A case series comparison of semantically focused vs. phonologically focused cued naming treatment in aphasia

ABSTRACT

There is a lack of clarity in the field regarding how to best predict which naming treatment will be most beneficial for a particular individual with aphasia. The purpose of this study was to elucidate whether or not semantic or phonological therapy differentially impacts on outcomes for people with a range of different aphasic profiles when given both therapies. A single-participant design, with multiple repeated baselines for naming, replicated across four participants, was used. Participants were provided with a counterbalanced order of Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) and Phonological Components Analysis (PCA) treatment. Findings demonstrated differential effects across participants. This seemed to be influenced by factors such as severity of anomia, order of treatment presentation, and capacity limits. Clinical implications of these findings highlight the importance of expanding our picture of a participant’s behaviours to consider what other important factors can inform intervention decisions.

KEYWORDS:

• Aphasia
• naming treatment
• Phonological Components Analysis
• Semantic Feature Analysis

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the participants with aphasia, colleagues Mira Goral, Gail Ramsberger, Valerie Shafer, Emily Zane, Patricia McCaul, and Hia Datta, and Queens College students, Tara Sheridan, Elissa Olivera, Angela Polloni, and Liora Polonov.

Declaration of interest

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Notes

¹ In the second baseline testing, P1 was shown only the 240 pictures that he had named incorrectly during the first testing. This adjustment was made to shorten testing time due to his naming difficulties.