Ebbels, SH;
Nicoll, H;
Clark, B;
Eachus, B;
Gallagher, AL;
Horniman, K;
Jennings, M;
... Turner, G; + view all
(2012)
Effectiveness of semantic therapy for word-finding difficulties in pupils with persistent language impairments: a randomized control trial.
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
, 47
(1)
pp. 35-51.
10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00073.x.
Preview |
Text
Ebbels_accepted WFD study Ebbels et al.pdf - Accepted Version Download (802kB) | Preview |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Word-finding difficulties (WFDs) in children have been hypothesized to be caused at least partly by poor semantic knowledge. Therefore, improving semantic knowledge should decrease word-finding errors. Previous studies of semantic therapy for WFDs are inconclusive. AIMS: To investigate the effectiveness of semantic therapy for secondary school-aged pupils with WFDs using a randomized control trial with blind assessment. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Fifteen participants with language impairments and WFDs (aged 9;11–15;11) were randomly assigned to a therapy versus waiting control group. In Phase 1 the therapy group received two 15-min semantic therapy sessions per week for 8 weeks with their usual speech and language therapist. Therapy for each participant targeted words from one of three semantic categories (animals, food, clothes). All participants were tested pre- and post-phase 1 therapy on the brief version of the Test of Adolescent Word Finding (TAWF), semantic fluency and the Test of Word Finding in Discourse (TWFD). In Phase 2 the waiting control group received the same therapy as the original therapy group, which received therapy targeted at other language areas. Testing after Phase 2 aimed to establish whether the waiting control group made similar progress to the original therapy group and whether the original therapy group maintained any gains. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The original therapy group made significant progress in standard scores on the TAWF (d= 0.94), which was maintained 5 months later. However, they made no progress on the semantic fluency or discourse tests. Participants in the waiting control group did not make significant progress on the TAWF in Phase 1 when they received no word-finding therapy. However, after Phase 2, when they received the therapy, they also made significant progress (d= 0.81). The combined effect of therapy over the two groups was d= 1.2. The mean standard scores on the TAWF were 67 pre-therapy and 77 post-therapy. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Four hours of semantic therapy on discrete semantic categories led to significant gains on a general standardized test of word finding, enabling the participants to begin to close the gap between their performance and that of their typically developing peers. These gains were maintained after 5 months. A small amount of therapy can lead to significant gains even with secondary aged pupils with severe language difficulties. However, further studies are needed to find ways of improving word-finding abilities in discourse.
Type: | Article |
---|---|
Title: | Effectiveness of semantic therapy for word-finding difficulties in pupils with persistent language impairments: a randomized control trial |
Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
DOI: | 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00073.x |
Publisher version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00073.x |
Language: | English |
Additional information: | This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher’s terms and conditions. |
UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences > Div of Psychology and Lang Sciences |
URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1516139 |



1. | ![]() | 36 |
2. | ![]() | 36 |
3. | ![]() | 25 |
4. | ![]() | 11 |
5. | ![]() | 7 |
6. | ![]() | 6 |
7. | ![]() | 6 |
8. | ![]() | 6 |
9. | ![]() | 5 |
10. | ![]() | 4 |
Archive Staff Only
![]() |
View Item |