A Phase 2 interventional study of Semantic Feature Analysis (traditional) and Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy Training in Aphasia, Aphasia Following Cerebral Infarction and Aphasia, Acquired, sponsored by Teachers College, Columbia University. Recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 89 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-06-25.
Sponsored by Teachers College, Columbia University · Phase 2, Interventional, and Treatment
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:
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:
35 studies on the registry are indexed under Aphasia, Broca; 11 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 40 is above the median of 36 across 33 interventional studies indexed under Aphasia, Broca.
Browse Aphasia, Broca studies →Teachers College, Columbia University is the lead sponsor of 26 studies on the registry; 8 are open to participants now.
Compared within Aphasia, Broca, this study's primary condition as ClinicalTrials.gg classifies it; the registry's first condition term is Aphasia. The counts are of registry records indexed under each term, refreshed daily. How we classify →
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
A portion of the study participants will participate in traditional Semantic Feature Analysis treatment, as described in Gravier, M. L., Dickey, M. W., Hula, W. D., Evans, W. S., Owens, R. L., Winans-Mitrik, R. L., \& Doyle, P. J. (2018). What matters in semantic feature analysis: Practice-related predictors of treatment response in aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 27(1S), 438-453. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017\_AJSLP-16-0196. Briefly, this treatment involves naming pictures of objects, describing the objects' features (e.g., category membership, physical attributes, etc.), and creating sentences using the objects' names.
Behavioral: Semantic Feature Analysis (traditional)
A portion of the study participants will participate in traditional Semantic Feature Analysis treatment, as described in Tilton-Bolowsky, V. E., Brock, L., Nunn, K., Evans, W. S., \& Vallila-Rohter, S. (2023). Incorporating metacognitive strategy training into semantic treatment promotes restitutive and substitutive gains in naming: A single-subject investigation. American journal of speech-language pathology, 32(5), 1979-2020. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023\_AJSLP-22-00230. Briefly, this treatment involves metacognitive teaching and practice, naming pictures of objects, describing the objects' features (e.g., category membership, physical attributes, etc), creating sentences using the objects' names, debriefing on overall performance, and discussing recent and future opportunities for strategy implementation in real life.
Behavioral: Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy Training
This treatment involves naming pictures of objects, describing the objects' features (e.g., category membership, physical attributes, etc.), and creating sentences using the objects' names. It does not include direct metacognitive strategy training.
This treatment involves metacognitive teaching and practice, naming pictures of objects, describing the objects' features (e.g., category membership, physical attributes, etc), creating sentences using the objects' names, debriefing on overall performance, and discussing recent and future opportunities for strategy implementation in real life.
Confrontation naming accuracy
Participants will complete a 60-item confrontation naming assessment before, during, and after treatment. We will calculate the total number of items that participants name accurately across study phases.
Time frame: Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months
Independent word-finding strategy use
Using the 60-item confrontation naming assessment, we will evaluate instances in which participants independently use a specific word-finding strategy (describing or talking around the word) in instances where they cannot name items successfully, and calculate the proportions of incorrect responses with and without strategy use across study phases.
Time frame: Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months
Discourse informativeness
Participants will describe picture scenes and tell stories. We will calculate the amount of informative content in their descriptions/stories using Content Information Unit (%CIU; Nicholas \& Brookshire, 1993) analysis for descriptions/stories across study phases.
Time frame: Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months
Discourse efficiency
Participants will describe picture scenes and tell stories. We will calculate the rate of informative content in their descriptions/stories using Content Information Unit (CIU/minute; Nicholas \& Brookshire, 1993) analysis for descriptions/stories across study phases.
Time frame: Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months
Explicit strategy knowledge
Participants will be asked to identify what they can do in moments of word-finding difficulty and what types of information they can provide in those moments, across study phases. There are six types of information that will be discussed during the treatments.
Time frame: Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months
Plan to share: Undecided
Started Jul 2025 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Dec 2026, 17 months after the start.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Teachers College, Columbia University