Trial reportJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2026
Dose Considerations and Generalization Following Script Training for Poststroke Aphasia: A Randomized Factorial Clinical Trial.
Trial report 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Trials in Adult Communication and Swallowing Disorders: Building the Evidence Base for Patient-Centered Care.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeUsing script training as an intervention, this study modulated the dose parameters of stimulus repetition (i.e., long vs. short scripts) and session frequency (i.e., distributed vs. massed practice) and assessed their impact on maintenance and generalization in people with chronic poststroke aphasia.
methodThe study was a single-site, factorial, single-blind randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized in a 2 × 2 factorial design into one of four study arms, stratified by pretreatment aphasia severity: (a) distributed/short script, (b) distributed/long script, (c) massed/short script, and (d) massed/long script. Participants completed 10, 1-hr sessions of computer-based script training. Participants were assigned to one of four levels of script complexity with levels determined by aphasia severity. The primary generalization outcome measured performance on the trained script in a simulated conversation with a familiar speech-language pathologist posttreatment. Secondary outcomes included evaluating (a) maintenance of the primary outcome at 3 and 6 weeks posttreatment and (b) generalization of the trained script content to an unstructured conversation with an unfamiliar, naive partner at baseline, posttreatment, and 6 weeks posttreatment.
resultsEighty-five participants with aphasia enrolled in the study. There was no significant difference between groups from baseline to posttreatment and follow-up for stimulus repetition, but there was a significant difference for session frequency with massed performing better than distributed. Factor interactions over time indicated that long scripts showed greater improvements with distributed versus massed session frequency, whereas short scripts were better maintained than long scripts at 6-week follow-up. Within groups, there was significant improvement from baseline to posttreatment, which was generally maintained at 6 weeks posttreatment.
conclusionsResults provide further evidence supporting the efficacy of script training. Dose parameters such as session frequency and stimulus repetition may impact the maintenance and generalization of treatment and should be considered when delivering this and other aphasia treatments. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.33990859.
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.