Language-specific attention treatment for aphasia (Peach et al., 2019) Richard K. Peach Katherine M. Beck Michelle Gorman Christine Fisher 10.23641/asha.8986427.v1 https://asha.figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Language-specific_attention_treatment_for_aphasia_Peach_et_al_2019_/8986427 <div><b>Purpose: </b>This study was conducted to examine the comparative effectiveness of 2 different approaches, 1 domain-specific and the other domain-general, to language and attention rehabilitation in participants with stroke-induced aphasia. The domain-specific treatment consisted of language-specific attention treatment (L-SAT), and the domain-general treatment consisted of direct attention training (DAT) using the computerized exercises included in Attention Process Training-3 (Sohlberg & Mateer, 2010).</div><div><b>Method: </b>Four individuals with mild–moderate aphasia participated in this study. A randomized controlled cross-over single-subject design was used to assess the effectiveness of the 2 treatments administered in this study. Treatment outcomes were evaluated in terms of participants’ task performance for each program, standardized language and attention measures, tests of functional abilities, and patient-reported outcomes.</div><div><b>Results: </b>Visual comparisons demonstrated linear improvements following L-SAT and variable patterns following DAT. Omnibus effect sizes were statistically significant for 9 of the 13 L-SAT tasks. The weighted standardized effect sizes for posttreatment changes following L-SAT ranged from small to large, with the exception of 1 task. The average group gain following DAT was 5%. The Western Aphasia Battery–Revised Aphasia Quotients (Kertesz, 2007) demonstrated reliable improvements for 3 of the 4 participants following L-SAT, whereas only 1 of the participants improved reliably following DAT. The margins of improvements in functional language were substantially larger following L-SAT than DAT. Performance on the Test of Everyday Attention improved significantly for 2 participants following L-SAT and for 1 participant following DAT on selected Test of Everyday Attention (Robertson, Ward, Ridgeway, & Nimmo-Smith, 1994) subtests. Patient-reported outcomes for communication and attention following treatment favored L-SAT compared to DAT.</div><div><b>Conclusions: </b>The results support the view that attention is allocated in ways that are particular to specific tasks rather than as a general resource that is allocated equivalently to all processing tasks. Domain-specific treatment for language deficits due to attentional impairment appears to be a suitable, if not preferable, approach for aphasia rehabilitation.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S1. </b>Language-Specific Attention Treatment: Clinician Instructions.</div><div><br></div><div>Peach, R. K., Beck, K. M., Gorman, M., & Fisher, C. (2019). Clinical outcomes following language-specific attention treatment versus direct attention training for aphasia: A comparative effectiveness study. <i>Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62, </i>2785–2811<i>.</i> https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504</div><div><br></div> 2019-07-26 18:11:25 language aphasia impairment outcomes clinical specific attention treatment direct comparative effectiveness domain specific domain general rehabilitation stroke poststroke L-SAT DAT computer computerized exercises Attention Process Training-3 mild moderate randomized controlled single subject standardized measures functional abilities patient-reported outcomes posttreatment pretreatment Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient improve patterns communication domain deficits Language Clinical Nursing: Tertiary (Rehabilitative)