McMicken et al (2011)

Single Subject Designs

 

Notes:

 

  1. The summary of the intervention procedure(s) can be viewed by scrolling about two-thirds of the way down on this page.

 

  1. Key:

C = clinician

GILCU = Gradual Increase of Length and Complexity of Utterances) from RFP

LSVT = Lee Silverman Voice Treatment

NA = not applicable

P = participant or patient

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

RFP = Ryan Fluency Program

WNL = within normal limits

 

SOURCE: McMicken, B. L., Ostergren, J. A., & Vento-Wilson, M. (2011). Therapeutic intervention in a case of ataxic dysarthria associated with a history of amateur boxing. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 33, 55-64. doi: 10.1177/1525740110397829

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: August 16, 2014

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE: D (The highest possible grade was D+ because this was a case study.)

 

TAKE AWAY: This case study describes an intervention combining Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT) and the Ryan Fluency Program (RFP) for the treatment of speech associated with ataxic dysarthria in a patient (P) with a history of boxing. The results suggest the combined intervention was moderately successful in improving perception of severity and intelligibility as well as diadokokenesis skills. However, the P’s self-perception of his communication skills decreased markedly

 

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

                                                                                                           

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  2. What type of single subject design was used? Case Studies– Description with Pre and Post Test Results
  3. What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Level = D+

                                                                                                           

 

  1. Was phase of treatment concealed?
  2. from participants? No
  3. from clinicians? No
  4. from data analyzers? No

 

 

  1. Were the participants adequately described? Yes
  2. How many participants were involved in the study? 1

 

  1. The following characteristics were described:
  • age: 36 years
  • gender: m
  • cognitive skills: WNL

                                                                                                             

  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes
  • List the disorder type(s):
  • List other aspects of communication that were described:
  • oral mechanism:   WNL
  • motor speech skills: WNL
  • diadochokinesis (alternating motion rates): slow, irregular, uneven, frequent misarticulation (especially voicing and vowel distortion), irregular speed
  • vowel prolongation: WNL
  • intelligibility: 3.7 on a 7 point scale (7 was the best rating)
  • impairment severity: marked/severe
  • misarticulations: inconsistent
  • stress: excessive and equal
  • duration: prolongation of speech sounds

                                                                                                                       

  1. Was membership in treatment maintained throughout the study? Yes
  2. If there was more than one participant, did at least 80% of the participants remain in the study? Not applicable
  3. Were any data removed from the study? No

 

 

  1. Did the design include appropriate controls? No. This was a case study
  2. Were preintervention data collected on all behaviors? Yes, but these data were not easy to find.
  3. Did probes/intervention data include untrained data? NA
  4. Did probes/intervention data include trained data? NA
  5. Was the data collection continuous? NA
  6. Were different treatment counterbalanced or randomized? Not Applicable

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  2. The outcomes were

OUTCOME #1: To increase the duration of vowel prolongations

OUTCOME #2: To increase the number of repetitions per seconds in a diadokokinesis (alternating motion) task

OUTCOME #3: To improve (decrease) severity ratings

OUTCOME #4: To improve (increase) intelligibility ratings

OUTCOME #5: To improve P’s self perception of his communication skills

  1. The outcomes that were subjective are

OUTCOME #3: To improve (decrease) severity ratings

OUTCOME #4: To improve (increase) intelligibility ratings

OUTCOME #5: To improve P’s self perception of his communication skills

  1. The outcomes that were objective are

OUTCOME #1: To increase the duration of vowel prolongations

OUTCOME #2: To increase the number of repetitions per seconds in a diadokokinesis (alternating motion) task

                                                                                                             

  1. The outcome measures with reliability data are

OUTCOME #3: To improve (decrease) severity ratings

OUTCOME #4: To improve (increase) intelligibility ratings

  • Combined reliability across 3 judges for OUTCOMES #3 and #4 was at least 92%.

 

 

  1. Results:
  2. Did the target behavior improve when it was treated? Inconsistent
  3. b. The outcomes overall quality of improvement for each of the Outcomes was

OUTCOME #1: To increase the duration of vowel prolongations—limited improvement but pretreatment data were within normal limits

OUTCOME #2: To increase the number of repetitions per seconds in a diadokokinesis (alternating motion) task—moderate—the number of repetitions improve slightly but productions were more regular with fewer distortions and substitutions

OUTCOME #3: To improve (decrease) severity ratings—moderate improvement. The P progressed from marked to severe impairment (pretreatment) to mild to moderate (post treatment)

OUTCOME #4: To improve (increase) intelligibility ratings—moderate improvement. P progressed from an overall intelligibility rating of 3.7 (pretreatment) to 5.3 (posttreatment) on a 7-point scale.

OUTCOME #5: To improve P’s self perception of his communication skills—ineffective. P’s perception of his communication skills decreased following intervention.

  1. Description of baseline:
  2. Were baseline data provided? No, the investigators only provided pretreatment data.

 

 

  1. What was the magnitude of the treatment effect? NA

 

 

  1. Was information about treatment fidelity adequate? Not Provided

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No but the investigators did note there was a maintenance phrase of treatment.

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? Yes. None of the outcomes were direct targets of intervention. Therefore, all of them could be considered generalization data. See item #8 for these results.

 

 

OVERALL RATING OF THE QUALITY OF SUPPORT FOR THE INTERVENTION: ____D _____

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of treatment combining LSVT and RFP in improving the speech of a P with ataxic dysarthria associated with a history of boxing.

POPULATION: Ataxic Dysarthria; Adult

 

MODALITY TARGETED: expression

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: rate, loudness

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION/SPEECH TARGETED: vowel prolongation, diadokokinesis, intelligibility, severity of speech impairment

 

OTHER TARGETS: self-perception of communication skills

DOSAGE: 25 session, 2 times a week, for 50 minutes

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • The intervention combined LSVT with components (GILCU, Gradual Increase of Length and Complexity of Utterances) of RFP.

LSVT:

– C instructs P to think loud and/or focus on producing a loud voice.

– C provides feedback to P about the effectiveness of attempts to speak loudly.

– C uses the following forms of feedback/reinforcement

  1. Incorrect responses = “Stop, speak loudly and clearly.”
  2. Correct responses (i.e., a loud and clear production) = “Good.”

GILCU of RFP:

– C orders speech targets to increase length and complexity in 3 contexts

  1. conversation
  2. reading
  3. monologue

 

  • There were 3 phases of treatment: establishment, transfer, and maintenance:

ESTABLISHMENT

– C presents targets in a specified order:

  1. each level increases in length/complexity from the previous level.
  2. to progress through a level, P must produce 10 correct responses for each step within the level
  3. within each level (e.g., one-word utterances, two-word utterances, etc.), the steps involve
  4. reading
  5. conversation
  6. monologue
  7. After reaching criterion, C adds time to the task, gradually increasing the reading, conversation, and monologue from 30 seconds to 5 minutes.
  8. The investigators provided an appendix with detailed instruction for this phase.
  9. Throughout the Establishment phase, C provides feedback regarding loudness and sound production.

TRANSFER

  1. At the beginning of the transfer phase, C provides feedback regarding loudness and sound production.
  2. P presents a 10-minute impromptu presentation at lunchtime at the treatment facility.
  3. C initiates interactions with other communicative partners within the treatment facility or the community, instructing P to speak as long as possible to the communicative partners.
  4. C also works to change the context from the therapy room to locations in the community.

MAINTENANCE

  1. C no longer provides feedback to P regarding the correctness of productions. Rather, P self monitors and describes his own speech production.
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: