Neumann Yael
a Department of Linguistics and Communication Disorders, Queens College , City University of New York , Queens , NY , USA.
Clin Linguist Phon. 2018;32(1):1-27. doi: 10.1080/02699206.2017.1326166. Epub 2017 Jun 7.
There is a lack of clarity in the field regarding how to best predict which naming treatment will be most beneficial for a particular individual with aphasia. The purpose of this study was to elucidate whether or not semantic or phonological therapy differentially impacts on outcomes for people with a range of different aphasic profiles when given both therapies. A single-participant design, with multiple repeated baselines for naming, replicated across four participants, was used. Participants were provided with a counterbalanced order of Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) and Phonological Components Analysis (PCA) treatment. Findings demonstrated differential effects across participants. This seemed to be influenced by factors such as severity of anomia, order of treatment presentation, and capacity limits. Clinical implications of these findings highlight the importance of expanding our picture of a participant's behaviours to consider what other important factors can inform intervention decisions.
在如何最好地预测哪种命名治疗方法对特定失语症患者最有益这一领域，尚缺乏明确的认识。本研究的目的是阐明，在对患有一系列不同失语症类型的患者同时给予语义疗法和语音疗法时，这两种疗法对治疗结果的影响是否存在差异。本研究采用单病例设计，针对四名参与者重复进行了多次命名基线测量。为参与者提供了语义特征分析（SFA）和语音成分分析（PCA）治疗的平衡顺序。研究结果表明，不同参与者的治疗效果存在差异。这似乎受到诸如命名障碍严重程度、治疗呈现顺序和能力限制等因素的影响。这些研究结果的临床意义凸显了拓展我们对参与者行为的认识，以考虑其他哪些重要因素可以为干预决策提供依据的重要性。
