Combining Teletherapy and On-line Language Exercises in the Treatment of Chronic Aphasia: An Outcome Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report a 12-week outcome study in which nine persons with long-term chronic aphasia received individual and group speech-language teletherapy services, and also used on-line language exercises to practice from home between therapy sessions. Participants were assessed at study initiation and completion using the Western Aphasia Battery, a portion of the Communicative Effectiveness Index, ASHA National Outcome Measurement System, and RIC Communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia; additionally participants were polled regarding satisfaction at discharge. Pretreatment and post-treatment means were calculated and compared, and matched t-tests were used to determine significance of improvements following treatment, with patterns of independent on-line activity analyzed. Analysis of scores shows that means improved on most measures following treatment, generally significantly: the WAB AQ improved +3.5 (p = .057); the CETI Overall (of items administered) - +17.8 (p = .01), and CCRSA Overall - + 10.4 (p = .0004). Independent work increased with time, and user satisfaction following participation was high.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".