Abstract
PURPOSE: Individuals with aphasia identify discourse-level communication (i.e., language in use) as a high priority for treatment. The central premise of most aphasia treatments is that restoring language at the phoneme, word, and/or sentence level will generalize to discourse. However, treatment-related changes in discourse-level communication are modest, are poorly understood, and vary greatly among individuals with aphasia. In response, this study consisted of a multilevel discourse analysis of archival, monologic discourse outcomes across two high-intensity Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) clinical trials. Aim 1 evaluated changes in theoretically motivated discourse outcomes representing lexical-semantic processing, lexical diversity, grammatical complexity, and discourse informativeness. Aim 2 explored the potential moderating role of nonlanguage cognitive factors (semantic memory, divided attention, and executive function) on discourse outcomes. METHOD: This study was a retrospective analysis of archival monologic discourse outcomes after intensive SFA for n = 60 (Aim 1) and a subset n = 44 (Aim 2). Outcome measures included lexical-semantic processing (% semantic errors), lexical diversity (moving average type-token ratio), grammatical complexity (mean utterance length), and discourse informativeness (% correct information units). Bayesian generalized mixed-effects models were used to examine changes across four study time points: enrollment, entry, exit, and 1-month follow-up. RESULTS: The present study found no evidence for meaningful or statistically reliable improvements in monologue discourse performance after SFA when measured using standard, general-topic discourse stimuli. There was weak and inconsistent evidence that nonlanguage cognitive factors may play a role in moderating treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate a clear need to pair theoretically informed treatments designed to facilitate generalization to discourse with intentional measurement paradigms designed to capture it. Furthermore, there is a clear need to examine how established treatments, restorative or compensatory, can better facilitate generalization to discourse-level communication. These priorities are critical for meaningfully improving everyday communication and reducing the profound communication and psychosocial consequences of aphasia. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26524081.