Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Willsens, I.; Vandenborre, D.; van Dun, K.; Verhoeven, J.; Visch-Brink, E. (2015)
Publisher: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: P1, R

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: behavioral disciplines and activities
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of two intensive therapy methods: Constraint- 4 Induced Aphasia Therapy (CIAT) and semantic therapy (BOX). \ud \ud Method: Nine patients with chronic fluent aphasia participated in a therapy programme 6 to establish behavioral treatment outcomes. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups (CIAT or BOX). \ud \ud Results: Intensive therapy significantly improved verbal communication. However, BOX 9 treatment showed a more pronounced improvement on two communication measures, namely on a standardized assessment for verbal communication, the Amsterdam Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (Blomert, Koster, & Kean, 1995) and on a subjective rating scale, the Communicative Effectiveness Index (Lomas et al., 1989). All 13 participants significantly improved on one (or more) subtests of the Aachen Aphasia Test (Graetz et al., 1992), an impairment-focused assessment. There was a treatment-specific effect. Therapy with BOX had a significant effect on language comprehension and on semantics, while of CIAT affected language production and phonology. \ud \ud Conclusion: The findings indicate that in patients with fluent aphasia (1) intensive treatment has a significant effect on language and verbal communication, (2) intensive therapy results in selective treatment effects and (3) an intensive semantic treatment shows a more striking mean improvement on verbal communication in comparison to communication-based CIAT-treatment.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • - Bastiaanse, R., Bosje, M., & Visch-Brink, E. (1995). Psycholinguistic Assessments of - Edwards, S., & Tucker, K. (2006). Verb retrieval in fluent aphasia: a clinical study.
    • - Ellis, A.W., & Young, A.W. (1996). Human Cognitive Neuropsychology. Hove: - Faroqi-Shah, Y., & Virion, C.R. (2009). Constraint-induced language therapy for agrammatism: Role of grammaticality constraints. Aphasiology, 23 (7-8), 977-988.
    • Holland, A.L., Greenhouse, J.B., Fromm, D., & Swindell, C.S. (1989). Predictors of Maher, L., Kendall, D., Swearengin, J., Rodriguez, A., Leon, S., Pingel, K., … Rothi, Mariën, P., Mampaey, E., Vervaet, A., Saerens, J., & De Deyn, P.P. (1998).
    • Moses, M.E., Nickels, L.A., & Sheard, C. (2004). I'm sitting here feeling aphasic. A Robson, H., Sage, K., & Lambon Ralph, M.A. (2012). Revealing and quantifying the aphasia. Neuropsychologia, 50, 276-288.
    • Ruiter, M.B., Kolk, H.H.J., Rietveld, T.C.M., Dijkstra, N., & Lotgering, E. (2011).
    • Verhoeven, J. (2005). Illustrations of the IPA: Belgian Standard Dutch. Journal of the Visch-Brink, E.G., Bajema, I.M., & Sandt-Koenderman, M.E., van de. (1997).
    • Lexical semantic therapy: BOX. Aphasiology, 11(11), 1057-1078.
    • Visch-Brink, E.G., & Bajema, I.M. (2001). BOX: Een semantisch therapieprogramma.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article