Scott & Caird (1984)

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

For Group Research

 

SOURCE:  Scott, S., & Caird, F. (1984). The response of the apparent receptive speech disorder of Parkinson’s disease to speech therapy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 47, 302-304.

 

REVIEWER(S):  pmh

 

DATE: 2.13.11          OVERALL ASSIGNED  GRADE for QUALITY:  C-

 

TAKE AWAY:  Limited support for an intervention procedure that is not described in the paper but is reported to improve receptive and expressive affective prosody.

 

1.  What type of evidence was identified?

 

a.  Type of design:  Prospective, Single Group with Pre- and Post-Testing

b. Level of support associated with the design:  Level =  C+

                                                                                                           

2.  How was group membership determined?                      

•  The participants in the single group were selected in accordance with exclusion/inclusion criteria that were not listed in the article.

3.  Was administration of intervention concealed?              

a.  from participants?  No

b.  from clinicians?  No 

 c.  from analyzers?  No

 

4.  Were the groups adequately describedYes

a.  How many participants were involved in the study?

•  total # of participants = 11

•  # of groups = 1

•  # of participants in each group = 11

b.  The following variables actively controlled (i.e., inclusion/exclusion criteria) or described:  

•  age:  49-83 years; mean 65

•  gender:  6m, 5f

•  cognitive skills:  All WNL memory and information tasks; one had trouble with Colour/Form Sorting Test

•  overall language:  no abnormalities on a shortened version of Schuell           

•  average duration of PD:  7 years

•  medications:  all prescribed; a variety of drugs

•  auditory discrimination:  WNL

•  inclusion/exclusion criteria:  all Ps met them  but they were not described

c.  Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes

                                                     

5.  Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?

                                                                                                              

a.  Did each of the group maintain at least 80% of the original members?  Yes

b.  Were data from outliers removed from the study?  No  __x__

unclear  ____

                                                             

 

6.  Were the groups controlled acceptably?  NA,only one group.

7.  Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful?  Yes

 

7a.  List outcome (dependent variable):

NOTE:   test description cited in another reference

1.  Prosodic abnormality score

2.  Discrimination of prosodic contrasts

3.  Matching speech and facial expression

4.  Discrimination of affective and grammatical functions of prosody

5.  Discrimination of semantic functions of prosody

6.  Production of angry speech tone

7.  Production of questioning speech tone

8.  Production of neutral statement

b.  Are the outcome measures subjective?  Yes

c.  Are the outcome measures objective?  No  

                                        

 

8.  Were reliability measures provided?                                   

a.  Interobserver for analyzers?  No

b.  Intraobserver for analyzers?  No

c.  Treatment fidelity for clinicians?  No

 

9.  What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing?

                                                                                                              

9a.   If the different clinical groups are compared, the order of improvement on the outcome measure from most to least improvement:  NA

b.  Was there a significant difference in outcome measures following treatment?  Yes for #1-7—they all improved; No for #8.  (Outcome #8 was at maximum at pretest; this was maintained in subsequent tests.)

c.  What was the p value? t-test varied from  0.05-0.001

Note:  used paired t with small # (N = 11)

d.  Was confidence interval (CI) provided?  No 

                                                                    

10.  What is the clinical effect?  (i.e., EBP measures):  Not provided

ASSIGNED  GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:  C-

Summary of Intervention

PURPOSE:  To determine if the receptive and expressive prosody of individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD) improves following therapy.

POPULATION:  Speakers with Parkinson’s disease (PD)

 

MODALITY:   reception/comprehension and production

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY TARGETED:  treatment was concerned with  production of  prosody but this investigation focused on receptive  and expressive measures

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION (part of independent variable):   not noted here but see Scott & Caird (1983)

DOSAGE:  2 weeks of home therapy

 

ADMINISTRATOR:  SLP

 

STIMULI:   not provided but see Scott & Caird (1983)

GOAL ATTACK STRATEGY:  not provided

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS: not provided but see Scott & Caird (1983)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES/OUTCOMES:

 

1.  Prosodic abnormality score

2.  Discrimination of prosodic contrasts

3.  Matching speech and facial expression

4.  Discrimination of affective and grammatical functions of prosody

5.  Discrimination of semantic functions of prosody

6.  Production of angry speech tone

7.  Production of questioning speech tone

8.  Production of neutral statement

 

 

 

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: