{"title":"失语症的协同参考干预(CRI): II期疗效研究的复制和扩展。","authors":"Suma R Devanga","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>A Phase II study on collaborative referencing intervention (CRI) documented significant positive treatment effects on a traditional confrontation naming measure in four participants with aphasia (PWAs). We replicated the 2021 study and extended it by studying the treatment effect on dyadic conversations and perceptions of communication confidence.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Three PWAs participated in this multiple-probe, single-case experimental study composed of (a) three preparatory sessions, (b) five baseline sessions, (c) 15 CRI sessions with five treatment probes, and (d) five maintenance sessions. The dependent variables included a collaborative confrontation naming (CCN) probe, the Communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia (CCRSA; Babbitt et al., 2011), and 10-min conversations each with clinician and a communication partner. Each CRI session (i.e., independent variable) consisted of a photo-matching game with the participant and clinician taking alternative turns identifying and matching personally relevant treatment cards. CCN probes were scored using a multidimensional rating scale. Analyses of correct information units<sub>conv</sub> (CIU<sub>conv</sub>), trouble sources, and repairs were conducted on the conversations across the study. The CCRSA scores were also analyzed across the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Multiple-probe analysis revealed significant positive treatment effects on (a) confrontation naming (consistent with the previous study), (b) conversations (on trouble sources and repairs with clinician only, with no significant changes in CIU<sub>conv</sub> across partners), and (c) perceived communication confidence across participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CRI emerges as a promising intervention for individuals with aphasia with potential impacts on conversations and perceived communication confidence. Future research endeavors will further augment our understanding and evidence base regarding this treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":49240,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","volume":" ","pages":"739-765"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Collaborative Referencing Intervention (CRI) in Aphasia: A Replication and Extension of the Phase II Efficacy Study.\",\"authors\":\"Suma R Devanga\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00226\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>A Phase II study on collaborative referencing intervention (CRI) documented significant positive treatment effects on a traditional confrontation naming measure in four participants with aphasia (PWAs). We replicated the 2021 study and extended it by studying the treatment effect on dyadic conversations and perceptions of communication confidence.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Three PWAs participated in this multiple-probe, single-case experimental study composed of (a) three preparatory sessions, (b) five baseline sessions, (c) 15 CRI sessions with five treatment probes, and (d) five maintenance sessions. The dependent variables included a collaborative confrontation naming (CCN) probe, the Communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia (CCRSA; Babbitt et al., 2011), and 10-min conversations each with clinician and a communication partner. Each CRI session (i.e., independent variable) consisted of a photo-matching game with the participant and clinician taking alternative turns identifying and matching personally relevant treatment cards. CCN probes were scored using a multidimensional rating scale. Analyses of correct information units<sub>conv</sub> (CIU<sub>conv</sub>), trouble sources, and repairs were conducted on the conversations across the study. The CCRSA scores were also analyzed across the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Multiple-probe analysis revealed significant positive treatment effects on (a) confrontation naming (consistent with the previous study), (b) conversations (on trouble sources and repairs with clinician only, with no significant changes in CIU<sub>conv</sub> across partners), and (c) perceived communication confidence across participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CRI emerges as a promising intervention for individuals with aphasia with potential impacts on conversations and perceived communication confidence. Future research endeavors will further augment our understanding and evidence base regarding this treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"739-765\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00226\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00226","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:协作参考干预(CRI)的II期研究记录了传统对抗命名测量对4名失语症(PWAs)患者的显著积极治疗效果。我们复制了2021年的研究,并通过研究对二元对话和沟通信心感知的治疗效果来扩展它。方法:3名PWAs参与了这项多探针、单病例的实验研究,包括(a) 3个预备阶段,(b) 5个基线阶段,(c) 15个带有5个治疗探针的CRI阶段,以及(d) 5个维持阶段。因变量包括协作对抗命名(CCN)探针、失语症沟通信心评定量表(CCRSA);Babbitt et al., 2011),并与临床医生和沟通伙伴各进行10分钟的对话。每个CRI会话(即自变量)包括一个照片匹配游戏,参与者和临床医生轮流识别和匹配个人相关的治疗卡。CCN探针使用多维评定量表进行评分。对整个研究中的对话进行了正确信息单元(CIUconv)、故障来源和修复分析。在整个研究过程中也分析了CCRSA分数。结果:多探针分析揭示了显著的积极治疗效果(a)对抗命名(与先前的研究一致),(b)对话(仅与临床医生讨论故障来源和修复,合作伙伴之间的CIUconv没有显著变化),以及(c)参与者之间感知的沟通信心。结论:CRI对失语症患者的谈话和感知沟通信心有潜在影响,是一种有希望的干预措施。未来的研究努力将进一步增强我们对这种治疗的理解和证据基础。
Collaborative Referencing Intervention (CRI) in Aphasia: A Replication and Extension of the Phase II Efficacy Study.
Purpose: A Phase II study on collaborative referencing intervention (CRI) documented significant positive treatment effects on a traditional confrontation naming measure in four participants with aphasia (PWAs). We replicated the 2021 study and extended it by studying the treatment effect on dyadic conversations and perceptions of communication confidence.
Method: Three PWAs participated in this multiple-probe, single-case experimental study composed of (a) three preparatory sessions, (b) five baseline sessions, (c) 15 CRI sessions with five treatment probes, and (d) five maintenance sessions. The dependent variables included a collaborative confrontation naming (CCN) probe, the Communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia (CCRSA; Babbitt et al., 2011), and 10-min conversations each with clinician and a communication partner. Each CRI session (i.e., independent variable) consisted of a photo-matching game with the participant and clinician taking alternative turns identifying and matching personally relevant treatment cards. CCN probes were scored using a multidimensional rating scale. Analyses of correct information unitsconv (CIUconv), trouble sources, and repairs were conducted on the conversations across the study. The CCRSA scores were also analyzed across the study.
Results: Multiple-probe analysis revealed significant positive treatment effects on (a) confrontation naming (consistent with the previous study), (b) conversations (on trouble sources and repairs with clinician only, with no significant changes in CIUconv across partners), and (c) perceived communication confidence across participants.
Conclusions: CRI emerges as a promising intervention for individuals with aphasia with potential impacts on conversations and perceived communication confidence. Future research endeavors will further augment our understanding and evidence base regarding this treatment.
期刊介绍:
Mission: AJSLP publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on all aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. The journal is an international outlet for clinical research pertaining to screening, detection, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of communication and swallowing disorders across the lifespan as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. Because of its clinical orientation, the journal disseminates research findings applicable to diverse aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. AJSLP seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work.
Scope: The broad field of speech-language pathology, including aphasia; apraxia of speech and childhood apraxia of speech; aural rehabilitation; augmentative and alternative communication; cognitive impairment; craniofacial disorders; dysarthria; fluency disorders; language disorders in children; speech sound disorders; swallowing, dysphagia, and feeding disorders; and voice disorders.