Text level reading comprehension in aphasia: What do we know about therapy and what do we need to know?
Text level reading comprehension in aphasia: What do we know about therapy and what do we need to know?
复制标题
失语症的文本水平阅读理解：我们对治疗了解什么以及我们需要了解什么？
DOI：
10.1080/02687038.2013.825760
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
A. Potts
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Webster;Julie Morris;Carli Connor;Rachel Horner;C. McCormac;A. Potts
背景资料：阅读理解困难是失语症的一个共同特征，影响对单个单词、句子、段落和扩展文本的理解。虽然已经有研究调查了单个单词阅读的治疗，但针对段落和连接文本的阅读的治疗方法的研究数量有限。目的：本文将描述一系列的个案研究，每个调查的有效性不同的治疗方法段落水平阅读理解。这些研究提出了一些关于阅读评估、治疗选择和结果测量的问题;这些问题将结合研究和更广泛的证据基础进行讨论。方法和步骤：4名失语症患者参与研究。参与者除了其他语言困难外，还表现出阅读困难。每项研究均采用单一病例研究、多基线对照任务设计。在治疗前、治疗后和随访时（治疗后约2-4周）完成阅读理解的详细评估。参与者还被问及他们发病前的阅读能力和偏好，他们的阅读困难以及他们对治疗及其影响的看法。结果和成果：所有参与者在阅读理解的准确性方面都有一定的提高，但在收益的意义上，何时看到收益以及评估结果存在广泛的差异。治疗后，四名参与者中的三名阅读了评估段落，并更快地回答了问题。所有参与者都报告了他们的阅读有一些积极的变化，无论是在阅读能力，阅读行为或对阅读的感觉，但再次个人差异是明显的程度和类型的变化。结论：这些研究提出了一些关于阅读评估、治疗选择和治疗结果测量的重要问题。这些问题进行了讨论，与当前的文献，为今后的研究调查的评估和治疗，阅读理解困难的失语症患者的目的。阅读是日常活动的基础，建立证据库对于支持失语症患者最大限度地提高他们的阅读能力至关重要。
Background: Reading comprehension difficulties are a common feature of aphasia, affecting the understanding of single words, sentences, paragraphs and extended text. Whilst there have been studies investigating treatment for single word reading, there are a limited number of studies of treatment methods targeting the reading of paragraphs and connected text. Aims: This paper will describe a series of single case studies, each investigating the effectiveness of a different therapy approach for paragraph level reading comprehension. The studies raise a number of issues regarding the assessment of reading, choice of therapy and measurement of outcome; these will be discussed in relation to the studies and the wider evidence base. Methods & Procedures: Four people with aphasia were involved in the studies. Participants presented with reading difficulties alongside other language difficulties. Each study involved a single case study, multiple baseline with control task design. Detailed assessment of reading comprehension was completed pre-therapy, post-therapy and at follow-up, approximately 2–4 weeks post-therapy. Participants were also asked about their pre-morbid reading abilities and preferences, their reading difficulties and their views about therapy and its impact. Outcomes & Results: All participants showed some improvement in the accuracy of reading comprehension but there was extensive variability in the significance of gains, when gains were seen and on which assessments. Post-therapy, three of the four participants read the assessment passages and answered the questions more quickly. All participants reported some positive change in their reading, either in reading ability, reading behaviour or feelings about reading, but again individual variation was evident in the extent and type of change perceived. Conclusions: These studies raise a number of important issues regarding the assessment of reading, therapy choice and measuring the outcome of therapy. These issues are discussed in relation to current literature, with an aim of informing future research investigating the assessment of, and therapy for, reading comprehension difficulties in people with aphasia. Reading is fundamental to everyday activities and developing the evidence base is of crucial importance in supporting people with aphasia to maximise their reading ability.
DOI：
10.1037/0278-7393.21.5.1140
发表时间：
1995-09-01
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
STRAIN, E;PATTERSON, K;SEIDENBERG, MS
通讯作者：
SEIDENBERG, MS
右半球大脑损伤的成年人在文本理解过程中的推理生成：激活失败与多次激活。
DOI：
10.1044/1092-4388(2004/103
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR
影响因子：
--
作者：
Tompkins,ConnieA;Fassbinder,Wiltrud;LehmanBlake,Margaret;Baumgaertner,Annette;Jayaram,Nandini
通讯作者：
Jayaram,Nandini