This clinical trial focuses on testing the efficacy of different digital interventions to promote re-engagement in cancer-related long-term follow-up care for adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors of childhood cancer.
The goal of this clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness of traditional Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) treatment to a modified SFA protocol that includes Metacognitive Strategy Training (SFA+MST) for adults with acquired aphasia. The main questions it aims to answer are: * What are the comparative outcomes in picture naming accuracy and strategy use during picture naming following 2 months of traditional SFA versus SFA + MST in adults with acquired aphasia? * What are the comparative outcomes in percent of informative content and rate of informative content during spontaneous speech production following 2 months of traditional SFA versus SFA + MST in adults with acquired aphasia? Researchers will compare outcomes between these two treatments to see if SFA+MST yields larger effects in picture naming and spontaneous speech outcomes than traditional SFA. Participants will complete: * 5-7 pre-treatment assessment sessions where they will be asked to name pictures, tell stories/describe pictures, answer questions, and complete questionnaires, * 3 treatment sessions of SFA \*OR\* SFA+MST per week for 8 weeks, for a total of 24 sessions, * 7 weekly probes (i.e., short, intermittent assessments throughout the treatment phase), * 3 post-treatment assessment sessions immediately after treatment ends, where they will complete the same assessment tasks as they did pre-treatment (e.g., naming pictures, telling stories, etc.), * 2 retention assessment sessions, one 30 days and the other 60 days following the final treatment session, where they will be asked to name pictures, tell stories/describe pictures, and describe what they learned during the study.
Comparing the Effectiveness of Traditional Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) Versus SFA Plus Metacognitive Strategy Training (SFA+MST) for People With Acquired Aphasia
Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.
| Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
|---|---|
|
|
Sponsor: Teachers College, Columbia University
These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.