Trial reportAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2025
Interim Treatment Fidelity for a Randomized Controlled Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Two Variants of Semantic Feature Analysis Treatment for Aphasia.
Trial report in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inside Semantic Feature Analysis: A Within-Trial Analysis of Feature Quantity and Quality.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2026Article
- Test-retest reliability of edge-level resting-state functional connectivity in people with aphasia.Neuroimage. Reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated treatment fidelity for an ongoing randomized controlled trial comparing two variants of semantic feature analysis (SFA) treatment for naming impairment in aphasia. In this trial, participants are being randomized to treatment conditions (many- or few-features) in which they are asked to generate either 11 or five features per SFA trial.
methodTreatment fidelity was addressed via study design, manualization of the treatment, provider training, and maintenance of daily treatment logs, among other approaches. Fidelity was assessed through protocol adherence checks, interrater reliability of feature counting, and analysis of treatment dosage. Protocol adherence was measured using a 20-item checklist. Interrater reliability was evaluated for feature counts on 10% of treatment sessions. Treatment dosage was analyzed to confirm differentiation between many-features and few-features groups in terms of features generated and exposed and equivalence in terms of total treatment time.
resultsOverall protocol adherence was 99%. Interrater reliability for feature counting showed good-to-excellent agreement. Analysis of treatment dosage in terms of features per trial confirmed clear differentiation between groups, with the many-features group generating or being exposed to approximately 10-11 features per trial compared to four to five features for the few-features group. Analysis of other aspects of dosage also suggested good fidelity to the design.
conclusionsThis ongoing trial of SFA is being implemented with high levels of treatment fidelity. The study demonstrates the importance and feasibility of comprehensive fidelity monitoring in aphasia treatment research. Detailed fidelity procedures and outcomes support interpretation, replication, and clinical implementation of study findings. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.29230937.
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.