||Literature addressing aphasia recovery suggests a combination of patient-related and injury-related factors can predict, to some extent, overall language recovery. Even among highly controlled analyses, however, large portions of unexplained variance often remain. Evidence concerning prognosis for language change in those with chronic aphasia has not been addressed. Successive, improved performance due to repeated exposure is referred to as practice effects. Neuropsychological literature suggests practice effects may be indicative of individual neuroplasticity as evidenced by behavioral change. One of the most pervasive language deficits in aphasia is word retrieval, often measured by naming accuracy. The study of practice effects has not yet been systematically applied to the study of aphasia and may have potential to expand our understanding of language recovery with and without treatment. The purpose of this study was to examine practice effects in those with aphasia. In addition, the effects of a single treatment session were investigated as another gauge of potential for behavioral change. This study involved a single group, repeated measures design. Twenty individuals with aphasia participated in the investigation and completed the Boston Naming Test on three different occasions. Two to four days separated each administration. One treatment session was then administered using a dynamic assessment approach (i.e., test-teach-test). A fourth sampling session followed one to two days after treatment. A nonlinguistic, iv nonverbal task was also administered during each sampling session to examine the presence of practice effects on a nonlinguistic task across repeated sampling sessions. Results showed improved, but nonsignificant naming improvement across the first three sampling sessions (i.e., no practice effects) for the group. Performance across individuals varied substantially. Post treatment, significant increases in naming accuracy were detected at the group level. Patient-related and injury-related factors were significantly associated with increased naming accuracy. Practice effects were not present across sampling occasions for the nonlinguistic task. For this investigation, measurement of repeated naming attempts provided insight into practice effects and modifiability, which may be potentially important prognostic factors. Differences in ability to improve on one's own with practice and/or with minimal intervention may be relevant to treatment outcomes in aphasia.