Cited by 20Assistive Technology in Communication and MobilityStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryReading and Literacy Development

Technology-Enhanced Reading Therapy for People With Aphasia: Findings From a Quasirandomized Waitlist Controlled Study

Caute, Anna, Woolf, Celia, Wilson, Stephanie, Stokes, Carol, Monnelly, Katie, Cruice, Madeline, Bacon, Katherine, Marshall, Jane·2019·Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

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

Crossref · 10.1044/2019_jslhr-l-18-0484

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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