Semantic Feature Analysis: Further Examination of Outcomes

Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) has received considerable study over the past two decades as a word-retrieval treatment for aphasia (Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Lowell, Beeson, & Holland, 1995; Boyle, 2010; Wambaugh, Mauszycki, Cameron, Wright, & Nessler, 2013). SFA has been shown to have consistently positive acquisition effects (i.e., improvement of trained items), with generally positive but less predictable generalization effects (i.e., improvement in untrained items). SFA was originally designed as a cognitive treatment for children and adolescents sustaining traumatic brain injury (TBI) (Haarbauer-Krupa, Moser, Smith, Sullivan & Szekeres, 1985). The therapy was designed as an “organizing process for thinking and verbal expression” (p.303). Massaro and Tompkins (1994) operationalized SFA in a study with two participants with TBI. In keeping with the intentions of the original developers, Massaro and Tompkins measured SFA’s treatment effects in terms of increased production of semantically relevant content. In the treatment of aphasia, the focus of SFA relative to outcomes has been naming accuracy. That is, SFA has been used as a means of systematically stimulating semantic networks to facilitate naming. Additionally, SFA has been considered to potentially serve as a mediating strategy for self-cuing accurate naming and/or a compensatory strategy for circumventing word-retrieval difficulties. The current study was designed to elucidate the effects of SFA in aphasia treatment beyond naming accuracy. Given SFA was designed to improve verbal expression in general and may serve as a compensatory strategy, increased production of relevant content was of interest (after Tompkins & Massaro, 1994). In light of inconsistent generalization effects associated with SFA, the study was designed to explore its generalization effects relative to aspects of untreated items. Specifically, untreated items were controlled in terms of semantic relatedness, exposure in probing, and knowledge of phonological form

Doctor of Philosophy

dissertationLiterature addressing aphasia recovery suggests a combination of patient-related and injury-related factors can predict, to some extent, overall language recovery. Even among highly controlled analyses, however, large portions of unexplained variance often remain. Evidence concerning prognosis for language change in those with chronic aphasia has not been addressed. Successive, improved performance due to repeated exposure is referred to as practice effects. Neuropsychological literature suggests practice effects may be indicative of individual neuroplasticity as evidenced by behavioral change. One of the most pervasive language deficits in aphasia is word retrieval, often measured by naming accuracy. The study of practice effects has not yet been systematically applied to the study of aphasia and may have potential to expand our understanding of language recovery with and without treatment. The purpose of this study was to examine practice effects in those with aphasia. In addition, the effects of a single treatment session were investigated as another gauge of potential for behavioral change. This study involved a single group, repeated measures design. Twenty individuals with aphasia participated in the investigation and completed the Boston Naming Test on three different occasions. Two to four days separated each administration. One treatment session was then administered using a dynamic assessment approach (i.e., test-teach-test). A fourth sampling session followed one to two days after treatment. A nonlinguistic, iv nonverbal task was also administered during each sampling session to examine the presence of practice effects on a nonlinguistic task across repeated sampling sessions. Results showed improved, but nonsignificant naming improvement across the first three sampling sessions (i.e., no practice effects) for the group. Performance across individuals varied substantially. Post treatment, significant increases in naming accuracy were detected at the group level. Patient-related and injury-related factors were significantly associated with increased naming accuracy. Practice effects were not present across sampling occasions for the nonlinguistic task. For this investigation, measurement of repeated naming attempts provided insight into practice effects and modifiability, which may be potentially important prognostic factors. Differences in ability to improve on one's own with practice and/or with minimal intervention may be relevant to treatment outcomes in aphasia

Treatment intensity in acquired apraxia of speech (Wambaugh et al., 2018)

<div><b>Purpose:</b> This investigation was designed to examine the effects of treatment intensity (i.e., dose frequency) on the outcomes of Sound Production Treatment (SPT) for acquired apraxia of speech.</div><div><b>Method:</b> Five men with chronic apraxia of speech and aphasia received both intense SPT (3 hr per day/3 days per week) and nonintense/traditional SPT (SPT-T; 1 hr per day/3 days per week) in the context of single-case experimental designs. Each treatment was applied separately to a designated set of experimental words with 1 treatment applied at a time. Twenty-seven treatment sessions were conducted with each phase of treatment. Accuracy of articulation of target sounds within treated and untreated experimental words was measured during the course of the investigation.</div><div><b>Results:</b> All participants demonstrated improved articulation with both treatment intensities. Better maintenance of gains for treated items was found with SPT-T for 2 participants as measured at an 8-week posttreatment retention probe. Superior maintenance of increased accuracy of production of untreated items was also observed with SPT-T for all participants.</div><div><b>Conclusion:</b> A less intense (distributed) application of SPT facilitated better maintenance of improved articulatory accuracy for untreated items, and in some cases treated items, than intense SPT.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S1.</b> Examples of participants’ discourse: pretreatment samples (Nicholas & Brookshire, 1993). </div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S2.</b> Probe and treatment stimuli. </div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S3.</b> Sound Production Treatment (SPT) treatment log (minimal pair). </div><div><br></div><div>Wambaugh, J. L., Wright, S., Boss, E., Mauszycki, S. C., DeLong, C., Hula, W., & Doyle, P. J. (2018). Effects of treatment intensity on outcomes in acquired apraxia of speech.<i> American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 27</i>(1S), 306–322. </div

Detailed information regarding participant grouping, probe and treatment stimuli, severity criteria, and accuracy of production of target sounds (Wambaugh et al., 2017)

<div>The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of schedule of practice (i.e., blocked vs. random) on outcomes of Sound Production Treatment (SPT) for speakers with chronic acquired apraxia of speech and aphasia. </div><div><br></div><div>A combination of group and single-case experimental designs was used. Twenty participants each received SPT administered with randomized stimuli presentation (SPT-R) and SPT applied with blocked stimuli presentation (SPT-B). Treatment effects were examined with respect to accuracy of articulation as measured in treated and untreated experimental words produced during probes.</div><div><br></div><div>For more information on the methodology and results, please see the original article. </div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S1.</b> Participant identifiers used in previous studies.</div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S2.</b> Participant matching by group.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S3.</b> Probe and treatment stimuli for all participants.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S4. </b>Criteria used to determine severity descriptors.</div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S5. </b>Accuracy of production of target sounds in experiment words for</div><div>various participants.</div><div><br></div><div>Wambaugh, J. L., Nessler, C., Wright, S., Mauszycki, S. C., DeLong, C., Berggren, K., & Bailey, D. J. (2017). Effects of blocked and random practice schedule on outcomes of sound production treatment for acquired apraxia of speech: Results of a group investigation. <i>Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60</i>(6S), 1739–1751. </div