Reading comprehension treatment in aphasia: a systematic review

ABSTRACT

Background: Reading difficulties often present as a consequence of aphasia. The specific nature of reading deficits varies widely in manifestation, and the cause of these deficits may be the result of a phonological, lexical semantic, or cognitive impairment. Several treatments have been developed to address a range of impairments underlying reading difficulty.

Aims: The purpose of this review is to describe the current research on reading comprehension treatments for persons with aphasia, assess the quality of the research, and summarize treatment outcomes.

Methods & Procedures: A systematic review of the literature was conducted based on a set of a priori questions, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and pre-determined search parameters. Results were summarized according to treatment type, methodologic rigor, and outcomes.

Outcomes & Results: Fifteen studies meeting criteria were identified. A variety of reading comprehension treatments was implemented including: oral reading, strategy-based, cognitive treatment, and hierarchical reading treatments. Quality ratings were highly variable, ranging from 3 to 9 (on a 12-point scale). Overall, 14 of the 18 individuals for whom individual data were provided demonstrated some degree of improvement (oral reading 4/5 participants, strategy based 4/6, and cognitive treatment 6/7). Gains were also evident for hierarchical reading treatment administered to participant groups via computer; however, the degree to which improvement reached statistical significance varied among studies.

Conclusions: Reading comprehension treatments have the potential to improve reading comprehension ability in persons with aphasia; however, outcomes were variable within and among treatment methods. We suggest focusing future research on factors such as participant candidacy and treatment intensity using increased methodological rigor.

KEYWORDS:

• Aphasia
• reading comprehension
• treatment
• systematic review

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.