CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersReading and Literacy Development

A Meta-Analysis of Anomia Treatment in Bilingual Aphasia: Within- and Cross-Language Generalization and Predictors of the Treatment Outcomes

Open access
Lee, Seongsil, Faroqi-Shah, Yasmeen·2024·Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
DOI 10.1044/2024_jslhr-23-00026PMC PMC11087086
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Purpose: The present meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of anomia treatment in bilingual and multilingual persons with aphasia (BPWAs) by assessing the magnitudes of six anomia treatment outcomes. Three of the treatment outcomes pertained to the “trained language”: improvement of trained words (treatment effect [TE]), within-language generalization of semantically related untrained words (WLG-Related), and within-language generalization of unrelated words (WLG-Unrelated). Three treatment outcomes were for the “untrained language”: improvement of translations of the trained words (cross-language generalization of trained words [CLG-Tx]), cross-language generalization of semantically related untrained words (CLG-Related), and cross-language generalization of unrelated untrained words (CLG-Unrelated). This study also examined participant- and treatment-related predictors of these treatment outcomes. Method: This study is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the number CRD42023418147. Nine electronic databases were searched to identify word retrieval treatment studies of poststroke BPWAs of at least 6 months postonset. Pre- and posttreatment single-word naming scores were extracted for each eligible participant and used to calculate effect sizes (within-case Cohen's d ) of the six treatment outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to assess weighted mean effect sizes of the treatment outcomes across studies. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to examine the effects of participant-related variables (pretreatment single-word naming and comprehension representing poststroke lexical processing abilities) and treatment-related variables (type, language, and duration). The methodological quality of eligible studies and the risk of bias in this meta-analysis were assessed. Results: A total of 17 published studies with 39 BPWAs were included in the meta-analysis. The methodological quality of the included studies ranged from fair ( n = 4) to good ( n = 13). Anomia treatment produced a medium effect size for TE ( M = 8.36) and marginally small effect sizes for WLG-Related ( M = 1.63), WLG-Unrelated ( M = 0.68), and CLG-Tx ( M = 1.56). Effect sizes were nonsignificant for CLG-Related and CLG-Unrelated. TE was significantly larger than the other five types of treatment outcomes. TE and WLG-Related effect sizes were larger for BPWAs with milder comprehension or naming impairments and for treatments of longer duration. WLG-Unrelated was larger when BPWAs received phonological treatment than semantic and mixed treatments. The overall risk of bias in the meta-analysis was low with a potential risk of bias present in the study identification process. Conclusions: Current anomia treatment practices for bilingual speakers are efficacious in improving trained items but produce marginally small within-language generalization and cross-language generalization to translations of the trained items. These results highlight the need to provide treatment in each language of BPWAs and/or investigate other approaches to promote cross-language generalization. Furthermore, anomia treatment outcomes are influenced by BPWAs' poststroke single-word naming and comprehension abilities as well as treatment duration and the provision of phonological treatment. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25595712

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/2024_jslhr-23-00026

Cites

156 of 156 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • We chose to focus on CLG due to the lack of sufficient statistical power in a previous bilingual meta-analytic study to identify its predictors.

    “While WLG is a well-studied aspect of aphasia rehabilitation in monolingual populations11, we chose to focus on CLG due to the lack of sufficient statistical power in a previous bilingual meta-analytic study to identify its predictors61, and because, specific to bilingual aphasia, understanding factors that promote benefits across both languages is crucial when treatment is often delivered in only”

    From Machine Learning Predictions of Recovery in Bilingual Poststroke Aphasia: Aligning Insights With Clinical Evidence (2025) · cites this paper as [61]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Beeson, P. M., & Robey, R. R. (2008, May 27-June 1). Meta- analysis of aphasia treatment outcomes: Examining the evi- dence [Paper presentation]. Clinical Aphasiology Conference, Jackson Hole, WY, United States.
  2. D0 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 07gro · DOI
  4. Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (2001). The Boston Naming Test-Second Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  5. ch27 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lee, S., & Faroqi-Shah, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Publisher
American Speech Language Hearing Association
Published
2024-05-07
Volume
67
Issue
5
Pages
1558-1600
ISSN
  • 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9102
DOI
10.1044/2024_jslhr-23-00026
PMC
PMC11087086
OpenAlex
W4394873223
Cited by
16
References
156
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R21DC018916)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
bilingual aphasia, word retrieval, cross-lingual generalization, stroke, treatment outcome predictors, lexical processing, predictors of treatment outcome, naming impairment, post-stroke aphasia, language transfer
MeSH terms
Anomia, Aphasia, Generalization, Psychological, Humans, Language Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Multilingualism

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