◆ Initial Baseline ∙ Naming Accuracy B = Baseline P = Probe M = Maintenance

1. Attribute [ASSOCIATION] <It reminds me of a hot Coke.> Attribute [USE] <You drink it.> Attribute [ACTION] <It makes me wake up.> Target word here <coffee> Attribute [PROPERTIES] <It’s dark and hot.> Attribute [LOCATION] <You find it in the kitchen.> Attribute [GROUP] <It is a beverage.> Using Semantic Features Analysis to Treat Discourse in Context in AphasiaJill Ellyn DavisHeather Harris Wright Judith L. Page University of Kentucky Semantic Features Analysis • Individuals are encouraged to provide semantic features of a target word • In treatment studies with adults with aphasia, participants improved naming ability for treated items (Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000; Lowell et al., 1995) • Participants maintained naming accuracy for trained items at one and two-month follow-up sessions (Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000) • Some improvement on untrained items was found across studies as well • Unexpected findings emerged: • Positive changes in connected speech after implementation of SFA at the word level were found (Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al, 2000) Purpose • To determine if using SFA to train contextually related words improved the connected speech of individuals with Broca’s aphasia in pre-selected contexts METHOD Participants Study Design • Multiple probes across conditions • Included a pretest, posttest, and one-month follow-up • Pretest, posttest, and follow-up required the participants to explain 8 contexts: • four story retellings • four procedural explanations • Language samples were analyzed for the number of target words produced and D • The design included 3 conditions: • baseline condition • treatment conditions • three probe conditions • Target words were selected from the contexts and were randomly assigned to treated or untreated lists • Each list included 20 target words – 10 from two contexts • Treatment conditions consisted of three lists of target words taught using SFA • Probe conditions consisted of presenting the target words without feedback and followed each of the three treatment conditions Results: P2 Results: Target Words Produced B P P P M List 1 B P List 2 P B Results: D List 3 List 4 Results: P1 ◆Initial Baseline ∙ Naming Accuracy B = Baseline P = Probe M = Maintenance Results: P3 B P P P M B P P P M List 1 List 1 DISCUSSION • Naming ability improved for all participants following SFA treatment • All participants maintained naming accuracy above pre-treated levels and did not generalize to untrained items • Using SFA to train contextually related words improved the discourse ability of individuals with Broca’s aphasia in pre-selected contexts • SFA can be an effective strategy for improving word retrieval ability in closed-set contexts Anecdotal Evidence • Social validation of the study was indicated by positive anecdotal reports from the participants’ spouses • P1’s wife • P2’s husband • Supports findings from Boyle and Coelho (1995) with the Communicative Efficiency Index (CETI; Lomas et al., 1989) B P B P List 2 List 2 P B Semantic Features Analysis Chart P B List 3 List 3 List 4 List 4 ◆Initial Baseline ∙ Naming Accuracy B = Baseline P = Probe M = Maintenance ◆Initial Baseline ∙ Naming Accuracy B = Baseline P = Probe M = Maintenance