Penner et al. (2001)

October 29, 2014

NATURE OF PROSODIC DISORDERS

ANALYSIS FORM

Key:

Fo = fundamental frequency

P = participant or patient

PD = Parkinson’s disease

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

TA = typical adult

 

SOURCE: Penner, H., Miller, N, Hertrich, I., Ackermann, H., & Schumms, F. (2001). Dysprosody in Parkinson’s disease: An investigation of intonation patterns. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 15, 551-566.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: October 25, 2014

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C+ (Based on the design, the highest possible grade was B+.)

 

POPULATION: Parkinson’s disease (PD); Adults

 

PURPOSE: To describe the interaction of accent patterns, accent timing, and medication on the peak height of fundamental frequency (Fo) in German speakers with Parkinson’s disease (PD).

 

INSIGHTS ABOUT PROSODY:

  • Compared to typical adults (TA), German speakers with PD tended to
  1. produce reduced Fo at the peak of the intonation contour and
  2. locate Fo peak on the targeted accented syllable more frequently. (This second factor is noted in the abstract but I could not find it in the results.)
  • Medication had variable effects on the Fo peaks of Ps with PD.

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  • Combined Design– Single Subject Design with Specific Participants: ABC design and Prospective, Nonrandomized Group Comparison Design
  1. Group membership determination:
  2. If there were groups of participants were members of groups matched? Yes
  3. The matching strategy involved the following:
  • The TA group was matched to PD group by age and status of being a native, monolingual speaker of German. The TA group had no history of neurological impairments and were hospitalized due to orthopedic issues.
  1. Was participants’ communication status concealed?
  2. from participants? No
  3. from assessment administrators? No
  4. from data analyzers? No

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups/participants adequately described? Yes
  2. How many participants were involved in the study?
  • total # of participants: 6
  • was group membership maintained throughout the experiment? Yes
  • # of groups: 2
  • List names of groups: Speakers with Parkinson’s disease (PD) and speakers with no known neurological problems—typical adults (TA)
  • # of participants in each group: PD = 3Ps; TA = 3Ps

           

  1. The following variables were actively controlled described
  • age: 72-74 years
  • gender: all Ps with PD were female
  • cognitive skills: all Ps with PD- no dementia
  • depression: none of Ps with PD had evidence of severe depression at time of investigation
  • language: all Ps were monolingual, native speakers of German
  • diagnosis: all Ps with PD had been diagnosed with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease
  • severity of PD: on the Hoehn & Yahr Scale—III to IV; on the Webster Scale –14 to 17
  • duration of PD: 9 to 14 years
  • neurological problems prior to the diagnosis of PD: none for all Ps with PD
  • medication: all Ps with PD received levodopa

 

  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? No
  • disorder type: dysarthria associated with PD

 

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?
  2. Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes: PD and TA
  3. Experimental Conditions? Yes
  • Accent patterns (4: Accent 1, Accent 2, Accent 3, Question rise)
  • Affect (2: ‘really angry’, neutral question/statement)
  • Medication level (2: Low, High)

    – Low medication = no medication and first 2 recording after receiving medications

– High medication = 3rd, 4th, and 5th recordings after receiving medications

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Unclear. For example, it is not clear if TA Ps were females and the groups produced an unequal number sentences.

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  2. The dependent measures were
  • Dependent Measure #1: Relative rise of Fo on accent 1 of declarative sentences
  • Dependent Measure #2: Relative rise of Fo on accent 2
  • Dependent Measure #3: Relative rise of Fo on accent 3
  • Dependent Measure #4: Relative rise of Fo on question rises
  • Dependent Measure #5: Distribution of accent pattern: peak, valley, fall, incomplete linking, linking
  • Dependent Measure #6: Percentage of middle timing in peaks and linking patterns for accent 1
  • Dependent Measure #7: Percentage of late timing in peaks and linking patterns for accent 1
  • Dependent Measure #8: Influence of medication on Fo peak
  1. The dependent measure that was subjective is
  • Dependent Measure #5: Distribution of accent pattern: peak, valley, fall, incomplete linking, linking

 

  1. The dependent measures that were objective are
  • Dependent Measure #1: Relative rise of Fo on accent 1 of declarative sentences
  • Dependent Measure #2: Relative rise of Fo on accent 2
  • Dependent Measure #3: Relative rise of Fo on accent 23
  • Dependent Measure #4: Relative rise of Fo on question rises
  • Dependent Measure #6: Percentage of middle timing in peaks and linking patterns for accent 1
  • Dependent Measure #7: Percentage of late timing in peaks and linking patterns for accent 1
  • Dependent Measure #8: Influence of medication on Fo peak

 

                                         

  1. Were reliability measures provided?
  2. Interobserver for analyzers? No
  3. Intraobserver for analyzers? No
  4. Treatment fidelity for investigators?

 

 

  1. Description of design:
  • PD and TA Ps produced similar sentences but there were different procedures for the 2 groups.
  • Both groups were recorded producing 12 difference sentences.

– The sentences were in German and each sentence had 3 accented words: accent 1, accent 2, accent 3.

– P were directed to produce the first 6 sentences as declaratives and then repeat the same 6 sentences as questions.

– P was then directed to produce the next 6 sentences as if he/she was “really angry.”

  • The PD group produced recording 5 times a day for 4 consecutive days. Sessions were separated by ½ hour.

– For 4 of the 5 days, PD Ps were administered their scheduled dose of levodopa.

– On a randomly assigned day each PD P did not receive levodopa.

– Low medication = no medication and first 2 recordings after receiving medications

– High medication = 3rd, 4th, and 5th recordings after receiving medications

– Overall, the PD Ps produced 360 sentences.

  • The TA Ps produced examples of the same sentences as the PD group but they only produced 90 sentences.
  • This investigation involved a variety of comparisons: some between group comparisons (descriptive comparisons between TA and PD), some within P comparisons (inferential statistical analysis comparing differ contexts of individual P performance), some descriptions of individual Ps.

 

  1. What were the results of the inferential statistical testing?
  2. Only comparisons that are significant are listed
  • Dependent Measure #8: Influence of medication on Fo peak

– P1 with PD = = with medication Fo of peak height was significantly higher than without medication for accent 1 (p = 0.01); with medication Fo of peak height was significantly (0.05) lower than without medication for accent 2

– P2 with PD = with medication Fo of peak height was significantly higher than without medication for accent 1 (p = 0.005) and for question rise (p = 0.0005)

  1. What was the statistical test used to determine significance? t-test: Satterthwaite adjustment (Only Dependent Measure #8 was tested with inferential statistics.)
  1. Were effect sizes provided? No
  1. Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. What were the results of the correlational statistical testing? Correlational statistics were not provided.

 

  1. What were the results of the descriptive analysis
  • Dependent Measure #1: Relative rise of Fo on accent 1

   – comparing Ps with PD and TA controls: Ps with PD tend to produce lower relative rises in F0

  • Dependent Measure #2: Relative rise of Fo on accent 2

   – comparing Ps with PD and TA controls: Ps with PD tend to produce lower relative rises in F0

 

  • Dependent Measure #3: Relative rise of Fo on accent 3

these data were not reported

 

  • Dependent Measure #4: Relative rise of Fo on question rises

   – comparing Ps with PD and TA controls: Overall, Ps with PD tend to produce lower relative rises in F0. However, P3 with PD did produce a higher mean than TA peers.

 

  • Dependent Measure #5: Distribution of accent pattern: peak, valley, fall, incomplete linking, linking

– The investigators did not identify overall patterns that differentiated Ps with PD and their TA peers.

 

  • Dependent Measure #6: Percentage of middle timing in peaks and linking patterns for accent 1

– The investigators defined middle timing as the timing of Fo peaks on the appropriate syllable.

–   P2 and P3 with PD preferred middle timing.

  • Dependent Measure #7: Percentage of late timing in peaks and linking patterns for accent 1

– The investigators defined late timing as the timing of Fo peaks on syllable following the appropriate syllable.

– P1 with PD preferred late timing.

 

Advertisements

Samuelsson et al. (2005)

October 29, 2014

NATURE OF PROSODIC DISORDERS

ANALYSIS FORM

 

KEY:

CCC = Children’s Communication Checklist

NA = not applicable

P = participant/patient

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

WNL = within normal limits

 

SOURCE: Samuelsson, C., Nettelbladt, U., & Löfqvist, A. (2005). On the relationship between prosody and pragmatic ability in Swedish children with language impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21, 279-304.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: October 15, 2014

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: D (The highest possible grade for this investigation was D+ because it involved case studies.)

POPULATION: Specific Language Impairment (Swedish), Prosodic problem (Swedish); Child

 

PURPOSE: To explore the relationship between prosody and pragmatics in Swedish children diagnosed with language impairment.

 

INSIGHTS ABOUT PROSODY:

  • There may not always be direct linkages between children’s performance on formal tests of prosody, acoustic measures of prosody, and perceptual measures of prosody.
  • The academic backgrounds of professionals who are analyzing prosody may affect their judgments.
  • Although neither participant (P) exhibited prosodic problems at the word or phrase level, both experienced trouble at the discourse level.
  • The investigators labeled the discourse level prosodic problems as ‘pervasive’ because they were observed in spontaneous speech at both assessments for each of the Ps. (Assessments were separated by 2 ½ to 3 years.)
  • Although both Ps overall performance on a measure of pragmatics was above cut off for problems, the Ps clearly did have some pragmatic problems.
  • The investigators suggest that in these Ps the prosodic problems noted by the analyzers/judges (i.e., researchers in logopedics and phoneticians) were secondary to pragmatic problems.
  • The aspects of prosody that was a challenge for one or both of the Ps

– intonation

– intonation –terminal contour

– stress

– loudness

– monotony

  • The results of formal testing of prosody at the word and phrase level were not consistent with the results of perceptual ratings of spontaneous samples.

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified? Case Study
  1. Group membership determination:
  2. If there were groups of participants were members of groups matched? Not applicable (NA)

 

  1. Was the participants’ communication status concealed?
  2. from participants? No
  3. from assessment administrators? No
  4. from data analyzers? No

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the participants adequately described? Yes
  2. How many participants were involved in the study?
  • total # of participants: 2
  • was group membership maintained throughout the experiment? NA, this was a case study
  • # of groups: NA
  • List names of groups: NA
  • # of participants in each group: NA

                                                                                

  1. The following variables were described:
  • age: P1 = 6-6 and 9-0; P2 = 6-1 and 9-9 (There were 2 data collection points 2 ½ to 3+ years apart.)
  • gender: P1 = f; P2 = m
  • pre-, peri-, post-natal history: both Ps within normal limits (WNL)
  • hearing during early childhood: WNL for both Ps
  • familial history of language impairment: none for both Ps
  • early milestones: WNL for both Ps
  • motor skills: mild problem (P1)
  • perception skills: mild problem (P1)
  • attention/concentration skills: mild problem (P1)
  • pre investigation language skills:

– P1 @ 6-6: WNL phonology, grammar, oral motor; slightly below age level-language comprehension

– P1 @ 9-0: WNL language comprehension; time delay in answering questions (conversation, standardized testing) and some intelligibility problems (peer and teacher report)

– P2 @ 6-1: WNL language comprehension, oral motor skills, grammar; severe impairment in phonology

– P2 @ 9-9: very mild phonological problem, ½ hours of speech-language therapy per week

  • educational level of clients: attends mainstream school with 4 hours per day of special education small group instruction (P1); attends mainstream school but repeated Grade1 (P2), receives ½ hour of speech therapy a week

 

  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes
  • disorder type: (Prosodic impairment at the discourse level
  • other (list): see item #4b

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?
  2. Subject (Classification) Groups? No
  3. Experimental Conditions? No
  4. Criterion/Descriptive Conditions?Yes
  • The investigators measured and classified P’s

– pragmatic abilities and

– prosodic abilities

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Not Applicable

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  2. Dependent measures:
  • Dependent Measure #1: To describe pragmatic ability using the Swedish version of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC)
  • Dependent Measure #2: To describe prosody using an instrument measuring prosody at the word, phrase and discourse level
  • Dependent Measure #3: To describe prosody problems using acoustic analyses
  • Dependent Measure #4: To describe prosody and pragmatic problems perceptually
  1. Dependent measures that are subjective:
  • Dependent Measure #1: To describe pragmatic ability using the Swedish version of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC)
  • Dependent Measure #2: To describe prosody using a test measuring prosody at the word, phrase and discourse level
  • Dependent Measure #4: To describe prosody and pragmatic problems perceptually

 

  1. The dependent/ outcome measure that is objective:
  • Dependent Measure #3: To describe prosody problems using acoustic analyses

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

 

  1. Interobserver for analyzers? Yes
  • Dependent Measure #1: To describe pragmatic ability using the Swedish version of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC)

   – P1: no statistical analysis but raw data for parent and teacher ratings are provided

– P2: no statistical analysis but raw data for parent and teacher ratings are provided

  • Dependent Measure #4: To describe prosody and pragmatic problems perceptually

     – P1: correlation (Cronbach’s alpha) between logopedic and phonetician ratings of prosody was 0.34 (not significant)

– P2: correlation (Cronbach’s alpha) between logopedic and phonetician ratings of prosody was 0.95 (significant)

 

  1. Intraobserver for analyzers? No _

 

  1. Treatment fidelity for investigators? Not Applicable
  1. Description of design:
  • This investigation involved 2 case studies.
  • The investigators administered the measures when the Ps were about 6 years of age and 9 years of age.
  • The measures included:

– The Swedish version of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC). The evaluators were the parents and teachers. It is not clear when CCC was administered to P1; it was administered at 9-9 for P2.

– A formal prosodic assessment measuring prosody at the word, phrase, and discourse levels. Testing procedures involve answering questions, completing sentences, imitating modeled target, narrating, and conversing.

– Judges rated portions of the narrating and conversing on 20 speech production variables, most of which were prosodic in nature. The judges were 5 researchers in logopedics (5) and phoneticians (7).

– The judges also made comments on each examiner’s ability adapt his/her prosody to the P.

– The timing of the judgments was not clear,

– Acoustic analyses of parameters judged to be of perceptual concern were undertaken. Timing of the analyses wass not clear.

 

  1. What were the results of the inferential statistical testing? NA

 

  1. What were the results of the correlational statistical testing? NA
  1. What were the results of the descriptive analysis
  • Dependent Measure #1: To describe pragmatic ability using the Swedish version of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC)

– P1: The parents rated P as having language/communication problems as well as having problems with initiation and coherence.

– P2: Overall, P2’s parents and teachers rated his language/communication and pragmatics as WNL. However, 2 subtests (stereotyped conversation, and use of context) were below the cut-off score.

  • Dependent Measure #2: To describe prosody using a testing instrument measuring prosody at the word, phrase and discourse level

– P1 @ 6-6: Overall, she did well.

– P1 @ 9-0: Overall, she did well.

– P2 @ 6-0: Overall he did well, he only had trouble with the following subtests:

  • tonal word accents
  • verbal particle versus prepositional phrase
  • discourse level prosody

– P2 @ 9-9: He only had trouble with discourse level prosody.

  • Dependent Measure #3: To describe prosody problems using acoustic analyses

– P1: She exhibited excessive vocal fry (see below) which precluded additional measurement.

– P2: Acoustic analysis verified atypical stereotyped prosodic exaggerations at the ends of phrases.

  • Dependent Measure #4: To describe prosody and pragmatic problems perceptually

– P1: She had trouble with the following parameters:

  • vocal fry
  • monotony
  • stereotyped intonation patterns
  • investigators also performed a maze analysis and found P1 produced an excessive number of mazes.

– P2: He had trouble with the following parameters:

  • loudness variation
  • stress pattern
  • stereotyped intonation patterns (including terminal contour/turn-endings)
  • “childishness”
  • “dialectical specificity”
  • investigators described his speech as “precocious.”

Kjelgaard & Tager-Flusberg (2013)

October 19, 2014

ANALYSIS

Prosodic Impairment Research Groups

 

Key:

ASD = autism spectrum disorders

C = Clinician

CA = chronological age

EBP = evidence-based practice

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SD = standard deviation

SLP = speech–language pathologist

SLI = speech-language impairment

 

SOURCE: Kjelgaard, M. M., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2013). The perception of the relationship between affective prosody and the emotional content in utterances in children with autism spectrum disorders. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 20, 20-32. doi:10.1044/lle20.1.20

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: October 14, 2014

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: B- (Highest possible grade is

B+ due to the design of the investigation.)

 

POPULATION: Autism spectrum disorders (ASD); Child

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the ability of children with ASD to perceive happy and sad emotions using prosody

 

INSIGHTS ABOUT PROSODY:

  • Although children with ASD (mean IQ about 84, mean age 9-6) can attend to emotional prosody in comprehension task, they do experience difficulty.
  • The Ps with ASD have trouble when there is a mismatch between prosody and semantic content.
  • When there is a mismatch between prosody and words, Ps with ASD are more likely to attend to the words.
  • Overall, the investigators indicated that Ps with ASD had difficultly identifying (in a comprehension task) the emotional state of the speaker using prosody alone.
  • The investigators state that “there is a disconnect between the implicit processing of emotional prosody and the explicit labeling of the emotion in prosody” (p. 20).

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified? Prospective, Nonrandomized Group Comparison Design
  1. Group membership determination:
  2. If there were groups of participants, were members of groups matched? Yes
  3. The matching strategy involved
  • Participants (Ps) in the specific language impairment (SLI) and ASD groups were not significantly different with respect to chronological age (CA), overall IQ, verbal IQ, nonverbal IQ.
  • There were 2 other groups: young adults (YA) and typically developing (TD) children. Neither of these 2 groups were matched to each other or the SLI and ASD groups.
  1. Was participants’ communication status concealed?
  2. from participants? No
  3. from assessment administrators? No
  4. from data analyzers? No

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups/participants adequately described? Yes
  2. How many participants were involved in the study?
  • total # of participants: 102
  • was group membership maintained throughout the experiment? Yes
  • # of groups: 4
  • List names of groups:

     – ASD = children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders

– SLT = children diagnosed with specific language impairment (>1 SD on formal test of language competence)

– TD = typically developing children

– YA = young adults associated with the lab and their colleagues

  • # of participants in each group:

     – ASD = 23

– SLI = 21

– TD = 35

– YA = 23

 

  1. The following variables were described
  • age:

     – ASD = mean age 9-6

– SLT = mean age 9-6

– TD = mean age 8-6

– YA = not provided

  • cognitive skills:

     – ASD = mean overall IQ 84.3, mean nonverbal IQ 87.7, mean verbal IQ 83

– SLT = mean overall IQ 97.2, mean nonverbal IQ 92.8, mean verbal IQ 88.5

– TD = not provided

– YA = not provided

  • expressive language: SLI group was <1 SD below the mean on a formal test of language

 

  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? No
  • disorder type: SLI, ASD; Child

 

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?
  2. Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes
  • ASD
  • SLI
  • TD
  • YA
  1. Experimental Conditions? Yes
  • affective prosody (happy, sad prosody)
  • semantic content (happy, sad sentence content)
  1. Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? No

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  2. List dependent measures:
  • Dependent Measure #1: Response time to a 2-picture forced choice comprehension task  
  • Dependent Measure #2: Percentage of errors to a 2-picture forced choice comprehension task  
  1. Neither of the dependent measures are subjective.

 

  1. Both the dependent/ outcome measures are objective.

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?
  2. Interobserver for analyzers? No
  3. Intraobserver for analyzers? No
  4. Treatment fidelity for investigators? No

 

 

  1. Description of design of study:
  • Investigators presented prerecorded audio recordings to Ps who were expected to point to the picture (of 2 pictures) that best represented the sentence.
  • The stimuli had been constructed to represented sentence with

– matching emotional prosodic and semantic content or

– mismatching emotional prosodic and semantic content.

  • The 3 emotional states were: happy, sad, and neutral.
  • The investigators insured that the semantic and prosodic content reflected the targets emotions using judges and for the prosodic content they also included acoustic analyses.
  • When the mismatch occurred Ps were instructed to attend to either the emotional or the prosodic content.
  • Due to matching strategies the investigators only undertook selected comparisons of the P groups: YA versus TD and SLI versus ASD.

 

 a.  What were the results of the inferential statistical testing?

The following comparisons were significant ( p ≤ 0.05):

  • Dependent Measure #1: Response time to a 2-picture forced choice comprehension task  

   – YA versus TD:

  • group main effect: TD significantly slower than YA
  • prosody x semantic interaction: both YA and TD were significantly slower for mismatches between emotional semantic and emotional prosodic content compared to matches between semantic and prosodic representations of emotions.

– SLI versus ASD:

  • prosody x semantic interaction: both SLI and ASD were significantly slower for mismatches between emotional semantic and emotional prosodic content compared to matches between semantic and prosodic representations of emotions.

 

  • Dependent Measure #2: Percentage of errors to a 2-picture forced choice comprehension task  

   – YA versus TD:

  • for the ignoring the voice (prosodic content) task group main effect: Overall both groups did very well judging the emotional semantic content.
  • for the ignoring the words (semantic content) task, there were several significant findings:
  1. YA were more accurate than TD
  2. TD had more trouble in mismatched semantic and prosodic contexts,
  3. TD had more trouble with the neutral conditions.

– SLI versus ASD:

  • for ignoring the voice/prosody task–prosody x semantic interaction and prosody x semantic x diagnosis interaction: Ps with ASD did better in matching (emotional semantic and prosodic) contexts than in mismatching contexts but Ps with SLI did not exhibit this pattern.
  • for ignoring the words/semantics task: there were several significant findings
  1. Ps with ASD had trouble ignoring the prosody. That is, they interpreted the words of the utterance to identify emotional content even when they were directed to attend to the prosody only.
  2. Ps with ASD they did better in matching than in neutral or mismatching contexts.
  3. Ps with ASD did not have similar problems.
  4. Overall, Ps with SLI did significantly better (i.e., fewer errors) than Ps with ASD.

b.  The statistical test used to determine significance was ANOVA

c.   Were effect sizes provided? No

d.  Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

 


Seybold (1971)

October 6, 2014

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Treatment Groups

 

Note: Scroll about two-thirds of the way down the page to read the summary of the procedure(s).

 

Key:

C = Clinician

EBP = evidence-based practice

NA = not applicable

MT = music therapist/therapy

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

ST = speech therapy

 

SOURCE: Seybold, C. D. (1971). The value and use of music activities in the treatment of speech delayed children. Journal of Music Therapy, 8, 102-110.

 

REVIEWER(S):  pmh

 

DATE: October 5, 2014

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: D (Due to the design of the investigation, the highest possible overall quality grade for this investigation was C-.)

 

TAKE AWAY: Although there were problems with the data, some of which was not the investigator’s fault (see the review), both groups [traditional speech therapy (ST) and music therapy (MT)] performed similarly. Additionally, the investigator provides a clear description of music activities designed to facilitate spontaneous communication in preschoolers diagnosed as speech delayed.

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  2. What was the type of evidence? Prospective Randomized Group Design with Post-testing
  3. What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Level = C. We do not have a listing for this design because it is unusual. (The investigator lost the pretests due to thief.)

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:
  2. If there were groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? Yes
  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?

                                                                                                           

  1. from participants? No
  2. from clinicians? No
  3. from analyzers? No

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? No
  2. How many participants were involved in the study?
  • total # of participant: 8
  • # of groups: 2
  • # of participants in each group: 4, 4
  • List names of groups: Music Therapy (MT) group (n =4); ; Speech Therapy (ST) group (n = 4)

 

  1. The following variables were described
  • age: mean age MT group = 5-2; mean age ST group = 5-1
  • gender: all make
  • educational level of clients: all preschoolers

 

  1. Were the groups similar before intervention began? Unclear

                                                         

  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? No _x__    
  • disorder type: all participants (P) were diagnosed as speech delayed but this was not defined
  • other:

     – all Ps were currently in therapy at a Midwest US university clinic

– all Ps were considered to have functional (i.e., nonorganic) impairments

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?
  2. Did each of the groups maintain at least 80% of their original members? Yes
  3. Were data from outliers removed from the study

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? No
  2. Was there a no intervention group? No
  3. Was there a foil intervention group? No
  4. Was there a comparison group? Yes
  5. Was the time involved in the foil/comparison and the target groups constant? Yes

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Unclear
  2. List outcome:
  • OUTCOME #1: Performance on the Houston Test of Language Development
  1. The outcome measures is subjective:

 

  1. The outcome measures is not objective?

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?
  2. Interobserver for analyzers? No
  3. Intraobserver for analyzers?   No
  4. Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No

 

  1. What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing?
  2. TREATMENT VERSUS COMPARISON GROUP
  • OUTCOME #1: Performance on the Houston Test of Language Development
  • significance level = 0.10
  • MT improved more than the ST group
  1. What statistical test was used to determine significance? Mann-Whitney U

 

  1. Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

                                   

  1. What is the clinical significance? NA

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:  D

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of music activities in improving the expressive language of preschool children diagnosed as speech delayed

POPULATION: Speech Delay; Children (preschool)

 

MODALITY TARGETED: expression

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED (do not list the specific dependent variables here):

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: rhythm, intonation, stress (music activities)

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: performance on a standardized test of language development

DOSAGE: individual sessions, 50 minute sessions, 2 times a week, 8 weeks

 

ADMINISTRATOR: male music therapist MT for MT group; female speech-language pathologist (SLP) for ST group.

 

STIMULI: auditory, visual, gestural/motoric

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

  • There were 2 interventions: MT and ST. The MT intervention involved administering the same procedures to all the MT Ps. The ST intervention involved the administration of different procedures for the ST Ps. The procedures listed in the ST section are the one that are common to all ST Ps.

MT INTERVENTION

  • Each activity began with a music activity. When the P produced the musical target, the clinician (C) presented a nonmusical activity.
  • The following schedule represents a typical session:
  1. C and P sang a “Good Morning” song (tune = “Happy Birthday.”)
  1. C and P sang “The Alphabet” song accompanied by musical instruments (e.g., piano, autoharp). Following a musical response, C encouraged P to talk about letters of the alphabet while playing with lettered blocks or while copying letters on the chalkboard.
  1. C and P sang “Old MacDonald” or the “Farmer in the Dell.” Then P played with toy animals, colored pictures of animals, or looked at pictures of animals while C stimulated conversation.
  1. C and P engaged in a game entitled the “Bumblebee” while playing kazoos or similar instruments. When P created a buzzing sound with the kazoo and then touched one of C’s body parts with the kazoo, C named the body part. C and P then reversed roles. C and P also sang and acted out “If You are Happy and You Know It, Clap Your Hands”
  1. C and P sang the song the “Wheels on the Bus Go Round and Round” to teach a variety of concepts (e.g., “open” and “close”, colors, “in” and “out”). Once P completed the singing and acting out of the song with C, she/he was encouraged say and act out the action words.
  1. C and P sang narrative songs such as “Little Rabbit Foo Foo” or “Down by the Station” to introduce imagination, language concepts, and singular/plural distinctions. C played sound effects and encouraged P to play “tone clusters” and glissandos.
  1. C and P sang narrative songs such as “Little Rabbit Foo Foo” or “Down by the Station” to teach numbers. Following the song, C introduced activities that encouraged play and spontaneous language.
  1. C allowed P 5 to 10 minutes per session to play with an instrument and musical activity (marching, jumping, singing, etc.) of choice.
  1. C and P sang a “Goodbye” song (tune = “Frere Jacques.”)

ST INTERVENTION

  1. C modeled sentences based on P’s functional level of communication for P to imitate. Then P was required to use the target sentence in a noncompetitive, nonturn taking (e.g., “Cootie”) activity in order to obtain an item.
  1. C and P participated in a competitive, turn taking activity in which turns were earned by making requests with a targeted language structure.
  1. C asked P to identify colors, clothing, and body parts during games.
  1. C introduced action pictures representing letters of the alphabet (e.g., a boy blowing bubbles represented “buh”.) C said “buh” and P (or perhaps C, it is not clear) produced a corresponding word and progressed to producing the word in a phrase/sentence.
  1. C stimulated spontaneous speech during games. The targets could be producing speech about colors, body parts, “basic language concepts” or encouraging the use of the imagination.