Cited by 38Assistive Technology in Communication and MobilityNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Technology‐enhanced writing therapy for people with aphasia: results of a quasi‐randomized waitlist controlled study

Marshall, Jane, Caute, Anna, Chadd, Katie, Cruice, Madeline, Monnelly, Katie, Wilson, Stephanie, Woolf, Celia·2019·International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders

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

Crossref · 10.1111/1460-6984.12391

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • 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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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