Trial reportAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2016
Intensive Language Action Therapy in Chronic Aphasia: A Randomized Clinical Trial Examining Guidance by Constraint.
Trial report in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Speech therapy for poststroke aphasia: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.PeerJ · 2026Pooled it
- A Meta-Analysis of Anomia Treatment in Bilingual Aphasia: Within- and Cross-Language Generalization and Predictors of the Treatment Outcomes.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effects of a Tablet-Based Home Practice Program With Telepractice on Treatment Outcomes in Chronic Aphasia.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2018Trial
- Communication makes intensive language therapy more efficient: a randomized controlled trial in chronic post-stroke aphasia.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Review
- Increased Recruitment of Domain-General Neural Networks in Language Processing Following Intensive Language-Action Therapy: fMRI Evidence From People With Chronic Aphasia.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2021Article
- Constraint-induced aphasia therapy for patients with aphasia: A systematic review.International journal of nursing sciences · 2020Review
- Practice effects in healthy older adults: Implications for treatment-induced neuroplasticity in Aphasia.Neuropsychologia · 2018Article
- Combining rTMS With Intensive Language-Action Therapy in Chronic Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Intensive language action therapy (ILAT) can be effective in overcoming learned nonuse in chronic aphasia. It is suggested that all three guiding principles (constraint, communication embedding, massed practice) are essential to ILAT's success. We examined whether one of these, guidance by constraint, is critical. Method: Twenty-four participants with aphasia (PWAs) were assigned to ILAT or a modified version of promoting aphasic communicative effectiveness (PACE) in a randomized block, single-blind, parallel-group treatment study. Blocking was by severity (mild/moderate, moderate to severe, severe). Both groups received intensive treatment in the context of therapeutic language action games. Whereas the ILAT group was guided toward spoken responses, the PACE group could choose any response modality. Results: All participants, whether assigned to ILAT or PACE groups, improved on the primary outcome measure, picture naming. There was a Severity × Treatment interaction, with the largest effects estimated for PWAs with mild/moderate and moderate to severe aphasia. Regardless of severity, the ILAT group outperformed the PACE group on untrained pictures, suggesting some benefit of ILAT to generalization. However, this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Although the groups differed in subtle ways, including better generalization to untrained pictures for ILAT, the study was inconclusive on the influence of guidance by constraint.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.