ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2026
Narrative Discourse Predictors of Response to Naming Intervention in Aphasia.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWhile aphasia treatment studies commonly use picture-naming performance as an outcome measure, narrative discourse better reflects functional language use. Discourse variables may also hold prognostic value for naming treatment response, but their predictive role remains underexplored.
methodWe analyzed baseline and posttreatment narrative discourse samples from 95 chronic stroke survivors with aphasia enrolled in a lexical retrieval intervention study. Participants received 3 weeks each of phonological and semantic naming therapy in a crossover design. The Cinderella story retells were analyzed for a range of discourse features: mean length of utterance, words per minute, verbs per utterance, propositional density, type-token ratio, core lexicon, main concepts analysis, and error ratios. We used univariate (generalized) binomial and linear mixed-effects modeling with multiple predictors to assess whether baseline discourse variables predicted naming gains on the Philadelphia Naming Test and whether discourse variables themselves changed following treatment.
resultsHigher aphasia severity and lower baseline propositional density predicted greater naming gains across time points and treatment types. Gains after phonological therapy were also predicted by higher baseline core lexicon production. Posttreatment discourse showed gains in mean length of utterance, words per minute, and core lexicon, which were maintained at 6 months, while phonological errors declined only at follow-up. Phonological treatment led to increases in words per minute.
conclusionsDiscourse variables reflecting propositional efficiency and lexical appropriateness uniquely predict treatment response beyond general aphasia severity. Lexical retrieval therapy generalizes to improvements in narrative discourse, underscoring the clinical value of incorporating discourse-level measures in aphasia assessment and treatment outcome evaluation. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.32568822.
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.