EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS for
Single Subject Designs
SOURCE: Hester, E. J., Rasmussen, H., & Warner, D. (1997, November). Efficacy of a prosodic approach in the treatment of cluttering. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (Boston).
ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE: F (This is a handout from a presentation.)
TAKE AWAY: This case study is summarized in a handout from an ASHA convention; therefore, only limited information is available. Nevertheless, the results suggest that speaking rate and intelligibility can improve in a speaker with the diagnosis of stuttering following a prosodic intervention using visual feedback (Visi Pitch).
1. What was the focus of the research? Clinical Research
2. What type of evidence was identified?
a. What type of single subject design was used? Case Studies- Description with Pre and Post Test Results
b. What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence?
Level = D+
3. Was phase of treatment concealed?
a. from participants? No
b. from clinicians? No
c. from data analyzers? No
4. Were the participants adequately described? No
a. How many participants were involved in the study? 1
b. The following characteristics were described:
• age: 50 years
• gender: m
• educational level of participant: college education
• previous speech-language therapy: Yes, amount and timing were not reported.
c. Were the communication problems adequately described? No
• The disorder type was cluttering.
5. Was membership in treatment maintained throughout the study? Not applicable
a. If there was more than one participant, did at least 80% of the participants remain in the study? Not applicable
b. Were any data removed from the study? No
6. Did the design include appropriate controls? No, this was a case study.
a. Were baseline/preintervention data collected on all behaviors? Yes
b. Did probes/intervention data include untrained data? No
c. Did probes/intervention data include trained data? Yes
d. Was the data collection continuous? No
e. Were different treatment counterbalanced or randomized? Not Applicable
7. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful?Yes
a. The outcomes were
OUTCOME #1: Decrease speaking rate (wpm) in structured speaking tasks.
OUTCOME #2: Improve speech intelligibility in conversation
b. All the outcomes were subjective.
c. None of the outcomes were objective.
d. Reliability data were not provided.
a. Did the target behavior improve when it was treated? Yes
b. The overall quality of improvement for each of the outcomes was
OUTCOME #1: Decrease speaking rate (wpm) in structured speaking tasks. Strong
OUTCOME #2: Improve speech intelligibility Strong
9. Description of baseline:
a. Were baseline data provided? No
10. What was the magnitude of the treatment effect? NA
11. Was information about treatment fidelity adequate? Not Provided
12. Were maintenance data reported? No
13. Were generalization data reported? No
OVERALL RATING OF THE QUALITY OF SUPPORT FOR THE INTERVENTION: __F___
SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION
PURPOSE: To describe an intervention for cluttering using visual feedback (VisiPitch) and prosody (intonation, stress, pitch inflection/intonation}.
MODALITY TARGETED: expression
ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: rate, pause
ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: intonation (fo) and pause
OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED (Dependent variable): intelligibility
DOSAGE: 50 minute sessions, 2 times a week, for 2 semester (3 months each with a 3 month summer between sessions)
STIMULI: auditory, visual
GOAL ATTACK STRATEGY: not clear
– presentations for business developed by P
– conversational speech
– P delivered presentations or conversed with C
– P analyzed attempts using the VisiPitch
• Measurement during sessions
– Specific measures were
• fo range
• percentage of pausing