Evaluating the effects of a virtual communication environment for people with aphasia

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Aphasia; Signs and Symptoms

• Registration Number: ISRCTN13463507
• Lead Sponsor: City University London

Brief Summary

2015 Other publications in http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15710882.2014.997744 intervention design 2016 Results article in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27518188 results

Detailed Description

Not available

Study Timeline

• Results First Posted: 1900-01-01
• Study Start: 2016-02-23
• Study Completion: 2016-03-31
• Last Update Posted: 27 March 2023

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 20

Inclusion Criteria

1. Diagnosis of aphasia following a stroke that occurred at least 4 months prior to the study
2. Fluent users of English prior to their stroke
3. Some spoken output (scoring at least 20% correct on the picture naming subtest of the Comprehensive Aphasia Test (Swinburn et al, 2004)
4. Impaired functional communication

Exclusion Criteria

1. No uncorrected visual impairment
2. No hearing loss above 40Db
3. No severe impairments of speech comprehension (scoring above 70% correct on the CAT test of Spoken Word to Picture Matching; and above chance on the CAT test of Sentence to Picture Matching).

Study & Design

• Study Type: Interventional
• Study Design: Not specified

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
<br> 1. Functional communication, assessed by the Communication Activities of Daily Living - 2 Test (CADL-2, Holland et al, 1999)<br> 2. Communicative confidence, assessed by the Communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia (CCRSA, Babbitt & Cherney, 2010)<br> 3. Feelings of social isolation, assessed by the Friendship Scale (Hawthorn, 2006)<br> Measures were administered at three time points post participant recruitment: week 1, week 7 and week 13<br>

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
<br> 1. Verbal fluency, using a category naming task<br> 2. Word retrieval in conversation, using indices from the Profile of Word Errors and Retrieval in Speech (POWERS, Herbert et al, 2013)<br> 3. Word production in narrative, using indices from the Quantitative Production Analysis, Berndt et al, 2000)<br> 4. The Social Network Analysis (Antonucci & Akiyama, 1987) examined whether participants’ social contacts expanded as a result of the intervention<br> All measures were administered at week 1, week 7 and week 13<br><br> Participants' views about the intervention were also probed with post intervention interviews<br> Human Computer Interaction assessments, involving structured observations during intervention, explored their use of Eva Park<br>