Samuelsson (2011)

 

 

SOURCE: Samuelsson, C. (2011). Prosody intervention: A single subject study of a Swedish boy with prosodic problems. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 27 (1), 56-67.

 

REVIEWER(S):  PMH

 

DATE:             7.03.12          ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE:  C+

 

TAKE AWAY:  promising support for prosodic intervention (in Swedish) with a child at the word and phrase level.

 

1.  What was the focus of the research? Clinical Research

 

2.  What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

2a.  What  type of single subject design was used?: Single Subject Experimental Design with Specific Client:  Multiple Baseline–(SSED-MB)

2b.  What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence?  A-       

                                                                                                           

3.  Was phase of treatment concealed?                                 

              

3a.  from participants?  No                           

3b.  from clinicians?  No                               

3c.  from data analyzers? Yes                                    

4. Were the participants adequately described?  Yes

 

4a.  How many participants were involved in the study? 1     

4b.  Were the  characteristics/variables actively controlled or described?

The following characteristics were described:

                                                                                                                       

•  age4 years-6 months

•  genderM                                                                                         

•  expressive languageWNL (nonprosodic aspects)

•  receptive language:  WNL (nonprosodic aspects)                   

                                                    

4c.  Were the communication problems adequately described?     

Yesprosodic disorder

                                                          

5.  Was membership in treatment maintained throughout the study?  Yes

 

                

5a.  If there was more than one participant, did at least 80% of the participants remain in the study?  NA                             

5b.  Were any data removed from the study?  No

 

6.  Did the design include appropriate controls?

 

6a.  Were baseline data collected on all behaviors? Yes; 3 behaviors 3 times over 9 weeks; acoustic  and perceptual measures from spontaneous samples:  single pre-intervention sample

6b.  Did probes include untrained data? Yes                               

6c.  Did probes include trained data? No               

6d.  Was the data collection continuous? No         

6e.  Were different treatment counterbalanced or randomized? NA            

 

7.  Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

7a.  List the outcome of interest (dependent variable):

1.  word level scores from author’s comprehensive assessment of prosody measure

2.  phrase level scores from author’s comprehensive assessment of prosody measure

3.  discourse level scores from author’s comprehensive assessment of prosody measure

4.  perceptual rating of spontaneous speech using an adaptation of Darley et al. (1969)

5.  acoustic measures of spontaneous speech: Fo and pitch range.

 

Note:  it is not clear if #1 & 2 were statistically analyzed independently

                                                

7b.  Are the outcome measures subjective? Yes for outcomes #1-4

7c.  Is  the outcome measure objective.  Yes for outcome #5          

7d.  Are the outcome measure reliable?              Yes

•  for outcome #1-3: 0.95

•  for outcome #4:  0.94

•  for outcome #5: NA

                                                              

8.  Did the target behavior improve when it was treated? Yes

                                                                                        

9.  Overall quality of improvement, if any:  Limited

                                                              

9a.  Was baseline low and stable? Variable

•  Outcomes #1, 2: yes

•  Outcome #3: no

•  Outcomes #4-5: NA

9b.  What was the percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND)? NA

9c.  Does inspection of data suggest that the treatment was effective? Yes

                                                                                                               

10.  What was the magnitude of the treatment effect? [check measure, list results (r), provide interpretation(i)]

 

•  results:  magnitude of effect datanot provided        

•  significance:  Significant differences (p≤ 0.05):  word level, phrase level; mean Fo,; small N for t-tests

•  interpretation:  clinical significance is not clear because there were no EBP measures      

                                                

11.  Was information about treatment fidelity adequate?   Yes

           

                                                

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION PROCEDURES

 

PURPOSE:  to investigate the effectiveness of a program to improve the prosody of a child.

POPULATION:  child (4-06 years); diagnosed as having a prosody problems (word, phrase, discourse levels) in Swedish (his native language).  He was WNL on other measures of language

 

MODALITY:  Expressive

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY TARGETED:  Invention focused on producing meaning prosodic contrasts at the word and phrase level by modifying:

•  vowel length/duration

•  word accent/stress

•  word stress placement (early vs. late)

•  phrasal stress and intonation

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE TARGETED (Dependent variable):  none

 

OTHER  NONLANGUAGE TARGETS:  none

DOSAGE:  6 weeks; 6 sessions, 60-minutes a session

 

ADMINISTRATOR:  SLP

 

STIMULI:  auditory and visual

GOAL ATTACK STRATEGY:  not clear

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS: 

 

•  Techniques:  imitation, modeling, discrimination, real and nonsense words, minimal pairs, self-monitoring,  responding to questions; homework

Word Prosody

•  P listens to C’s model of Swedish words and imitates acceptable rhythm and intonation

•  C records P’s productions and P identifies the word he was attempting.

•  C presents P with pictures minimal pair words that differ only in prosodic pattern.  P attempts to produce the words contrastively and correctly.

Phrasal Prosody

 

•  P imitates C’s production of nonsense phrases in which C varies the placement of stress and intonation.  P listens to and judges the accuracy of his productions.

Example (stressed syllable is In bold):

1.  sodotomo

2.  sodotomo

3.  sodotomo

4.  sodotomo

 

•  P imitates C’s production of (real) phrases in which C varies the placement of stress and intonation.  P listens judges the accuracy of his productions.

Example (stressed syllable/syllables in bold):

1.  I found your book in the box.

2.  I found your book in the box.

3.  I found your book in the box

4.  I found your book in the box.

5.  I found your book in the box.

6.  I found your book in the box.

•           C asks questions to elicit the sentences practiced in the previous step.  P listens to and judges the accuracy of his productions.

 

QUESTION #1:  Who found the book?   TARGET:  I found your book in the box.

QUESTION #2:  You what the book?   TARGET:  I found your book in the box.

QUESTON #3:  Whose book did you find?   TARGET:  I found your book in the box.

QUESTION #4:  What did you find of mine in the box?               TARGET:  I found your book in the box.

QUESTION #5:  You found the book under the box?   TARGET:  I found your book in the box.

QUESTION #6:  What did you find the book in?               TARGET:  I found your book in the box.

Homework

 

•   C regularly assigned homework.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: