Technology-Enhanced Reading Therapy for People With Aphasia: Findings From a Quasirandomized Waitlist Controlled Study
Abstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A quasi-RCT evaluating tablet-based reading therapy within an aphasia-friendly interface demonstrated improvements in reading from baseline to post-treatment and follow-up, whereas a standard paper-based comparator without aphasia-friendly supports showed no meaningful changes.
“A quasi‐RCT evaluating tablet‐based reading therapy within an aphasia‐friendly interface demonstrated improvements in reading from baseline to post‐treatment and follow‐up, whereas a standard paper‐based comparator without aphasia‐friendly supports showed no meaningful changes (Caute et al. 2019).”
From Exploring the Effectiveness of Technology‐Based Interventions in Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as Caute et al. 2019
Cites
Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option?
Blanca, M., Alarcón, R., Arnau, J., Bono, R., & Bendayan, R. (2017) · Psicothema · doi:10.7334/psicothema2016.383 · Cited by 1,624 · see citing works
Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke
Brady, M. C., Kelly, H., Godwin, J., Enderby, P., & Campbell, P. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000425.pub4 · Cited by 1,159 · see citing works
The efficacy of computer-provided reading treatment for chronic aphasic adults
Katz, R. C., & Wertz, R. T. (1997) · Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/jslhr.4003.493 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
Thomas, S. A., Walker, M. F., Macniven, J. A., Haworth, H., & Lincoln, N. B. (2013) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1177/0269215512462227 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Aphasia, Alexia, and Oral Reading
Reiff Cherney, L. (2004) · Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation · doi:10.1310/vupx-wdx7-j1eu-00tb · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., & Le Dorze, G. (2016) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2016_ajslp-15-0150 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Marshall, J., Devane, N., Talbot, R., Caute, A., Cruice, M., Hilari, K., MacKenzie, G., Maguire, K., Patel, A., Roper, A., et al. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239715 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Self-citationCruice, M., Woolf, C., Caute, A., Monnelly, K., Wilson, S., & Marshall, J. (2021) · Aphasiology · doi:10.1080/02687038.2020.1795076 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citationMonnelly, K., Marshall, J., & Cruice, M. (2022) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2021.1964626 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Self-citationAlhejji, B., Cunningham, S., Dorney, S., & Palmer, R. (2026) · International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · doi:10.1111/1460-6984.70322 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Caute, A., Woolf, C., Wilson, S., Stokes, C., Monnelly, K., Cruice, M., Bacon, K., & Marshall, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Essex (GB)
- City, University of London (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
- Published
- 2019-12-18
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 4382-4416
- ISSN
- 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-9102
- OpenAlex
- W2989923617
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 4.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
- Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- aphasia, reading comprehension, stroke, reading therapy, reading confidence, compensatory strategies, reading disorders
- MeSH terms
- Stroke Rehabilitation, Aphasia, Female, Humans, Language Therapy, Male, Middle Aged, Reading, Self-Help Devices, Waiting Lists, Stroke
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review