If you are experiencing problems downloading PDF or HTML fulltext, our helpdesk recommend clearing your browser cache and trying again. If you need help in clearing your cache, please click here . Still need help? Email help@ingentaconnect.com

Using a written cueing hierarchy to improve verbal naming in aphasia

The full text article is temporarily unavailable.

We apologise for the inconvenience. Please try again later.

Abstract:

Background: For some individuals with aphasia, writing has been used as an alternative modality for communicating (e.g., Clausen & Beeson, 2003; Lustig & Tompkins, 2002). In some investigations where writing ability was treated; post-treatment and/or anecdotal reports indicated that verbal naming ability also improved for participants with aphasia (e.g., Beeson, Rising, & Volk, 2003; Kiran, 2005). In some recent studies, investigators have reported that written naming cueing can improve verbal naming ability (DeDe, Parris, & Waters, 2003; Hillis, 1989). Aims: The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of a written cueing treatment programme on verbal naming ability in two adults with aphasia. Method & Procedures: Treatment involved using a written cueing hierarchy, which was modelled after Copy and Recall Treatment (CART; Beeson, 1999) and included verbal and writing components. A modified multiple probe across behaviours design was used to document individual participants' response to treatment. The design was replicated across each participant and included baseline, treatment, probe, and maintenance conditions. Outcomes & Results: Both participants improved their verbal naming ability for the target items over the course of treatment, but they responded differently to the treatment. One participant (P2) maintained verbal naming performance for the treated items 4 weeks after treatment ended and generalised to the untrained items; whereas the other participant (P1) did not. Conclusions: Results support and extend previous findings that treating in one modality improves performance in a different modality. Further, participants responded differently to the treatment, suggesting that underlying differences in the participants' deficits may account for why they responded differently to the same treatment.

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02687030701487905

Affiliations: 1: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA 2: University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

Publication date: September 1, 2007

Related content

Share Content

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
ingentaconnect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more