Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT: Purpose: The use of a modified semantic feature analysis (SFA) treatment on confrontation naming and functional communication was investigated using 2 case studies of adults with chronic subcortical aphasia.
Method: Participants participated in individual treatment twice a week for 8 weeks. The modified SFA treatment used in this study included the feature of episodic memory and excluded the previously used semantic features of association and action. The other features included in the modified treatment were use, properties, category, and location.
Results: Baseline measures, treatment, and 2-month follow-up data were obtained. Both participants showed improvement from baseline to the final treatment session and continued to maintain naming abilities 2 months following treatment. Pre- and posttreatment scores on the Communicative Effectiveness Index (Lomas et al., 1989) that were completed by each participant's spouse indicated significant changes in the participants' functional communication.
Conclusion: More research using SFA with individuals with different types of aphasia and in different phases of recovery is needed. The use of fewer numbers of semantic features and an episodic memory feature in this modified SFA approach appears promising as a treatment for naming difficulties.
KEY WORDS: chronic aphasia, anomia, semantic features, episodic memory
Anomia refers to difficulty in retrieving specific words and is a core symptom of aphasia (Helm-Estabrooks & Albert, 2004). Although many speech-language pathologists (SLPs) recognize the frequency of anomia in their caseloads, there is a lack of consensus regarding the most effective treatment for this disorder (Boyle & Coelho, 1995). Treatment strategies that target anomia often employ either semantic or phonological tasks (van Hees, Angwin, McMahon, & Copland, 2012). Past studies have focused on treatment models that relate to the theorized level of lexical processing breakdown for individuals with anomia (Davis & Pring, 1991; Doesborgh et al., 2004; Franklin, Buerk, & Howard, 2002; Kiran & Thompson, 2003; Li & Canter, 1987; Martin, Fink, & Lane, 2004; Nettleton & Lesser, 1991; Renvall, Laine, & Martin, 2007; Reymer, Thompson, Jacobs, & Le Grand, 1993; Robson, Marshall, Pring, & Chiat, 1998). The rationale for targeting an individual's breakdown of lexical processing is that it will produce better results than more general treatments for anomia.
For instance, Li and Canter (1987) found that study participants with various types of aphasia responded differently to...