Efstratiadou Evangelia Antonia, Papathanasiou Ilias, Holland Rachel, Archonti Anastasia, Hilari Katerina
Division of Language & Communication Science, City, University of London, United Kingdom.
Thales Aphasia Project, Department of Linguistics, School of Philosophy, University of Athens, Greece.
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2018 May 17;61(5):1261-1278. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-16-0330.
The purpose of this study was to review treatment studies of semantic feature analysis (SFA) for persons with aphasia. The review documents how SFA is used, appraises the quality of the included studies, and evaluates the efficacy of SFA.
The following electronic databases were systematically searched (last search February 2017): Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus, E-journals, Health Policy Reference Centre, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX. The quality of the included studies was rated. Clinical efficacy was determined by calculating effect sizes (Cohen's d) or percent of nonoverlapping data when d could not be calculated.
Twenty-one studies were reviewed reporting on 55 persons with aphasia. SFA was used in 6 different types of studies: confrontation naming of nouns, confrontation naming of verbs, connected speech/discourse, group, multilingual, and studies where SFA was compared with other approaches. The quality of included studies was high (Single Case Experimental Design Scale average [range] = 9.55 [8.0-11]). Naming of trained items improved for 45 participants (81.82%). Effect sizes indicated that there was a small treatment effect.
SFA leads to positive outcomes despite the variability of treatment procedures, dosage, duration, and variations to the traditional SFA protocol. Further research is warranted to examine the efficacy of SFA and generalization effects in larger controlled studies.
本研究旨在回顾针对失语症患者的语义特征分析（SFA）治疗研究。该综述记录了SFA的使用方式，评估了纳入研究的质量，并评价了SFA的疗效。
对以下电子数据库进行了系统检索（最后一次检索时间为2017年2月）：《学术搜索完整版》《护理学与健康领域数据库》《电子期刊》《卫生政策参考中心》《医学索引》《心理学文摘》《心理学文摘数据库》和《社会科学索引》。对纳入研究的质量进行了评分。当无法计算科恩d值时，通过计算效应量（科恩d值）或非重叠数据百分比来确定临床疗效。
共回顾了21项研究，涉及55名失语症患者。SFA被用于6种不同类型的研究：名词的对答命名、动词的对答命名、连贯言语/语篇、小组研究、多语言研究以及将SFA与其他方法进行比较的研究。纳入研究的质量较高（单病例实验设计量表平均分[范围]=9.55[8.0 - 11]）。45名参与者（81.82%）在训练项目的命名方面有所改善。效应量表明存在较小的治疗效果。
尽管治疗程序、剂量、持续时间以及对传统SFA方案存在差异，但SFA仍能带来积极的结果。有必要进行进一步的研究，以在更大规模的对照研究中检验SFA的疗效和泛化效果。
