Technology‐enhanced writing therapy for people with aphasia: results of a quasi‐randomized waitlist controlled study
Abstract
Background: Acquired writing impairment, or dysgraphia, is common in aphasia. It affects both handwriting and typing, and may recover less well than other aphasic symptoms. Dysgraphia is an increasing priority for intervention, particularly for those wishing to participate in online written communication. Effective dysgraphia treatment studies have been reported, but many did not target, or did not achieve, improvements in functional writing. Functional outcomes might be promoted by therapies that exploit digital technologies, such as voice recognition and word prediction software. Aims: This study evaluated the benefits of technology‐enhanced writing therapy for people with acquired dysgraphia. It aimed to explore the impact of therapy on a functional writing activity, and to examine whether treatment remediated or compensated for the writing impairment. The primary question was: Does therapy improve performance on a functional assessment of writing; and, if so, do gains occur only when writing is assisted by technology? Secondary measures examined whether therapy improved unassisted written naming, functional communication, mood and quality of life. Methods & Procedures: The study employed a quasi‐randomized waitlist controlled design. A total of 21 people with dysgraphia received 12 h of writing therapy either immediately or after a 6‐week delay. The primary outcome measure was a functional assessment of writing, which was administered in handwriting and on a computer with assistive technology enabled. Secondary measures were: The Boston Naming Test (written version), Communication Activities of Daily Living—2, Visual Analogue Mood Scales (Sad question), and the Assessment of Living with Aphasia. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to examine change on the outcome measures over two time points, between which the immediate group had received therapy but the delayed group had not. Pre‐therapy, post‐therapy and follow‐up scores on the measures were also examined for all participants. Outcomes & Results: Time × group interactions in the ANOVA analyses showed that therapy improved performance on the functional writing assessment. Further interactions with condition showed that gains occurred only when writing was assisted by technology. There were no significant interactions in the analyses of the secondary outcome measures. A treatment effect on these measures was therefore unconfirmed. Conclusions & Implications: This study showed that 21 people with dysgraphia improved on a functional writing measure following therapy using assistive technology. The results suggest that treatment compensated for, rather than remediated, the impairment, given that unassisted writing did not change. Further studies of technology‐enhanced writing therapy are warranted.
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?
No significant improvement in spelling or grammar accuracy was observed in a tablet-based intervention targeting sentence construction, despite measurable gains on other outcome dimensions.
“No significant improvement in spelling or grammar accuracy was observed in a tablet‐based intervention targeting sentence construction, despite measurable gains on other outcome dimensions (Marshall et al. 2018).”
From Exploring the Effectiveness of Technology‐Based Interventions in Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as Marshall et al. 2018
Cites
The impact of stroke: are people with aphasia different to those without?
Hilari, K. (2011) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.3109/09638288.2010.508829 · Cited by 321 · 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
Bruce, C., Edmundson, A., & Coleman, M. (2003) · International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · doi:10.1080/1368282021000048258 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Using voice recognition software to treat dysgraphia in a patient with conduction aphasia
Estes, C., & Bloom, R. L. (2011) · Aphasiology · doi:10.1080/02687038.2010.493294 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cruice, 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
- Marshall, J., Caute, A., Chadd, K., Cruice, M., Monnelly, K., Wilson, S., & Woolf, C.
- Affiliations
- University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Marshall, Jane
- Venue
- International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-05-10
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 203-220
- ISSN
- 1368-2822 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-6984
- OpenAlex
- W2800548203
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 7.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
- Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Barts Charity (MGU0243)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Keywords
- aphasia, dysgraphia, therapeutic writing, assistive technology, speech recognition software, functional writing, mood, quality of life
- MeSH terms
- Stroke Rehabilitation, Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Aged, Agraphia, Aphasia, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Self-Help Devices, Waiting Lists, Writing, Treatment Outcome, 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