OBJECTIVE: Children with specific language impairment (SLI) might present with speech sound disorder (SSD) and phonological awareness (PA) deficits which put them at risk of potential reading problems. This work aimed to organize an intervention program in Arabic for phonological training and to assess the effect of PA training versus the phonological therapy (PT) for children with SLI and SSD.
METHODS: The study was carried out on 60 children with comorbid SLI and SSD, aged 5-7 years. Children were equally divided into two groups; each group received language therapy combined with (PT or PA training). Measures of language development, phonological output, and PA were taken before therapy and at 4 month post-therapy for all children.
RESULTS: The two therapy groups made nearly the same amount of progress in the development of language and phonological production, with no significant differences regarding language age and percent of consonants correct (PCC). The PA training group progressed more on the PA skills than children who received PT over the same time.
CONCLUSIONS: PA training could facilitate the development of phonological skills by targeting the child\'s awareness of phonemes and improving the production of sound patterns.

Even though evidence for the use of linguistic-phonological intervention approaches in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP±L) is still limited, these approaches are being used by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to treat active or compensatory cleft speech disorders in clinical practice. It is, however, unknown to what extent linguistic-phonological intervention is acceptable to SLPs. The aim of this study is to investigate the retrospective acceptability of linguistic-phonological intervention in children with a CP±L from the perspective of SLPs using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA).
A total of 18 female community SLPs, aged between 23 and 63 years, were included in the study. An independent interviewer conducted semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using a deductive coding approach. Statements of the SLPs were related to the seven constructs of the TFA: affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness and self-efficacy.
The affective attitude and perceived effectiveness of linguistic-phonological intervention differed among the SLPs: some therapists had positive attitudes towards these approaches, while others did not. Positive attitudes were related to the successful use of linguistic-phonological intervention in the past. The construct \'ethicality\' revealed that negative attitudes towards these approaches were attributed to the limited available scientific evidence or negative experiences while using these approaches. In contrast, SLPs who had positive attitudes considered these interventions as \'important\' and \'valuable\'. Some SLPs had negative reflections on linguistic-phonological intervention as these approaches were considered demanding in terms of time needed to gain knowledge on using them in children with a CP±L (constructs \'burden\' and \'opportunity costs\'). Additionally, some SLPs doubted their self-efficacy to use these approaches in clinical practice.
The acceptability of linguistic-phonological intervention differed between the SLPs in this sample and was most likely related to their previous experiences with these linguistic-phonological approaches. It is important to increase not only the amount of scientific evidence for linguistic-phonological approaches but also the supply of evidence-based workshops and training courses on this topic. These initiatives should distribute scientific information that is translated into guidelines that are immediately applicable in clinical practice. This may potentially reduce the time-related burden that some SLPs currently experience to gain expertise in this matter. In future research, it is necessary to investigate if there exist differences in acceptability between the different types of linguistic-phonological therapy.
What is already known on this subject Linguistic-phonological speech intervention approaches are often used by SLPs to treat active or compensatory cleft speech disorders in clinical practice. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study investigated whether linguistic-phonological intervention cleft speech intervention is acceptable to SLPs. Some therapists had positive attitudes towards these approaches, while others did not. Positive attitudes were related to the successful use of these approaches in the past. If SLPs indicated having negative attitudes, these negative feelings were attributed to the limited available scientific evidence or negative experiences while using these approaches. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work Even though linguistic-phonological speech intervention approaches are being used in clinical practice, these approaches are not always considered acceptable by SLPs. Acceptability could be enhanced by increasing the amount of scientific evidence for linguistic-phonological approaches, but also by increasing the supply of workshops and training courses on this topic. These initiatives should distribute hands-on information that is immediately applicable in clinical practice. This may potentially reduce the time-related burden that some SLPs currently experience to gain expertise in this matter.

Major neurocognitive disorder (MND) alters cognition, memory and language, and consequently affects communication. Speech-language therapy (SLT) may alleviate communication difficulties.
This pilot study explored the effects of intensive SLT emphasizing memory, language, and discourse impairment and complementary communication strategies, called Aid for Communication-For Persons Who Live with MND (AID-COMp).
We employed a mixed design using quantitative and qualitative methods with four dyads, including a person living with MND (PwMND) and a family carer. The design included a control period, and we tested participants before (T1) and after 2 months without therapy (T2). AID-COMp was then provided intensively three times per week for 10 sessions and participants were tested again (T3). Participants were also involved in an individual qualitative interview after therapy ended, probing their experience and possible effects on their lives. AID-COMp included: (1) spaced retrieval to teach the use of a memory book; (2) semantic and phonological therapy for lexical access; (3) discourse treatment based on the analysis of the macrostructure and microstructure of stories in pictures and texts; and (4) PACE therapy for generalization. Carers were not included in treatment, did not attend sessions and were only involved in the evaluations. Measures included language, communication, cognitive and well-being tests. Paired t-tests (one-tailed) compared scores for the control period, that is, T1 versus T2. We compared scores after therapy (T3) with those at T2. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed qualitatively.
For the control period, only text comprehension scores significantly decreased in PwMND. After therapy, improvements occurred on the Boston Naming Test (BNT), the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) and the well-being measure for the PwMND. Carer scores were unchanged after therapy except for their perception of the PwMND\'s communication which improved. Qualitative findings comprised three themes: (1) understanding therapy; (2) recovering abilities and relationships; and (3) naming further needs.
We hypothesize that AID-COMp addressed the underlying impairments associated with MND and provided various tools to PwMND for composing effectively with them. Indeed, AID-COMp appears to provoke some degree of improvement of language skills, cognition and emotional well-being. These improvements may lead to more confidence in conversation and the recovery of relationships between the PwMND and their entourage. It is also possible that improvements acted positively on one another. These preliminary findings warrant further controlled studies with more participants, including a qualitative exploration of participant experiences.
What is already known on the subject MND affects cognition and communication, which are crucial to a good relationship between a carer and a person with MND. Interventions involving only PwMND have been shown to be effective, but do not address all the communication impairments in the mild stage of MND. These interventions may require many therapy sessions. Generally, SLT interventions do not examine the potential effects of an intervention on carers. What this paper adds to existing knowledge AID-COMp, an intensive intervention of 10 sessions over 1 month, was provided to people living with MND in the community. It included training the person with MND in using a memory notebook combined with semantic and phonological therapy, a new discourse therapy and PACE therapy, addressing several communication deficits. After a control period of 2 months without intervention and a 1-month intensive intervention, the results showed significant improvement in naming, cognition and communication, and PwMND well-being. Moreover, the carers witnessed the impacts of therapy in their everyday life interactions with the PwMND. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work AID-COMp can provide communication support for PwMND that has further benefits reported by both PwMND and carers. We described AID-COMp in detail to inspire clinicians in providing SLT for unserved PwMND. Future research studies should use controlled designs, more participants and a qualitative component.

Attempts to personalize aphasia treatment to the extent where it is possible to reliably predict individual response to a particular treatment have yielded inconclusive results. The current study aimed to (i) compare the effects of phonologically versus semantically focussed naming treatment and (ii) examine biographical and neuropsychological baseline factors predictive of response to each treatment. One hundred and four individuals with chronic post-stroke aphasia underwent 3 weeks of phonologically focussed treatment and 3 weeks of semantically focussed treatment in an unblinded cross-over design. A linear mixed-effects model was used to compare the effects of treatment type on proportional change in correct naming across groups. Correlational analysis and stepwise regression models were used to examine biographical and neuropsychological predictors of response to phonological and semantic treatment across all participants. Last, chi-square tests were used to explore the association between treatment response and phonological and semantic deficit profiles. Semantically focussed treatment was found to be more effective at the group-level, independently of treatment order (P = 0.041). Overall, milder speech and language impairment predicted good response to semantic treatment (r range: 0.256-0.373) across neuropsychological tasks. The Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Spontaneous Speech score emerged as the strongest predictor of semantic treatment response (R 2 = 0.188). Severity of stroke symptoms emerged as the strongest predictor of phonological treatment response (R 2 = 0.103). Participants who showed a good response to semantic treatment were more likely to present with fluent speech compared to poor responders (P = 0.005), whereas participants who showed a good response to phonological treatment were more likely to present with apraxia of speech (P = 0.020). These results suggest that semantic treatment may be more beneficial to the improvement of naming performance in aphasia than phonological treatment, at the group-level. In terms of personalized predictors, participants with relatively mild impairments and fluent speech responded better to semantic treatment, while phonological treatment benefitted participants with more severe impairments and apraxia of speech.

BACKGROUND: Jargon aphasia is one of the most intractable forms of aphasia with limited recommendation on amelioration of associated naming difficulties and neologisms. The few naming therapy studies that exist in jargon aphasia have utilized either semantic or phonological approaches, but the results have been equivocal. Moreover, the effect of therapy on the characteristics of neologisms is less explored.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the effectiveness of a phonological naming therapy (i.e., phonological component analysis-PCA) on picture-naming abilities and on quantitative and qualitative changes in neologisms for an individual with jargon aphasia (FF).
METHODS: FF showed evidence of jargon aphasia with severe naming difficulties and produced a very high proportion of neologisms. A single-subject multiple probe design across behaviours was employed to evaluate the effects of PCA therapy on the accuracy for three sets of words. In therapy, a phonological components analysis chart was used to identify five phonological components (i.e. rhymes, first sound, first sound associate, final sound and number of syllables) for each target word. Generalization effects-change in per cent accuracy and error pattern-were examined comparing pre- and post-therapy responses on the Philadelphia Naming Test, and these responses were analysed to explore the characteristics of the neologisms. The quantitative change in neologisms was measured by change in the proportion of neologisms from pre- to post-therapy and the qualitative change was indexed by the phonological overlap between target and neologism.
RESULTS: As a consequence of PCA therapy, FF showed a significant improvement in his ability to name the treated items. His performance in maintenance and follow-up phases remained comparable with his performance during the therapy phases. Generalization to other naming tasks did not show a change in accuracy, but distinct differences in error pattern (an increase in proportion of real word responses and a decrease in proportion of neologisms) were observed. Notably, the decrease in neologisms occurred with a corresponding trend for increase in the phonological similarity between the neologisms and the targets.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the effectiveness of a phonological therapy for improving naming abilities and reducing the amount of neologisms in an individual with severe jargon aphasia. The positive outcome of this research is encouraging, as it provides evidence for effective therapies for jargon aphasia and also emphasizes that use of the quality and quantity of errors may provide a sensitive outcome measure to determine therapy effectiveness, in particular for client groups who are difficult to treat.