Effects of conversation group treatment for individuals with moderate to severe aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Conversation treatment is effective for individuals with aphasia, but the optimal ingredients are poorly understood. This study examined factors related to severity of aphasia and characteristics of the group setting.Aim We examined whether individuals with moderate to severe aphasia (IwMSA) benefit from conversation treatment, and whether treatment effects differ based on group size (dyad vs. large group) or composition (mixed vs. homogenous aphasia severity).Method IwMSA (n = 91) were assigned to one of five conditions: delayed control, mixed or homogenous dyad, mixed or homogenous large group. Treatment was 60-minutes, twice weekly, for 10 weeks. Individualized goals were addressed within conversational group treatment. During each session, multi-modal supports were available and modeled. The primary outcome measure was the Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure (ACOM). Secondary outcome measures included the CADL-3, Comprehensive Aphasia Test (CAT), and discourse measures (e.g. Complete Utterances and Core Lexicon).Results We first examined overall effects of conversation treatment (treated versus control group). On the ACOM (primary outcome measure) and CADL-3 (secondary outcome measure), the treated condition showed significant improvement from pre to post treatment, and at maintenance. The controls did not show significant differences. The interaction of time and condition did not approach significance in any of the other secondary outcome measures, so only ACOM and CADL-3 were analyzed in follow up analyses. Regarding effects of group size (Large Group vs Dyad), the Large Group Condition showed significant changes for pre- to post-treatment and at maintenance on the ACOM. For the Dyad Condition, there was a significant change only from pre-treatment to maintenance. On the CADL-3, both the Large Group and Dyad conditions showed significant changes from pre to post treatment and at maintenance. Regarding effects of group composition (homogeneous vs mixed), individuals in the homogenous group demonstrated significant improvements from pre- to post-treatment and a maintenance on both the ACOM and CADL-3. Individuals in the mixed group showed no significant change over timeConclusions Participants in the treatment conditions showed significant changes on the ACOM and CADL-3, demonstrating that IwMSA benefit from conversation treatment. These findings support the hypotheses that IwMSA benefit from conversation treatment in both large groups and dyads, and that there may be additional benefits associated with more homogeneous (versus mixed) group environments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".