4.3 Article

Computerized script training for aphasia: Preliminary results

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 19-34

Publisher

AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
DOI: 10.1044/1058-0360(2008/003)

Keywords

aphasia; rehabilitation; computer treatment; script training

Funding

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC007488-03, R01 DC007488] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This article describes computer software that was developed specifically for training conversational scripts and illustrates its use with 3 individuals with aphasia. Method: Three participants with chronic aphasia (Broca's, Wernicke's, and anomic) were assessed before and after 9 weeks of a computer script training program. For each participant, 3 individualized scripts were developed, recorded on the software, and practiced sequentially at home. Weekly meetings with the speech-language pathologist occurred to monitor practice and assess progress. Baseline and posttreatment scripts were audiotaped, transcribed, and compared to the target scripts for content, grammatical productivity, and rate of production of scrip-trelated words. Interviews with the person with aphasia and his or her significant other were conducted at the conclusion of treatment. Results: All measures (content, grammatical productivity, and rate of production of scrip-trelated words) improved for each participant on every script. Two participants gained more than 5 points on the Aphasia Quotient of the Western Aphasia Battery. Five positive themes were consistently identified from the exit interviews-increased verbal communication, improvements in other modalities and situations, communication changes noticed by others, increased confidence, and satisfaction with the software. Conclusion: Computer-based script training potentially may be an effective intervention for persons with chronic aphasia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available