Naming vs. non-naming treatment in aphasia in a group setting-A randomized controlled trial

Joana Kristensson; Charlotta Saldert; Per Östberg; Signe Rödseth Smith; Sabina Åke; Francesca Longoni

doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2022.106215

Naming vs. non-naming treatment in aphasia in a group setting-A randomized controlled trial

J Commun Disord. 2022 May-Jun:97:106215. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2022.106215. Epub 2022 Mar 17.

Authors

Joana Kristensson¹, Charlotta Saldert², Per Östberg³, Signe Rödseth Smith², Sabina Åke², Francesca Longoni²

Affiliations

¹ Speech and Language Pathology Unit, Department of Health and Rehabilitation at the Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, PO Box 452, SE-405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden. Electronic address: joana.kristensson@gu.se.
² Speech and Language Pathology Unit, Department of Health and Rehabilitation at the Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, PO Box 452, SE-405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden.
³ Division of Speech and Language Pathology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention, and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Medical Unit Speech and Language Pathology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.

PMID: 35367876
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2022.106215

Abstract

Introduction: Anomia affects numerous persons with aphasia. Treatment effects of anomia group therapy have been reported, but the evidence is not comprehensive. This study aimed to explore treatment effects of a naming treatment compared with a non-naming treatment delivered in a group setting.

Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, 17 participants with chronic poststroke aphasia underwent group therapy, 2 hours a session, 3 times per week, for a total of 20 hours. The treatment given in the naming group was modified semantic feature analysis (SFA). Treatment content in the non-naming group comprised auditory comprehension, copying text, and reading. The primary outcome measure was accuracy in confrontation naming of participant-selected trained nouns and verbs. Generalization effects were evaluated in single-word naming, connected speech, and everyday communication.

Results: Participants in both groups significantly improved their naming of trained items. There were no differences between the groups. The treatment effect did not remain at follow-up 10 weeks after therapy. No other statistically significant changes occurred in either group.

Conclusions: Group intervention can improve naming ability in individuals with chronic aphasia. However, similar treatment effects can be achieved using a non-naming treatment as using a naming treatment, such as modified SFA. Further research is warranted to identify the most important elements of anomia group therapy.

Keywords: Anomia; Aphasia; Group therapy; Naming; RCT; Semantic feature analysis.

Publication types

Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Anomia* / therapy
Aphasia* / therapy
Humans
Language Therapy
Semantics
Treatment Outcome