Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37433115›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2023

Incorporating Metacognitive Strategy Training Into Semantic Treatment Promotes Restitutive and Substitutive Gains in Naming: A Single-Subject Investigation.

Victoria E Tilton-Bolowsky, Lauren Brock, Kristen Nunn, William S Evans, Sofia Vallila-Rohter

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07036406 (Comparing the Effectiveness of Traditional Semantic Feature Analysis), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07036406 phase2recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Comparing the Effectiveness of Traditional Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) Versus SFA Plus Metacognitive Strategy Training (SFA+MST) for People With Acquired Aphasia

TypeinterventionalSponsorTeachers College, Columbia UniversityRan2025 to 2027Enrolled40ConditionsAphasia, Aphasia Following Cerebral Infarction, Aphasia, Acquired, Aphasia, RehabilitationArmsSemantic Feature Analysis (traditional), Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy Training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Victoria E Tilton-BolowskyMGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0003-1752-6693
Lauren BrockMGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA.
Kristen NunnMGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-9562-7185
William S EvansUniversity of Pittsburgh, PA.ORCID 0000-0001-5124-3473
Sofia Vallila-RohterMGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0003-4812-4531
Google (United States) · US

Funding

Determining the implicit and rule-based learning ability of individuals with aphasia to better align learning ability and interventionR21DC019203 · NIDCD · MGH INSTITUTE OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS · PI ROHTER, SOFIA VALLILA · 2021 to 2023
$480k
NIDCD NIH HHS R21 DC019203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study tested the effectiveness of a modified semantic feature analysis (SFA) treatment protocol that incorporated metacognitive strategy training (MST). Regarding its restitutive component, SFA most reliably results in improved word retrieval for treated items and untreated, semantically related items, but evidence of response generalization is often small/inconsistent. Regarding its substitutive component, SFA is thought to facilitate successful communication via habituation of the SFA circumlocution strategy. However, repeated practice with SFA's strategy in the absence of direct MST may not result in independent strategy use and/or generalization. Furthermore, people with aphasia's independent use of the SFA strategy in moments of anomia is presently underreported. To address these limitations, we incorporated MST into SFA and directly measured substitutive outcomes.

methodFour people with aphasia participated in 24 treatment sessions of SFA + MST in a single-subject, A-B experimental design with repeated measurements. We measured word retrieval accuracy, strategy use, and explicit strategy knowledge. We calculated effect sizes to measure changes in word retrieval accuracy and strategy use and used visual inspection to assess gains in explicit strategy knowledge from pre- to posttreatment and retention.

resultsParticipants achieved marginally small to medium effects in word retrieval accuracy for treated; untreated, semantically related; and untreated, semantically unrelated items and marginally small to large effects in independent strategy use. Explicit strategy knowledge was variable.

conclusionsAcross participants, SFA + MST yielded positive changes in word retrieval accuracy or strategy use, or both. Positive changes in word retrieval accuracy were comparable to other SFA studies. Positive changes in strategy use demonstrate preliminary evidence of this treatment's ability to yield restitutive and substitutive gains. Overall, this study offers preliminary evidence of SFA + MST's effectiveness and highlights the importance of directly measuring SFA's substitutive outcomes, which showed that people with aphasia can respond to this treatment in multiple successful ways-not just improved target word production.

Indexed as

AphasiaSemanticsAnomiaGeneralization, PsychologicalHumansLanguage Therapy

Identifiers

PMID37433115
PMCPMC10561971
OpenAlexW4383874374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.