Reading comprehension treatment in aphasia: a systematic review

Abstract

Background: Reading difficulties often present as a consequence of aphasia. The specific nature of reading deficits varies widely in manifestation, and the cause of these deficits may be the result of a phonological, lexical semantic, or cognitive impairment. Several treatments have been developed to address a range of impairments underlying reading difficulty.Aims: The purpose of this review is to describe the current research on reading comprehension treatments for persons with aphasia, assess the quality of the research, and summarize treatment outcomes.Methods & Procedures: A systematic review of the literature was conducted based on a set of a priori questions, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and pre-determined search parameters. Results were summarized according to treatment type, methodologic rigor, and outcomes.Outcomes & Results: Fifteen studies meeting criteria were identified. A variety of reading comprehension treatments was implemented including: oral reading, strategy-based, cognitive treatment, and hierarchical reading treatments. Quality ratings were highly variable, ranging from 3 to 9 (on a 12-point scale). Overall, 14 of the 18 individuals for whom individual data were provided demonstrated some degree of improvement (oral reading 4/5 participants, strategy based 4/6, and cognitive treatment 6/7). Gains were also evident for hierarchical reading treatment administered to participant groups via computer; however, the degree to which improvement reached statistical significance varied among studies.Conclusions: Reading comprehension treatments have the potential to improve reading comprehension ability in persons with aphasia; however, outcomes were variable within and among treatment methods. We suggest focusing future research on factors such as participant candidacy and treatment intensity using increased methodological rigor.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 42 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.