Introduction
Writing treatment for aphasia using phonological training works best when speaking nonsense. Either nonsense or Italian. Six writing treatment studies demonstrate that research for phonological training treatment is at Phase II. Such treatment would be in a Phase III level of evidence if the studies reviewed had quasi-experimental studies or closer examinations of efficacy. Phonological writing treatment is still in Phase II as illustrated by these three similarities in research efficacy: first, how inconsistent procedures in research obscure a standardized research protocol; second, how irrelevant outcomes confuse data; and third, how the lack of clearly defined participant characteristics mar research results. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that though writing treatment using phonological training may have some benefits for some patients with aphasia, the treatment is generally at a Phase II level of evidence with little sign of moving to the quasi-experimental Phase III level.
Procedures
One barrier for phonological research to move to Phase III is inconsistent procedures. The cognitive model is a central feature of the treatment, but the studies in this review used different versions of the cognitive model. Beeson, Rising, Kim, and Rapcsak (2008) use a simple version of the cognitive model comprised of “dual-route model of single-word processing”(p.708) showing the distinction between written and spoken words and their relationship to the internal language concept. Kiran’s (2005) cognitive model shows similar visual and aural inputs but no clear writing or speaking output. Luzzatti, Columbo, Frustaci, and Vitolo (2000) include the “information processing model for picture naming, word nami...
... middle of paper ...
...oi: 10.1080/02687030701800826
Bowes, K. & Martin, N. (2007) Longitudinal study of reading and writing rehabilitation using a bigraph–biphone correspondence approach. Aphasiology, 21, 687-701. doi: 10.1080/02687030701192117
Carlomagno, S., Columbo, A., Casadio, P., Emanuelli, S. & Razzano, C. (1991) Cognitive approaches to writing rehabilitation in aphasics: evaluation of two treatment strategies. Aphasiology, 5, 355-360. doi: 10.1080/02687039108248536
Kiran, S. (2005) Training phoneme to grapheme conversion for patients with written and oral production deficits: a model‐based approach. Aphasiology, 19, 53-76. doi: 10.1080/02687030444000633
Luzzatti, C., Columbo, C., Frustaci, M., & Vitolo, F. (2000) Rehabilitation of spelling along the sub-word-level routine. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation: An International Journal, 10, 249-278. doi: 10.1080/096020100389156