Skip to main content
. 2017 Dec 22;89(6):586–592. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2017-315962

Table 2.

Aphasia test results

T0 T1 T2 T3 Δ(T1–T0) Δ(T2–T1) Δ(T3–T2) Δ(T3–T1)
Mean AAT scores
Group I
(CI)
49.7
(3.7)
50.3
(4.1)
51.9
(4.3)
52.7
(4.7)
0.6
(0.8)
1.6***
(0.6)
0.8
(0.8)
2.4**
(1.2)
Group II
(CI)
51.2
(4.5)
51.2
(4.3)
53.0
(4.7)
53.4
(4.8)
0.0
(0.6)
1.8***
(0.6)
0.4
(0.6)
2.2***
(0.8)
Both groups
(CI)
50.5
(2.9)
50.7
(3.0)
52.5
(3.1)
53.1
(3.3)
0.3
(0.5)
1.7***
(0.4)
0.6*
(0.5)
2.3***
(0.7)
Mean ACT scores
Group I
(CI)
49.1
(4.7)
49.2
(4.8)
50.6
(5.0)
50.2
(4.9)
0.1
(0.3)
1.4**
(0.9)
−0.4
(0.5)
1.0
(1.0)
Group II
(CI)
50.9
(5.5)
51.1
(5.8)
53.4
(5.9)
54.0
(5.6)
0.2
(0.7)
2.3***
(0.9)
0.6*
(0.5)
2.9***
(1.2)
Both groups
(CI)
50.0
(3.6)
50.2
(3.7)
52.0
(3.8)
52.1
(3.7)
0.2
(0.4)
1.8***
(0.7)
0.1
(0.4)
1.9***
(0.8)

Mean t-scores obtained on the Aachen Aphasia Test (AAT)9 and on the Action Communication Test (ACT).16 Thirty individuals with chronic post-stroke aphasia were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: patients receiving Intensive Language-Action Therapy with 4 hours (Group I) or with 2 hours of daily practice (Group II). Both treatment groups went through an initial waiting period and two successive training intervals. Each phase lasted 2 weeks. Patients were tested at four points in time: 2 weeks before treatment onset (T0), at treatment onset (T1), after the first training interval (T2) and after the second training interval (T3). Asterisks refer to significant paired-sample t-tests (*P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001) assessing changes in language performance separately for each time interval [Δ(T1–T0); Δ(T2–T1); Δ(T3–T2)] and across the entire therapy phase [Δ(T3–T1)].