SynthesisAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2024
Are Personal and Reflexive Pronouns Dissociated in Agrammatic Comprehension? An Individual Participant Meta-Analysis With Clinical Implications.
Synthesis in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study had three objectives: (a) to verify if Grodzinsky et al.'s (1993) findings of worse comprehension of personal than reflexive pronouns can be replicated in a larger meta-analysis of individual participant data, (b) to examine if the heterogeneity found in the patterns of pronoun comprehension in agrammatism can be attributed to task effects, and (c) to evaluate the risk of bias in the reviewed studies.
methodFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic literature search was performed to identify studies examining the personal-reflexive pronoun dissociation in agrammatic comprehension. Seven studies met the search criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. For each participant, individual accuracy scores for the comprehension of personal and reflexive pronouns were extracted in addition to information on the study methods. Individual accuracy data were analyzed using the Fisher's exact test and the binomial test. The risk of bias in the studies was assessed using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.
resultsThe meta-analysis had three main findings: (a) The majority of the persons with agrammatic aphasia (89%) had no dissociation between the comprehension of personal and reflexive pronouns; (b) 8% revealed a pattern consistent with a neuropsychological dissociation, faring worse on the comprehension of personal than reflexive pronouns; and (c) 2% performed worse on reflexive than personal pronouns. The type of the task used affected pronoun comprehension accuracy and accounted for the heterogeneity in the patterns of pronoun comprehension attested across the different participants.
conclusionsTaken together, the meta-analysis did not support a dissociation between personal and reflexive pronoun comprehension in agrammatic comprehension. When confirmed, the dissociation was driven by task effects. The clinical implications of these findings were discussed together with implications to minimize the risk of bias in future examinations of the topic.
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.