Semantic feature analysis and aphasia (Gravier et al., 2018)
datasetposted on 01.03.2018 by Michelle L. Gravier, Michael W. Dickey, William D. Hula, William S. Evans, Rebecca L. Owens, Ronda L. Winans-Mitrik, Patrick J. Doyle
Datasets usually provide raw data for analysis. This raw data often comes in spreadsheet form, but can be any collection of data, on which analysis can be performed.
Purpose: This study investigated the predictive value of practice-related variables—number of treatment trials delivered, total treatment time, average number of trials per hour, and average number of participant-generated features per trial—in response to semantic feature analysis (SFA) treatment.
Method: SFA was administered to 17 participants with chronic aphasia daily for 4 weeks. Individualized treatment and semantically related probe lists were generated from items that participants were unable to name consistently during baseline testing. Treatment was administered to each list sequentially in a multiple-baseline design. Naming accuracy for treated and untreated items was obtained at study entry, exit, and 1-month follow-up.
Results: Item-level naming accuracy was analyzed using logistic mixed-effect regression models. The average number of features generated per trial positively predicted naming accuracy for both treated and untreated items, at exit and follow-up. In contrast, total treatment time and average trials per hour did not significantly predict treatment response. The predictive effect of number of treatment trials on naming accuracy trended toward significance at exit, although this relationship held for treated items only.
Conclusions: These results suggest that the number of patient-generated features may be more strongly associated with SFA-related naming outcomes, particularly generalization and maintenance, than other practice-related variables.
Supplemental Material S1. Supplemental language testing results.
Supplemental Material S2. Determination of eligible treatment items based on naming task performance (sample).
Supplemental Material S3. Eligible items by category (sample).
Supplemental Material S4. Treatment fidelity checklist.
Supplemental Material S5. Treatment list progression based on naming probe accuracy (sample).
Gravier, M. L., Dickey, M. W., Hula, W. D., Evans, W. S., Owens, R. L., Winans-Mitrik, R. L., & Doyle, P. J. (2018). What matters in semantic feature analysis: Practice-related predictors of treatment response in aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 27(1S), 438–453.