A strategy-based reading intervention in aphasia: a mixed methods approach to explore individual differences in treatment response
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Persons with aphasia (PWA) frequently experience difficulties in text-level reading comprehension. StraTexT is a strategy-based intervention to treat text comprehension in aphasia. Previous studies on StraTexT have analysed quantitative and qualitative data of an intervention study with 22 participants, providing estimates of the magnitude of treatment effects, insights into subjectively perceived improvements, and a comparison with a control condition. Individual-level quantitative analyses and interview data have not been integrated, and it is unclear for which individuals StraTexT may be particularly beneficial when considering both types of data. The rehabilitation treatment specification system (RTSS) provides a helpful framework to integrate the data.Aims (1) to describe different treatment response profiles to the targets improvement in text comprehension and transfer of reading strategies to everyday life based on self-perceived and performance-based measures, and (2) to explore similarities and differences within and across these response profiles in pre-treatment participant characteristics and patterns of change.Methods We integrated the self-perceived and performance-based outcomes on change in text comprehension, reading abilities and the transfer of reading strategies. Then, we identified different response profiles based on similarities in treatment response. We described participant characteristics for individuals at the extreme ends of the response continuum. Finally, based on the interview data, we described similarities and differences in perceived changes in reading functions, cognitive functions, and transfer within and across different response profiles to better understand applicable mechanisms of action.Outcomes and Results Regarding the selected targets, we identified seven response profiles. Subjective and objective improvement did not correlate. The descriptions of pre-treatment characteristics revealed that reading speed, discrepancies between subjective and objective measures, and several other factors differed in PWA with different response profiles. However, self-perceived change in reading functions, cognitive functions and strategy use was heterogeneous within and across response profiles.Conclusions StraTexT contributes to objective and subjective improvements in text comprehension, even in individuals who do not transfer the strategies to everyday reading. The interview data suggests that for each PWA, a different subset of StraTexT’s mechanisms of action may be at work. This likely reflects differences in underlying impairments. We propose potential indicators for candidacy decisions, including the reading speed and the discrepancy between subjective and objective measures, to be explored in future research, and emphasize the need for both performance-based and self-rated outcomes. Furthermore, our results support the use of multiple- rather than single strategy interventions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,036 | 0,051 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».