Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2018 Jul 20;30(5):802–828. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2018.1499533

Table 1:

Demographic information for the treatment and natural history control groups including age, time post onset in months (MPO); aphasia severity as demonstrated by baseline Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R) aphasia quotient (AQ); overall cognitive severity as demonstrated by baseline Cognitive Linguistic Quick Test Composite Severity (CLQT-CS); aphasia type (Type); accuracy on the naming screener at baseline (BL Nam.) (Full = 180 items); and presence of apraxia of speech (AOS) based on the Screen for Dysarthria and Apraxia of Speech (S-DAOS) (Dabul, 2000). When participants did not produce sufficient verbal output to validly screen for AOS, it was rated as “undetermined.” Treatment (T1, T2) and generalization (G1, G2) effect sizes (ES) for each half-category were calculated by subtracting the pre-treatment average score from the post-treatment average score and dividing that value by the pre-treatment standard deviation (Beeson & Robey, 2006). Participants were classified as Responders (R) or Nonresponders (NR) post-hoc based on their treatment (Tx) response (i.e., ES in at least one trained category ≥ “small,” or 4.0). Average accuracy at pre- and post-treatment on trained and untrained categories is also presented. Aphasia Type abbreviations: A=Anomic; B=Broca’s; C=Conduction; W=Wemicke’s; TCM=Transcortical Motor; G=Global; AOS abbreviations: AB=Absent; PR=Present; UN=Undetermined

TREATMENT GROUP
ID Age MPO WAR
AQ
CLQT
CS
Type AOS BL
Nam.
T1
ES
T2
ES
Tx
Resp.
G1
ES
G2
ES
Avg.
Trained
Avg.
Untrained
Pre Post Pre Post
BU01 55 12 87 90 A AB 58.3 3 20.2*** R 4 9 39 94 55 86
BU02 50 29 25 50 G UN 1 0 0 NR 0 −0.6 4 4 0 1
BU03 63 62 52 55 C PR 18 10** 9** R 0 1 14 44 18 20
BU04 79 13 74 80 C AB 68 4* 13*** R 1 1 50 100 77 83
BU05 67 10 31 50 W AB 6 −1 −2 NR −1 −1 10 4 7 1
BU06 49 113 67 80 B PR 56 3 9** R 1 0 56 90 72 73
BU07 55 137 48 60 B AB 14 2 6* R 1 1 25 44 13 19
BU08 49 57 83 100 A PR 69 3 4* R 1 1 72 100 65 70
BU09 71 37 95 95 A AB 59 7** 11*** R −1 1 41 87 51 45
BU10 53 12 80 80 A AB 65 17*** 3 R 7 4 60 93 62 82
BU11 78 22 92 75 A AB 34 1 3 NR 1 1 38 57 22 29
BU12 68 104 40 60 B PR 3 1 1 NR 1 1 4 11 6 8
BU13 42 18 93 95 A AB 57 7* 15.0*** R 2 3 47 99 47 70
BU14 64 24 64 80 B AB 41 8** 9** R 6 10 35 85 40 71
BU15 71 74 87 60 A AB 57 6* 1 R 2 1.1 44 60 38 52
BU16 50 71 34 70 B UN 5 2 2 NR 1 1 1 8 2 5
BU17 61 152 74 90 A AB 52 9** 15*** R 4 1 51 99 48 70
BU18 70 152 78 85 A AB 48 6* 5* R 2 0 54 92 49 52
BU19 80 22 29 70 B PR 7 4 7* R 0 0 13 30 6 6
BU20 48 14 13 45 B PR 0 4 7* R 0 0 0 42 0 0
BU21 65 16 12 45 B PR 0 1 3 NR 0 −1 0 21 1 0
BU22 62 12 65 45 TCM AB 7 5* 2 R −1 −1 5 15 7 5
BU23 60 24 45 45 W AB 5 0 1 NR −1 2 6 9 5 7
BU24 69 169 40 70 B PR 7 2 2 NR −1 1 7 20 5 2
BU25 76 33 38 55 B AB 2 2 −1 NR 0 1 2 7 1 2
BU26 64 115 58 30 B AB 21 4 3 NR 1 0 27 41 14 17
BU27 65 17 84 75 A AB 51 7* 2 R 1 −1 51 80 51 57
Mean 62 56 59 68 28 4 6 1 1 28 53 28 35
SD 10 52 26 19 26 4 6 2 3 23 37 26 32
Range 42-
80
10-
169
12-
95
30-
100
0-
69
−.1-
17
−2-
20
−1-
7
−1-
10
0-
72
4-
100
0-
77
0-
86
NATURAL HISTORY CONTROL GROUP
BUc01 49 49 86 75 A PR 69 −1 −1 NR 1 −0 69 66 60 63
BUc02 79 10 32 70 B PR 7 1 1 NR 1 0 11 15 4 5
BUc05 49 67 32 75 B UN 5 −0 −2 NR 1 −1 8 1 2 2
BUc06 69 164 39 75 B PR 6 2 −2 NR 1 0 7 7 3 5
BUc07 39 18 71 70 C PR 47 1 1 NR −2 −1 41 50 58 49
BUc08 64 13 70 0 A AB 46 0 1 NR −0 2 46 51 47 55
BUc09 62 21 92 75 A AB 59 6 −2 R 3 1 26 55 69 82
BUc10 68 21 79 90 A AB 42 −2 −0 NR 1 −2 37 32 45 45
BUc11 58 23 62 50 B PR 12 0 6 R 0 4 10 25 20 20
BUc12 53 467 91 100 A AB 72 2 2 NR 2 0 54 66 74 78
Mean 59 85 66 68 36 1 1 1 0 31 37 38 40
SD 12 142 24 27 27 2 3 1 2 22 24 29 31
Range 39-
79
10-
467
32-
92
0-
100
5-
72
−2-
6
−2-
−6
−2-
3
−2-
4
7-
69
.9-
66
2-
74
2-
82

Note: Treatment effect sizes (ESs) were classified using benchmarks established Robey and Beeson (Beeson & Robey, 2006):

*

small effect = 4.0-6.9;

**

medium effect = 7.0-10.0;

***

large effect = 10.1 + Generalization effect sizes greater than 2.0 (bold) were classified as “meaningful” as they are half the magnitude of a small effect for trained items.