Is there a replication crisis in aphasia treatment? Jessica Combs, BS in SLCD, College of Health Care Sciences Erin Blackwell, B.S., MS in SLP, College of Health Care Sciences Jenna Herkalo, B.S., MS in SLP, College of Health Care Sciences Stephanie Karidas, Ph.D., Assistant Professor1 Jackie Hinckley, Ph.D., Associate Professor2 1Gannon University 2College of Health Care Sciences Objective. The purpose of this project is to examine whether the evidence base for aphasia treatment after stroke is substantiated by sufficient replication. Background. A critical factor in developing an evidence-based practice is the existence of replicated results for any treatment. Replication helps to ensure that observed treatment effects are reproducible (Sigurardóttir & Sighvatsson, 2011). Methods. We chose to use the aphasia treatments listed in the ASHA Practice Portal in September, 2018 to analyze. First, we reviewed the list of treatments. General treatment approaches, such as “Life Participation Approach”, “Word Retrieval Cueing Strategies”, and “Computer-based treatments” were excluded because those broad approaches do not share consistent procedures that can be replicated Each of the remaining treatments were searched for by name in relevant bibliographic databases including: Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost), ProQuest Central (ProQuest), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), and ERIC (ProQuest). Results. We found that 17/17 of the listed aphasia treatments had been replicated in some way. Of the 17 treatments listed on the ASHA Practice Portal: 4/17 had been replicated by the original authors only, 5/17 had been replicated by other authors only, and 8/17 had been replicated by the original authors and others. Conclusion. Non-replications are expected in scientific research to explore new territory. Treatment research should be held to a high standard for replication, since implementation requires treatment procedures to be successful across users.