Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment versus Direct Attention Training for Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study

Autor/inn/en	Peach, Richard K.; Beck, Katherine M.; Gorman, Michelle; Fisher, Christine
Titel	Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment versus Direct Attention Training for Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study
Quelle	In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62 (2017) 8, S.2785-2811 (27 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1092-4388
Schlagwörter	Aphasia; Speech Therapy; Outcomes of Treatment; Comparative Analysis; Neurological Impairments; Training Methods; Computer Assisted Instruction; Attention; Standardized Tests; Patients; Effect Size; Task Analysis; Communication Skills + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Expressive Aphasie; Aphasie; Entwicklungsproximale Sprachtherapie; Logotherapie; Neurodegenerative Erkrankung; Didaktik; Trainingsmaßnahme; Computer based training; Computerunterstützter Unterricht; Aufmerksamkeit; Standadised tests; Standardisierter Test; Patient; Aufgabenanalyse; Kommunikationsstil
Abstract	Purpose: This study was conducted to examine the comparative effectiveness of 2 different approaches, 1 domain-specific and the other domain-general, to language and attention rehabilitation in participants with stroke-induced aphasia. The domain-specific treatment consisted of language-specific attention treatment (L-SAT), and the domain-general treatment consisted of direct attention training (DAT) using the computerized exercises included in Attention Process Training-3 (Sohlberg & Mateer, 2010). Method: Four individuals with mild-moderate aphasia participated in this study. A randomized controlled cross-over single-subject design was used to assess the effectiveness of the 2 treatments administered in this study. Treatment outcomes were evaluated in terms of participants' task performance for each program, standardized language and attention measures, tests of functional abilities, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: Visual comparisons demonstrated linear improvements following L-SAT and variable patterns following DAT. Omnibus effect sizes were statistically significant for 9 of the 13 L-SAT tasks. The weighted standardized effect sizes for posttreatment changes following L-SAT ranged from small to large, with the exception of 1 task. The average group gain following DAT was 5%. The Western Aphasia Battery--Revised Aphasia Quotients (Kertesz, 2007) demonstrated reliable improvements for 3 of the 4 participants following L-SAT, whereas only 1 of the participants improved reliably following DAT. The margins of improvements in functional language were substantially larger following L-SAT than DAT. Performance on the Test of Everyday Attention improved significantly for 2 participants following L-SAT and for 1 participant following DAT on selected Test of Everyday Attention (Robertson, Ward, Ridgeway, & Nimmo-Smith, 1994) subtests. Patient-reported outcomes for communication and attention following treatment favored L-SAT compared to DAT. Conclusions: The results support the view that attention is allocated in ways that are particular to specific tasks rather than as a general resource that is allocated equivalently to all processing tasks. Domain-specific treatment for language deficits due to attentional impairment appears to be a suitable, if not preferable, approach for aphasia rehabilitation. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2200 Research Blvd #250, Rockville, MD 20850. Tel: 301-296-5700; Fax: 301-296-8580; e-mail: slhr@asha.org; Web site: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01