Can a writing intervention using mainstream Assistive Technology software compensate for dysgraphia and support reading comprehension for people with aphasia?

BACKGROUND: Stroke profoundly affects quality of life (QOL), including loss of employment, reduced social activity, shrinking social networks and low mood. Dysgraphia (impaired writing) is a common symptom of aphasia yet is rarely targeted in rehabilitation. Recent technological advances might challenge this, since much communication is now conducted digitally through writing. The rehabilitation of writing may therefore help to address the wider consequences of stroke and aphasia. AIMS: Can assistive technology (AT) training for people with dysgraphia: (1) improve written output, and are gains achieved only with AT? (2) improve reading comprehension scores, and are gains achieved only with AT? and (3) affect social participation, mood or QOL METHODS AND PROCEDURES: DESIGN: A mixed-methods, repeated measures, small group study design was adopted (qualitative outcomes will be reported elsewhere). PARTICIPANTS: Recruited from community settings, for example, Stroke Association communication support groups. INCLUSION CRITERIA: over 18 years old, aphasia due to stroke, acquired dysgraphia, writing more impaired than speech, fluent English prior to stroke, access to computer and Internet. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: currently receiving speech and language therapy, significant cognitive impairment, neuromuscular/motor-speech impairments/structural abnormalities, developmental dyslexia, uncorrected visual/auditory impairments. PROCEDURES: Screening and diagnostic assessments at time T1 (first baseline). Outcome measures at T1; repeated at T2 (second baseline), T3 (end of intervention), T4 (3-month follow up). Social participation assessment and cognitive monitoring at T2, T3, T4. INTERVENTION: Seven-ten hours individual therapy weekly and additional email support. Participants were trained to operate Dragon NaturallySpeaking (speech to text package) and ClaroRead (read writing aloud). Outcome measures were administered on pen and paper (control) and on computer, with AT enabled only at T3, T4. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Computer narrative writing was significantly improved by AT training (Friedman's χ2 (3) = 8.27, p = 0.041), indicating a compensatory effect of AT. Though reading comprehension significantly improved in the computer condition (Friedman's χ2 (3) = 21.07, p = 0.001), gains could not be attributed to the AT. Gains were achieved only when measures were administered on the keyboard, with AT enabled. Thus, a compensatory rather than remediatory effect was suggested. Social network size significantly increased; there were no significant changes in mood/QOL. Individual success rates varied. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The customisable AT training was acceptable to participants and resulted in significantly improved narrative writing. Compensatory AT interventions are a useful adjunct to remediatory writing interventions and may particularly support functional writing. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject Writing is rarely spared in aphasia and may present as the most impaired communication modality. Yet, people with aphasia report that writing is seldom included in their rehabilitation. Many communication activities are now conducted digitally through writing, therefore rehabilitation of this is more important than ever before. This study sought to address whether an assistive technology (AT) software package can improve writing and whether any changes were compensatory or remediatory. What this study adds to existing knowledge This group study found that AT training led to gains in written discourse and social network in people with aphasia and dysgraphia. Gains were not replicated in handwritten tasks, suggesting this was a compensatory therapeutic approach. What are the clinical implications of this work? AT programs such as this may present speech and language therapists with a practical, pragmatic adjunct to writing or typing therapy, particularly for clients with chronic, intractable impairments for whom remediatory therapy may have a low chance of success.

Treatment fidelity of technology-enhanced reading therapy (CommuniCATE) for people with aphasia.

BACKGROUND: Treatment fidelity (TF), that is, the degree to which the treatment delivery has adhered to protocol, is an important aspect of establishing treatment validity and reliability. Research has shown that establishing TF is only done in a small percentage of aphasia treatment studies. AIMS: This project supports the work of the CommuniCATE study, which explored the benefits of technology-enhanced aphasia therapy on participants' reading, writing, speech and conversation skills. It examines the TF of the Reading strand of the CommuniCATE project by assessing whether the therapy adhered to the protocol. The following research questions were asked: Does treatment delivery adhere to treatment protocol? Does the degree of TF vary according to the person delivering the therapy (i.e. student therapist or qualified therapist)? Does the degree of TF vary over time (early treatment sessions compared with later treatment sessions)? Was the checklist tool reliable? METHODS & PROCEDURES: This study assessed the fidelity of 38 retrospective video recordings of therapy. It used a checklist measure of criteria to which the delivery of the sessions should adhere, and against which the sessions were rated. Participants were the people with aphasia receiving therapy, the students and qualified speech and language therapists delivering therapy, and the independent raters assessing the sessions. A sample of sessions was randomly chosen, including sessions delivered by qualified therapists and by students, and sessions from different time points in the treatment process. The fidelity was rated by the first author, and the fidelity rating calculated as a percentage. Comparisons in fidelity scores for the different variables were drawn using Mann-Whitney tests. The reliability of the checklist was assessed through inter and intra-rater reliability testing, and the results were analysed using Kappa statistics. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: High fidelity was found across all therapy conditions with a mean score of 98.2%. Fidelity scores were not affected by the administrator of therapy; sessions delivered by qualified and student therapists were rated equally highly. There was a small but significant effect of time, with later treatment sessions scoring more highly than earlier sessions. However, scores across both periods > 90%. Inter-rater reliability found a high percentage agreement of 93.3% and a Poor Kappa agreement level. Intra-rater agreement found a high percentage agreement of 97.3% and a Fair Kappa agreement level. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The CommuniCATE reading therapy was implemented as per the protocol across time points, and withstood delegation to students. The high fidelity and good reliability scores have positive implications for the study's validity and reliability, and for the study's replication. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject TF refers to the degree to which the delivery of core components of a treatment matches the implementation guidelines, that is, the adherence to protocol. Despite the acknowledged importance of TF reporting, this is often neglected in the literature. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This paper shows that the TF assessment of the CommuniCATE study (reading strand) found a 98.2% fidelity score, and that high fidelity was not compromised across treatment conditions. This paper outlines the principles of TF and highlights the need for measures to be in place to establish TF, for example, manuals, training and supervision; and to monitor TF, for example, via the use of checklists. This paper also underlines the scarcity of TF measures and checks in aphasia research. This paper therefore serves as a model of TF practice in aphasia therapy research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study contributes to the findings of the CommuniCATE project (reading strand), and the high fidelity findings enhance the validity of the project and indicate that the therapy manual and training enable accurate implementation of delivery. This paper also contributes to the literature on TF evaluation in aphasia studies, which is presently lacking, and highlights the need for increased focus on the optimum strategies of TF reporting.

Technology-enhanced writing therapy for people with aphasia: results of a quasi-randomized waitlist controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Acquired writing impairment, or dysgraphia, is common in aphasia. It affects both handwriting and typing, and may recover less well than other aphasic symptoms. Dysgraphia is an increasing priority for intervention, particularly for those wishing to participate in online written communication. Effective dysgraphia treatment studies have been reported, but many did not target, or did not achieve, improvements in functional writing. Functional outcomes might be promoted by therapies that exploit digital technologies, such as voice recognition and word prediction software. AIMS: This study evaluated the benefits of technology-enhanced writing therapy for people with acquired dysgraphia. It aimed to explore the impact of therapy on a functional writing activity, and to examine whether treatment remediated or compensated for the writing impairment. The primary question was: Does therapy improve performance on a functional assessment of writing; and, if so, do gains occur only when writing is assisted by technology? Secondary measures examined whether therapy improved unassisted written naming, functional communication, mood and quality of life. METHODS & PROCEDURES: The study employed a quasi-randomized waitlist controlled design. A total of 21 people with dysgraphia received 12 h of writing therapy either immediately or after a 6-week delay. The primary outcome measure was a functional assessment of writing, which was administered in handwriting and on a computer with assistive technology enabled. Secondary measures were: The Boston Naming Test (written version), Communication Activities of Daily Living-2, Visual Analogue Mood Scales (Sad question), and the Assessment of Living with Aphasia. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to examine change on the outcome measures over two time points, between which the immediate group had received therapy but the delayed group had not. Pre-therapy, post-therapy and follow-up scores on the measures were also examined for all participants. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Time × group interactions in the ANOVA analyses showed that therapy improved performance on the functional writing assessment. Further interactions with condition showed that gains occurred only when writing was assisted by technology. There were no significant interactions in the analyses of the secondary outcome measures. A treatment effect on these measures was therefore unconfirmed. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: This study showed that 21 people with dysgraphia improved on a functional writing measure following therapy using assistive technology. The results suggest that treatment compensated for, rather than remediated, the impairment, given that unassisted writing did not change. Further studies of technology-enhanced writing therapy are warranted.

A comparison of remote therapy, face to face therapy and an attention control intervention for people with aphasia: a quasi-randomised controlled feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial comparing face to face and remotely delivered word finding therapy for people with aphasia. DESIGN: A quasi-randomised controlled feasibility study comparing remote therapy delivered from a University lab, remote therapy delivered from a clinical site, face to face therapy and an attention control condition. SETTING: A University lab and NHS outpatient service. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one people with aphasia following left hemisphere stroke. INTERVENTIONS: Eight sessions of word finding therapy, delivered either face to face or remotely, were compared to an attention control condition comprising eight sessions of remotely delivered supported conversation. The remote conditions used mainstream video conferencing technology. OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility was assessed by recruitment and attrition rates, participant observations and interviews, and treatment fidelity checking. Effects of therapy on word retrieval were assessed by tests of picture naming and naming in conversation. RESULTS: Twenty-one participants were recruited over 17 months, with one lost at baseline. Compliance and satisfaction with the intervention was good. Treatment fidelity was high for both remote and face to face delivery (1251/1421 therapist behaviours were compliant with the protocol). Participants who received therapy improved on picture naming significantly more than controls (mean numerical gains: 20.2 (remote from University); 41 (remote from clinical site); 30.8 (face to face); 5.8 (attention control); P <.001). There were no significant differences between groups in the assessment of conversation. CONCLUSIONS: Word finding therapy can be delivered via mainstream internet video conferencing. Therapy improved picture naming, but not naming in conversation.

Technology-Enhanced Reading Therapy for People With Aphasia: Findings From a Quasirandomized Waitlist Controlled Study.

Purpose This study investigated the effects of technology-enhanced reading therapy for people with reading impairments, using mainstream assistive reading technologies alongside reading strategies. Method The study used a quasirandomized waitlist controlled design. Twenty-one people with reading impairments following stroke were randomly assigned to receive 14 hr of therapy immediately or after a 6-week delay. During therapy, participants were trained to use assistive reading technology that offered a range of features to support reading comprehension. They developed skills in using the technology independently and in applying the technology to their personal reading goals. The primary outcome measure assessed reading comprehension, using Gray Oral Reading Test-Fourth Edition (GORT-4). Secondary measures were as follows: Reading Comprehension Battery for Aphasia-Second Edition, Reading Confidence and Emotions Questionnaire, Communication Activities of Daily Living-Second Edition, Visual Analog Mood Scales, and Assessment of Living With Aphasia. Matched texts were used with the GORT-4 to compare technology-assisted and unassisted reading comprehension. Mixed analyses of variance explored change between T1 and T2, when the immediate group had received therapy but the delayed group had not, thus serving as untreated controls. Pretherapy, posttherapy, and follow-up scores on the measures were also examined for all participants. Results GORT-4 results indicated that the immediately treated group improved significantly in technology-assisted reading following therapy, but not in unassisted reading. However, the data were not normally distributed, and secondary nonparametric analysis was not significant. The control group was unstable over the baseline, improving significantly in unassisted reading. The whole-group analysis showed significant gains in assisted (but not unassisted) reading after therapy that were maintained at follow-up. The Reading Confidence and Emotions Questionnaire results improved significantly following therapy, with good maintenance of change. Results on all other secondary measures were not significant. Conclusions Technology-assisted reading comprehension improved following the intervention, with treatment compensating for, rather than remediating, the reading impairment. Participants' confidence and emotions associated with reading also improved. Gains were achieved after 14 therapy sessions, using assistive technologies that are widely available and relatively affordable, meaning that this approach could be implemented in clinical practice.

Evaluating the Benefits of Aphasia Intervention Delivered in Virtual Reality: Results of a Quasi-Randomised Study.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated an intervention for people with aphasia delivered in a novel virtual reality platform called EVA Park. EVA Park contains a number of functional and fantastic locations and allows for interactive communication between multiple users. Twenty people with aphasia had 5 weeks' intervention, during which they received daily language stimulation sessions in EVA Park from a support worker. The study employed a quasi randomised design, which compared a group that received immediate intervention with a waitlist control group. Outcome measures explored the effects of intervention on communication and language skills, communicative confidence and feelings of social isolation. Compliance with the intervention was also explored through attrition and usage data. RESULTS: There was excellent compliance with the intervention, with no participants lost to follow up and most (18/20) receiving at least 88% of the intended treatment dose. Intervention brought about significant gains on a measure of functional communication. Gains were achieved by both groups of participants, once intervention was received, and were well maintained. Changes on the measures of communicative confidence and feelings of social isolation were not achieved. Results are discussed with reference to previous aphasia therapy findings.