Lacava et al. (2007)

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:

AS = Asperger syndrome

ASDS = Asperger Syndrome Diagnostic Scale

C = Clinician

CAM-C Faces = Cambridge Mindreading Face-Voice Battery for Children – Faces Subtest

CAM-C Voices = Cambridge Mindreading Face-Voice Battery for Children –Voices Subtest

C-FAT = Child Feature-Based Auditory Task (C-FAT)

EBP = evidence-based practice

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

RMF = Performance on the Reading the Mind in Films Test—Children’s Version

SLP = speech–language pathologist

WNL = within normal limits

 

 

SOURCE: Lacava, P., Golan, O., Baron-Cohen, S., & Myles, B. S. (2007). Using assistive technology to teach emotion recognition to students with Asperger syndrome: A pilot study. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 174-181.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: February 13, 2015

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C   (Highest possible grade was B-.)

 

TAKE AWAY: This pilot investigation compared the pre- and post-tests scores of a group of children with Asperger syndrome (AS.) The investigators determined that a self-administered computer based program (Mind Reading software) has potential for improving the recognition of prosodic affect.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  • What was the type of evidence? Prospective, Single Group with Pre- and Post-Testing

                                                                                                           

  • What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Level = B-

                                                                                                           

 

  1. Group membership determination:
  • If there was more than one group, were participants randomly assigned to groups? Not applicable (NA), there was only one group.
  • If there were groups and participants were not randomly assigned to groups, were members of groups carefully matched? NA
  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?
  • from participants? No
  • from clinicians? No
  • from analyzers? No

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? No

How many participants were involved in the study?

  • total # of participant:   8
  • # of groups: 1

 

The following variables controlled or described:                     

  • age: 8 -11 years
  • gender: 6m; 2f
  • diagnosis: all Ps diagnosed as having Asperger syndrome (AS); scores on the Asperger Syndrome Diagnostic Scale (ASDS) were interpreted as Possibly (1), Likely (2), or Very Likely (%.)
  • cognitive skills: not described but due to diagnosis can be assumed to be within normal limits (WNL)
  • educational status of clients: home schooled (5); private school for children with learning disabilities (2); public elementary school (1)

 

– Were the groups similar before intervention began? NA

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? No

  • disorder type: Not provided but all Ps had been diagnosed with AS.

 

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?
  • Did each of the group maintain at least 80% of its original members? Yes
  • Were data from outliers removed from the study? No

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? NA

 

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

OUTCOME #1: Improved performance on the Cambridge Mindreading Face-Voice Battery for Children –Faces Subtest   (CAM-C Faces )

OUTCOME #2: Cambridge Mindreading Face-Voice Battery for Children –Voices Subtest   (CAM-C Voices)

OUTCOME #3: Improved performance on the Child Feature-Based Auditory Task (C-FAT)

OUTCOME #4: Performance on the Reading the Mind in Films Test—Children’s Version (RMF)

OUTCOME #5: Parent and P perception of the social validity of the intervention

 

  • All outcome measures were subjective.

 

  • None of the outcome measures were objective.

 

                                         

  1. Were reliability measures provided?
  • Interobserver for analyzers? No
  • Intraobserver for analyzers? No
  • Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No, but the investigators did describe “Treatment Integrity” which tallied the hours P used the software and the portions of the software they accessed. (See Major Components section of the Summary for a description of the software.)

 

 

  1. What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing and/or descriptions of the results?

NOTE: Outcomes # 1 to #4 were subjected inferential testing; Outcome #5 was analyzed descriptively.

  • PRE VS POST TREATMENT

OUTCOME #1: Improved performance on the Cambridge Mindreading Face-Voice Battery for Children –Faces Subtest   (CAM-C Faces ) – post test scores were significantly higher than pre test scores

OUTCOME #2: Cambridge Mindreading Face-Voice Battery for Children –Voices Subtest   (CAM-C Voices) – post test scores were significantly higher than pre test scores

OUTCOME #3: Improved performance on the Child Feature-Based Auditory Task (C-FAT) – post test scores were significantly higher than pre test scores

OUTCOME #4: Performance on the Reading the Mind in Films Test—Children’s Version (RMF) – the investigators only administered RMF as a post test and compared P performances to the results of previous research. The Ps in this investigator did not differ significantly from previous research in which children with ASD who did and those who did not receive the intervention.

OUTCOME #5: Parent and P perception of the social validity of the intervention—Although the investigators reported that they administered pre and post measures to assess social validity, they did not compare the pre and post test scores. Rather they provided several insights or comments from parents or Ps reflection their evaluation of the intervention procedure. The reported results did not strongly support progress in recognizing affect.

  • What was the statistical test used to determine significance? Wilcoxan:

 

  • Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

                                   

  1. What is the clinical significance? NA, the investigators did not provide these data.

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No
  2. Were generalization data reported? Yes. Since the CAM-C faces, CAM-C voice, and C-FAT were not taught in the software program their associated outcomes could be considered evidence of generalization. However, the same speaker was used for C-FAT and the software program.

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: C

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To present pilot information about the effectiveness of a computer based strategy for teaching the comprehension of prosodic and facial affect

POPULATION: ASD

 

MODALITY TARGETED: Comprehension

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: Affective prosody

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: facial representations of affect

OTHER TARGETS: Perception of the intervention

DOSAGE: Ps had access to the software for 10 weeks, on the average use was about 1 hour per week.

 

ADMINISTRATOR: self-administered with supervision by parent or teacher

 

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • The intervention involved the use of a computer program (i.e., Mind Reading) designed to teach the comprehension of facial and prosodic affect in a systematic manner.
  • The Mind Reading software had 6 levels of difficulty and included the following:

– Emotions Library

– Learning Center

– Games Zone

  • The EMOTIONS LIBRARY contained illustrations of emotions in context using photographs, film clips, and audio recordings.
  • The LEARNING CENTER involved lessons, matching activities, and quizzes. The program imbedded rewards in the lessons and quizzes.
  • The GAME ZONE consisted of interactive games focusing on the recognition of emotions.
  • Ps were free to use all aspects of Mind Reading software with the restriction that only 33% of their time could be devoted to the GAME ZONE.
  • Interventions were self- administered by Ps in homes (5P) or the school (3P) under the supervision of a parent or teacher.
  • The investigators instructed parents/teachers regarding how to use the Mind Reading software for instruction, monitoring P’s usage, and data collection. Throughout the intervention the investigators contacted the parents/teachers to insure adherence to the protocol.
  • Intervention lasted for 10 weeks. Over that time, the average usage by Ps was 10.5 hours.
  • A more thorough description of the Mind Reading software can be found at

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2247465/

 

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: