therapy sessions, using assistive technologies that are widely available and relatively affordable, meaning that this approach could be implemented in clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology-Enhanced Reading Therapy for People With Aphasia: Findings From a Quasirandomized Waitlist Controlled Study

Caute

Woolf

Wilson

et al. 2019

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 3–5 Despite these severe consequences, reading impairments following stroke are often treated insufficiently or remain untreated. 6 Systematic reviews of Purdy et al 7 and Watter et al 8 indicate that the evidence for the efficacy of text-level reading comprehension treatments in PWA is limited. They suggest further investigation with more rigorous study designs as well as research on the contribution of cognitive and linguistic factors to text comprehension impairments in PWA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To treat reading comprehension in PWA, oral, strategy-based, cognitive and hierarchical reading treatments can be distinguished. 7 In oral reading treatments, PWA read texts repeatedly aloud, either independently or together with a speech and language pathologist (SLP), to facilitate whole-word recognition and top-down processing (ie, using prior knowledge to enhance understanding). 7 8 This may be particularly helpful to improve reading comprehension in severe aphasia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 7 In oral reading treatments, PWA read texts repeatedly aloud, either independently or together with a speech and language pathologist (SLP), to facilitate whole-word recognition and top-down processing (ie, using prior knowledge to enhance understanding). 7 8 This may be particularly helpful to improve reading comprehension in severe aphasia. 20 Hierarchical reading treatments 21 22 were provided with systematic computerised visual-matching and reading comprehension tasks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 26 They may be particularly beneficial for persons with mild aphasia. 7 In strategy-based treatments, reading strategies are used to facilitate reading comprehension. 8 Reading strategies are specific, target-oriented cognitive techniques applied either automatically or consciously and flexibly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Efficacy of a strategy-based intervention on text-level reading comprehension in persons with aphasia: a study protocol for a repeated measures study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionAt least 68% of persons with aphasia (PWA) experience reading difficulties. Even though strategy-based interventions are a promising treatment approach for text level reading comprehension deficits in PWA, empirical evidence for their efficacy remains rare. The primary objective of this study is the analysis of the efficacy of a strategy-based intervention on text-level reading comprehension and on reading activities in PWA.Methods and analysisIn a repeated measures trial, 24 PWA will first participate in a waiting period and then in a strategy-based intervention (14 face-to-face-sessions, 60 min each). We will apply two combinations of strategies to treat either the microstructure or the macrostructure, respectively. Participants will be randomly allocated to two parallel groups that will receive these combinations in interchanged sequences. Assessments will be implemented before and after each period as well as 3 and 6 months after the intervention. The primary outcome measure is text-level reading comprehension measured with a German version of the Test de Compréhension de Textes (TCT-D) and represented by the score TCT-D Total . A non-blinded and a blinded rater will evaluate the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures will address specific reading functions, reading activities and cognitive functions. The sample size was determined with an a priori power analysis. For statistical analysis, we will use contrast analyses within repeated measures analysis of variance models. We expect significant improvements in primary and secondary outcome measures during the intervention as compared with changes during the waiting period.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the ethics committee of Deutscher Bundesverband für akademische Sprachtherapie und Logopädie (20–10074-KA-MunmErw+Ko). Results and relevant data will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at conferences and on the Open Science Framework.Trial registration numberDRKS00021411 (see Supplementary Table 1).

show abstract