Leora R Cherney1. 1. Center for Aphasia Research and Treatment, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined the efficacy of a treatment, Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia (ORLA), delivered by computer to individuals with chronic nonfluent aphasia and compared its efficacy with the same treatment delivered by a speech-language pathologist (SLP). METHOD: With ORLA, the person with aphasia systematically and repeatedly reads aloud sentences, first in unison and then independently. Following a no-treatment period, 25 individuals with chronic nonfluent aphasia were randomly assigned to receive 24 sessions of ORLA, 1-3 times per week, either by computer or by the SLP. RESULTS: For participants receiving computer ORLA, change made on the Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient (WAB-AQ) during the treatment phase was larger than the change made during the no-treatment phase. Positive effect sizes for change during treatment compared with change during the no-treatment phase were obtained and were benchmarked as medium or large for the WAB-AQ and discourse measures. There was no significant difference between outcomes for computer ORLA compared with SLP-ORLA. CONCLUSION: Low-intensity ORLA, delivered by computer to individuals with chronic nonfluent aphasia, is efficacious and may be equivalent to ORLA delivered by an SLP.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This study examined the efficacy of a treatment, Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia (ORLA), delivered by computer to individuals with chronic nonfluent aphasia and compared its efficacy with the same treatment delivered by a speech-language pathologist (SLP). METHOD: With ORLA, the person with aphasia systematically and repeatedly reads aloud sentences, first in unison and then independently. Following a no-treatment period, 25 individuals with chronic nonfluent aphasia were randomly assigned to receive 24 sessions of ORLA, 1-3 times per week, either by computer or by the SLP. RESULTS: For participants receiving computer ORLA, change made on the Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient (WAB-AQ) during the treatment phase was larger than the change made during the no-treatment phase. Positive effect sizes for change during treatment compared with change during the no-treatment phase were obtained and were benchmarked as medium or large for the WAB-AQ and discourse measures. There was no significant difference between outcomes for computer ORLA compared with SLP-ORLA. CONCLUSION: Low-intensity ORLA, delivered by computer to individuals with chronic nonfluent aphasia, is efficacious and may be equivalent to ORLA delivered by an SLP.
Authors: Rebecca Palmer; Munyaradzi Dimairo; Nicholas Latimer; Elizabeth Cross; Marian Brady; Pam Enderby; Audrey Bowen; Steven Julious; Madeleine Harrison; Abualbishr Alshreef; Ellen Bradley; Arjun Bhadhuri; Tim Chater; Helen Hughes; Helen Witts; Esther Herbert; Cindy Cooper Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Laura L Pitts; Rosalind Hurwitz; Jaime B Lee; Julia Carpenter; Leora R Cherney Journal: Int J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 2.484
Authors: Leora R Cherney; Edna M Babbitt; Rosalind Hurwitz; Lynn M Rogers; James Stinear; Xue Wang; Richard L Harvey; Todd Parrish Journal: Top Stroke Rehabil Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.119
Authors: Leora R Cherney; Richard L Harvey; Edna M Babbitt; Rosalind Hurwitz; Rosalind C Kaye; Jaime B Lee; Steven L Small Journal: Aphasiology Date: 2012-09-01 Impact factor: 2.773