Data · dataset · 2026
Dose considerations and script training in aphasia (Cherney et al., 2026)
Listed in ZivaHub and Deakin Research Online and DMU Figshare — shown once because both records carry DOI 10.23641/asha.33990859.v1
Description
<p dir="ltr"><b>Purpose:</b> Using script training as an intervention, this study modulated the dose parameters of stimulus repetition (i.e., long vs. short scripts) and session frequency (i.e., distributed vs. massed practice) and assessed their impact on maintenance and generalization in people with chronic poststroke aphasia.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Method: </b>The study was a single-site, factorial, single-blind randomized controlled trial.
Participants were randomized in a 2 × 2 factorial design into one of four study arms, stratified by pretreatment aphasia severity: (a) distributed/short script, (b) distributed/long script, (c) massed/short script, and (d) massed/long script. Participants completed 10, 1-hr sessions of computer-based script training. Participants were assigned to one of four levels of script complexity with levels determined by aphasia severity.
Read the rest (5 more)
The primary generalization outcome measured performance on the trained script in a simulated conversation with a familiar speech-language pathologist posttreatment. Secondary outcomes included evaluating (a) maintenance of the primary outcome at 3 and 6 weeks posttreatment and (b) generalization of the trained script content to an unstructured conversation with an unfamiliar, naive partner at baseline, posttreatment, and 6 weeks posttreatment.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Results: </b>Eighty-five participants with aphasia enrolled in the study.
There was no significant difference between groups from baseline to posttreatment and follow-up for stimulus repetition, but there was a significant difference for session frequency with massed performing better than distributed. Factor interactions over time indicated that long scripts showed greater improvements with distributed versus massed session frequency, whereas short scripts were better maintained than long scripts at 6-week follow-up.
Within groups, there was significant improvement from baseline to posttreatment, which was generally maintained at 6 weeks posttreatment.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Conclusions: </b>Results provide further evidence supporting the efficacy of script training. Dose parameters such as session frequency and stimulus repetition may impact the maintenance and generalization of treatment and should be considered when delivering this and other aphasia treatments.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S1. </b>Pre- and post-treatment assessment results.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S2. </b>Semantic and grammatical complexity across scripts and script levels.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S3. </b>Model parameter estimates and standard errors on logit scale for primary outcome models: Script targets produced/possible script targets<i>.</i></p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S4</b>.
Model parameter estimates and standard errors on logit scale for secondary outcome models: Script targets produced/possible script targets (maintenance).</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S5. </b>Model parameter estimates and standard errors on logit scale for essential information units (baseline to post-treatment).</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S6. </b>Model parameter estimates and standard errors on logit scale for elaborative information units (baseline to post-treatment).</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S7. </b>Model parameter estimates and standard errors on logit scale for essential information units (baseline to 6-week follow up).</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Supplemental Material S8. </b>Model parameter estimates and standard errors on logit scale for elaborative information units (baseline to 6-week follow up).</p><p dir="ltr">Cherney, L. R., Kinsey, L. E., Blaze, E. E., Gray, E. L., Kwasny, M. J., & Van Vuuren, S. (2026).
Dose considerations and generalization following script training for poststroke aphasia: A randomized factorial clinical trial. <i>J</i><i>ournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research</i>. Advance online publication. <a href="doi.org/10.1044/2026_JSLHR-26-00120" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">doi.org/10.1044/2026_JSLHR-26-00120</a></p>
Links
Where it is published
- DOI doi.org/10.23641/asha.33990859.v1 ↗
DOI / persistent id · from zivahub uct ac za
Catalogue records · 1
- OAI-PMH record api.figshare.com/v2/oai?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=oai_dc&identifier=oai%3Af… ↗
metadata API · from zivahub uct ac za
Topics
- From keywords
- Earth & Environmental Science · Earth & Environmental Science · Earth & Environmental Science · Humanities · Humanities · Humanities · Medicine & Health · Medicine & Health · Medicine & Health · Rehabilitation · Rehabilitation · Rehabilitation · Speech pathology · Speech pathology · Speech pathology
- Inferred from text
- Audio 65%
Provenance · 3 source records, 21 field assertions
| Source | Key | Last seen | Raw |
|---|---|---|---|
| ZivaHub | oai:figshare.com:article/33990859 | 5 d ago | JSON v1 |
| Deakin Research Online | oai:figshare.com:article/33990859 | 5 d ago | JSON v1 |
| DMU Figshare | oai:figshare.com:article/33990859 | 5 d ago | JSON v1 |
| Field | Assertion | Extractor | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| access_level | source · zivahub uct ac za | connector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0 | |
| concepts[field].anzsrc:field:420109 | mapping · figshare dmu ac uk | vocabulary-mapper@1.0.0 | keywords['Rehabilitation'] |
| concepts[field].anzsrc:field:420109 | mapping · dro deakin edu au | vocabulary-mapper@1.0.0 | keywords['Rehabilitation'] |
| concepts[field].anzsrc:field:420109 | mapping · zivahub uct ac za | vocabulary-mapper@1.0.0 | keywords['Rehabilitation'] |
| concepts[field].anzsrc:field:420110 | mapping · dro deakin edu au | vocabulary-mapper@1.0.0 | keywords['Speech pathology'] |
| concepts[field].anzsrc:field:420110 | mapping · zivahub uct ac za | vocabulary-mapper@1.0.0 | keywords['Speech pathology'] |
| concepts[field].anzsrc:field:420110 | mapping · figshare dmu ac uk | vocabulary-mapper@1.0.0 | keywords['Speech pathology'] |
| concepts[field].local:field:earth-environmental | mapping · figshare dmu ac uk | connector:figshare_dmu_ac_uk@1.0.0 | |
| concepts[field].local:field:earth-environmental | mapping · zivahub uct ac za | connector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0 | |
| concepts[field].local:field:earth-environmental | mapping · dro deakin edu au | connector:dro_deakin_edu_au@1.0.0 | |
| concepts[field].local:field:humanities | mapping · dro deakin edu au | connector:dro_deakin_edu_au@1.0.0 | |
| concepts[field].local:field:humanities | mapping · figshare dmu ac uk | connector:figshare_dmu_ac_uk@1.0.0 | |
| concepts[field].local:field:humanities | mapping · zivahub uct ac za | connector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0 | |
| concepts[field].local:field:medicine-health | mapping · figshare dmu ac uk | connector:figshare_dmu_ac_uk@1.0.0 | |
| concepts[field].local:field:medicine-health | mapping · dro deakin edu au | connector:dro_deakin_edu_au@1.0.0 | |
| concepts[field].local:field:medicine-health | mapping · zivahub uct ac za | connector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0 | |
| concepts[modality].local:modality:audio | enrichment · zivahub uct ac za | keyword-concept-rules@1.0.0 | title+description (65%) |
| description | source · zivahub uct ac za | connector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0 | /metadata/dc/description |
| license | source · zivahub uct ac za | connector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0 | /metadata/dc/rights |
| publication_date | source · zivahub uct ac za | connector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0 | |
| title | source · zivahub uct ac za | connector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0 | /metadata/dc/title |