Writing therapy studies have been predominantly uni-modal in nature; i.e., their central therapy task has typically been either writing to dictation or copying and recalling words. There has not yet been a study that has compared the effects of a uni-modal to a multi-modal writing therapy in terms of improvements to spelling accuracy. A multiple-case study with eight participants aimed to compare the effects of a uni-modal and a multi-modal therapy on the spelling accuracy of treated and untreated target words at immediate and follow-up assessment points. A cross-over design was used and within each therapy a matched set of words was targeted. These words and a matched control set were assessed before as well as immediately after each therapy and six weeks following therapy. The two approaches did not differ in their effects on spelling accuracy of treated or untreated items or degree of maintenance. All participants made significant improvements on treated and control items; however, not all improvements were maintained at follow-up. The findings suggested that multi-modal therapy did not have an advantage over uni-modal therapy for the participants in this study. Performance differences were instead driven by participant variables.
Keywords: Aphasia; Multi-modal; Spelling; Therapy; Writing.