Multi-modality aphasia therapy is as efficacious as a constraint-induced aphasia therapy for chronic aphasia: A phase 1 study

• Published in: Aphasiology Vol. 27; no. 8; pp. 938 - 971
• Main Authors: Rose, Miranda L., Attard, Michelle C., Mok, Zaneta, Lanyon, Lucette E., Foster, Abby M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Routledge 01.08.2013
• Subjects: Anomia; Aphasia; Aphasia treatment; CIAT plus; Constraint-induced aphasia therapy plus; Language Therapy; M-MAT; Multi-modality aphasia therapy; Multimodal Communication
• DOI: 10.1080/02687038.2013.810329
• ISSN: 0268-7038

Background: There is an urgent need for treatment comparison studies for chronic aphasia. Two different treatments, Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT Plus) and Multi-Modality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT) aim to improve spoken language production through intensive shaping of responses, and social-mediated repetitive practice. CIAT Plus constrains responses to the verbal modality, while M-MAT includes gesture, drawing, writing and reading-based cues to assist production. Aims: This Phase 1 study compared the efficacy of CIAT Plus and M-MAT. The study also aimed to investigate the relationship between treatment responsiveness and participant's aphasia severity and cognitive variables. Methods & Procedures: We utilised 11 single-subject multiple baseline designs with a cross-over for treatment type. Participants had chronic aphasia (17-88 months post onset) and a range of aphasia severities (WAB AQ 36.2-92.8). Participants named 180 noun and verb probes three times at pre-, mid-, post-treatments and at 1- and 3-month follow-ups. Both CIAT Plus and M-MAT were delivered for 32 hours over 2 weeks. Six participants received M-MAT first while five received CIAT Plus first. Standard case charts were developed for visual analysis of each participant's probe results. Within-subject effect sizes (ESs) were calculated on naming the probe scores. Discourse measures were analysed with descriptive statistics. Participant's satisfaction with each treatment type was probed. Results & Conclusions: A total of 32 (of 44 total) immediate post-treatment ESs reached small (3), medium (7) or large (22) levels, and ranged from -0.96 to 30.6. Higher ESs were found for nouns as compared to verbs, and for items treated during the first treatment phase. The mean ES was comparable for items treated with M-MAT (M = 8.00) and CIAT Plus (M = 8.58) and was well maintained at the 1-month follow-up. As a group, aphasia severity was significantly reduced at the 1-month and 3-month follow-up time points. WAB AQ change scores immediately post-treatment favoured M-MAT for four participants and CIAT Plus for five; however, order effects are likely to have played a significant role. Treatment potency was demonstrated with generalisation to noun (8 participants) and verb production (1 participant) in discourse. Overall , CIAT Plus and M-MAT were equally efficacious for these 11 individuals, although six participants expressed preference for M-MAT and three for CIAT Plus. Delayed treatment effects were present in some participants. Future large-scale studies are required to deal with order effects and a participant's variability.