Kerem (2009)

 

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS for

Single Subject Designs

 

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

 

Key:

C = Clinician

CI = cochlear implant

EBP = evidence-based practice

GLMM = Generalized Linear Mixed Model

HI = hearing impairment

NA = not applicable

MT = music therapy

P = Patient or Participant

PC = play condition

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

WNL = within normal limits

 

 

SOURCE: Kerem, D. (2009). The effect of music therapy on spontaneous communicative interactions of young children with cochlear implants (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Aalborg University, Denmark.

http://www.shablulim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/דוקטורט-של-דקלה-כרם.pdf

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: July 31, 2015

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE: B+

 

TAKE AWAY: Young Hebrew speaking children with cochlear implants (CI) produced significantly more early communicative behaviors (turn taking, imitation, initiation, synchronization) in music therapy as opposed to play sessions.

1. What type of research? Clinical Research

                                                                                                           

 

2. What type of evidence was identified?

–  What type of single subject design was used? Single Subject Experimental Design with Specific Clients – ABAB –crossover design: multiple cases

 

                                                                                                           

– What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence?

Level = __A-____                                          

                                                                                                           

 

3. Was phase of treatment concealed?

– from participants? No

– from clinicians? No

– from data analyzers? No but some of the reliability judgments were made by observers who were not privy to the intent of the investigation.

 

4. Were the participants clearly described? Yes

– How many participants were involved in the study?

 

– CONTROLLED characteristics/variables

• age: between 2 and 3 years
• disabilities: other than hearing impairment (HI) no know disabilities
• speech awareness threshold: no poorer than 40 dB while using the cochlear implant (CI)
• parents’ hearing: within normal limits (WNL)
• parents’ facility with Hebrew: Working knowledge
• parents’ cognitive skills: WNL
• parents’ psychological skills: none

– DESCRIBED characteristics/variables

• age at onset of investigation: 24- 36 months
• age at implantation: 16- 31 months
• implant manufacturer: Cochlear (4); Advanced Bionics (1)
• implant: Nucleus 24 (3); Freedom Contour (1); HiRes 90k (1)
• speech processor: Sprint (2); Freedom (2); Platinum (1)
• gender: 1m; 4f
• educational placement: Kindergarten for children with HI (3); Kindergarten for children with normal hearing (2); all participants (Ps) attended 6 days a week
• current speech therapy: 2 sessions a week individual therapy (2); 3 sessions a week individual therapy (1); combined individual, 7 times a week, and group, 3 times a week (2); one half hour session per week with a speech-language pathologist (2)
• age at diagnosis of HI:   At birth (2); 6 months (1); 7 months (1); during first year (1)
• etiology of HI: Genetic (2); Unknown (2); Congenital Cytomegalovirus (1)
• occupation of parent: stay at home mother (2); Yeshiva teacher (1); Kindergarten teacher assistant (1); Yeshiva student (2); Logistics manager (1); not provided (2)
• educational level of parents: 11 years (1); 12 years (2); 14 years (1); not provided (6)
• age of parent at beginning of research: 40 years (1); 28 years (1); 25 years (1); 28 years (1); not provided (6)

– Were the communication problems adequately described? No. Since the intervention targeted spontaneous communication interactions it can be assumed that the Ps were low verbal or even nonverbal.

 

 

5. Was membership in treatment maintained throughout the study? No. One of the five participants withdrew the intervention after 11 weeks. Her data were included in the results.

 

– If there was more than one participant, did at least 80% of the participants remain in the study? Yes

 

– Were any data removed from the study? No

Explain:

 

 

6. Did the design include appropriate controls? Yes

 

– Were baseline/preintervention data collected on all behaviors? No

– Did probes/intervention data include untrained data? No

– Did probes/intervention data include trained data? No

– Was the data collection continuous? No

– Were different treatment counterbalanced or randomized? Yes, it was randomized

7. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

– The outcomes related to communication were

OUTCOME #1: Frequency of imitation

OUTCOME #2: Frequency of initiation

OUTCOME #3: Frequency of spontaneous synchronization

OUTCOME #4: Frequency of spontaneous turn taking

OUTCOME #5: Duration of spontaneous synchronization

OUTCOME #6: Duration of spontaneous turn taking

OUTCOME #7: Number of events of spontaneous turn-taking

– All the outcomes were subjective.

– None of the outcomes were objective.

 

– All the outcome measures are associated with reliability data:

OUTCOME #1: Frequency of imitation: 0.99

OUTCOME #2: Frequency of initiation: 0.94

OUTCOME #3: Frequency of spontaneous synchronization: 0.93

OUTCOME #4: Frequency of spontaneous turn taking: 0.96

OUTCOME #5: Duration of spontaneous synchronization: 0.76

OUTCOME #6: Duration of spontaneous turn taking: 0.91

OUTCOME #7: Number of events of spontaneous turn-taking: 0.91

 

8. Results:

– Did the target behavior improve when it was treated? Yes

– The quality of improvement for each of the outcomes was

OUTCOME #1: Frequency of imitation: Strong

OUTCOME #2: Frequency of initiation: Strong

OUTCOME #3: Frequency of spontaneous synchronization: Strong

OUTCOME #4: Frequency of spontaneous turn taking: Moderate

OUTCOME #5: Duration of spontaneous synchronization: Strong

OUTCOME #6: Duration of spontaneous turn taking: Strong

OUTCOME #7: Number of events of spontaneous turn-taking: Strong

– INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

 

• What statistical analyses were used? ANOVA; Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM)

• The results of inferential statistical analysis with significance of p ≤ 0.05:

OUTCOME #1: Frequency of imitation: Significantly more in Music therapy (MT) than in play condition (PC.)

OUTCOME #2: Frequency of initiation: Significantly more in MT than PC.

OUTCOME #3: Frequency of spontaneous synchronization: Significantly more in MT than in PC.

OUTCOME #4: Frequency of spontaneous turn taking: Significantly more in MT than in PC as well as significantly more in the undirected portions of MT and PC

OUTCOME #5: Duration of spontaneous synchronization: Significantly longer in MT than in PC and in undirected part of the sessions compared to the directed part of the sessions.

OUTCOME #6: Duration of spontaneous turn-taking: Significantly more in MT than in PC as well as significantly more in the undirected portions of MT and PC

OUTCOME #7: Number of events of spontaneous turn-taking: Significantly more in MT than in PC and significantly more in undirected compared to directed part of the intervention.

 

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

 

• What analysis strategy was used? Boxplot/box-whisker diagram

• The results of descriptive analysis reveal

OUTCOME #1: Frequency of imitation: much greater incidence in MT

 

OUTCOME #2: Frequency of initiation: much greater incidence in MT

 

OUTCOME #3: Frequency of spontaneous synchronization: markedly greater incidence in MT

 

OUTCOME #4: Frequency of spontaneous turn taking: noticeably more in MT than in PC and much greater incidence in undirected portions of interventions

 

OUTCOME #5: Duration of spontaneous synchronization: markedly longer MT than in PC and in undirected portions as opposed to directed portions of interventions

OUTCOME #6: Duration of spontaneous turn-taking: much greater in MT than in PC as well as in undirected portions of both interventions.

OUTCOME #7: Number of events of spontaneous turn-taking: much greater incidence in MT

 

9. Description of baseline:

 

– Were baseline data provided? No

                                               

– What was the percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND)? Individual data points were not provided

 

 

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

 

 

11. Was information about treatment fidelity adequate? Yes. Overall adherence to targeted protocol guidelines was 0.89 (Cohen’s Kappa) which is considered outstanding (p. 143.)

 

 

12. Were maintenance data reported?

 

 

13. Were generalization data reported? No

 

 

14. Brief description of the design:

• The investigators use a mixed qualitative and quantitative design.
• The overall study design was a within-subject (repeated measure) design in which 5 Ps were treated with a single case design (ABAB.) Each A represented a set of 4 PC sessions and each B represented a set of 4 MT sessions.
• Ps were randomly assigned to different orders of the A (PC) and B (MT) sessions. Two Ps were assigned to the ABAB order and 3 Ps were assigned to the BABA order.
• Although the data for 5 Ps were analyzed, one of the Ps dropped out of the investigation after 11 sessions.
• There were 2 treatment conditions: PC and MT. Each of the conditions was divided into 2 parts: directed and undirected procedures.
• Thus, this was a 2×2 (treatment conditions x procedure type) with repeated measures.
• The results were analyzed using parametric statistics (ANOVA; Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) and quantitative analysis (Boxplot/box-whisker diagram).

 

 

OVERALL RATING OF THE QUALITY OF SUPPORT FOR THE INTERVENTION: B+

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of music therapy on early communication skills of 2 to 3 year olds with cochlear implants.

POPULATION: Cochlear implants; Children

 

MODALITY TARGETED: production

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION music therapy (rhythm, tempo/timing, duration, accent/stress, dynamics/loudness, intonation, pause)

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: turn-taking, imitation, initiation, communicative synchronization

 

OTHER TARGETS: The following behaviors were analyzed in the investigation but they are not reported in this review: responsiveness to music, parental responses to a questionnaire, parental satisfaction, parental responses to interviews

DOSAGE: 20 minute sessions; one time week; each set lasted 4 weeks for a total of 16 weeks. Each session was divided into two 10-minute parts: directed/Music Therapist led and undirected/unstructured or child led.

 

ADMINISTRATOR: Music Therapist

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

• There were 2 treatment conditions: PC and MT.
• Each session was divided into 2 parts: undirected and directed. For the most part, the order of the 2 parts of a session was randomized (i. e., the first session of each set started with a directed part.)
• The similar items were used in the 2 treatment conditions.
• For the most part, mothers were in attendance during intervention sessions.
• Appendix A of the dissertation contains specific treatment guidelines. The information listed below is a brief summary of each of the interventions and their (2) parts.

PLAY CONDITION (PC)

• Sessions began with a ritual verbal beginning and ended with a ritual verbal ending.

Directed PC

• The Clinician (C, was also a Music Therapist in this and the other sessions) guided P through a number of play activities.
• C facilitated P’s achieving mastery of targeted play activities.
• C facilitated the play behaviors by engaging P using surprise and enjoyable activities.
• The targeted play activities included

– Inset puzzles

– Doll play

– Preparation of a meal

– Duplo block play

Undirected PC

• C followed P’s led in play activities.
• C supported P’s play activities by being responsive, turn-taking, imitating, and matching C’s behaviors and vocalizations.
• The activities could include those listed in the Directed PC if initiated by P.

MUSIC THERAPY (MT)

• Sessions began with a ritual sung beginning and ended with a ritual sung ending.

Directed MT

• C lead musical experiences for P by targeting specific activities/tasks and facilitating P’s achievement of the tasks.
• The target musical activities/tasks included

– Vocal rhythm games

– Percussion instrument playing

– Recorded music listening

 

Undirected MT

• C followed P’s lead in exploring musical instruments and vocalization.
• C facilitated P’s exploration using turn-taking, imitation, and matching.
• The activities/tasks could include those in Direct MT

Advertisement

Diehl & Paul (2013)

NATURE OF PROSODIC DISORDERS

ANALYSIS FORM

 

Key:

 

ASD = Autism spectrum disorders

CA = chronological age

LD = Learning disability

NA = not applicable

P = participant(s)

PEPS-C = Profiling Elements of Prosodic Systems in Children

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SD = standard deviation

SS = Standard Score

TD = typically developing

 

 

SOURCE: Diehl, J. J., & Paul, R. (2013). Acoustic and perceptual measurements of prosody production on the Profiling Elements of Prosodic Systems in Children by children with autism spectrum disorders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 135-161.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: July 11, 2015

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: B+ (The highest possible grade, based on the design of the investigation, was B+.)

 

POPULATION: Autism spectrum disorders (ASD); Learning disability (LD)

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the prosody production (and to a lesser extent comprehension) of children with ASD, children with LD, and typically developing (TD) children using acoustic and perceptual measures of prosody.

 

INSIGHTS ABOUT PROSODY:

• Comparisons of participant (P) groups on the subtests of the Profiling Elements of Prosodic Systems in Children (PEPS-C) revealed that the Ps with ASD and LD struggled with prosodic comprehension of affect, turn ends/terminal contour, and focus/stress but not chunking/phrasing. In addition, Ps with LD struggled with the production of accurate chunking/phrasing. The specific results are listed below:

– For the comprehension of affect subtest, the TD Ps performed significantly better than Ps with ASD or LD.

– For the production of affect subtest, the scores did not differ significantly for the 3 groups (ASD, LD, TD.)

– For the comprehension of turn ends/terminal contour subtest, TD Ps performed significantly better than Ps with ASD or LD.

– For the production of turn ends/terminal contour subtest, the scores did not differ significantly for the 3 groups.

– For the comprehension of chunking/phrasing subtest, the scores did not differ significantly for the 3 groups.

– For the production of chunking/phrasing subtest, the Ps with LD performed significantly more poorly than the Ps with ASD and the TD peers.

– For the comprehension of focus/stress subtest, the TD Ps performed significantly better than Ps with ASD or LD.

– For the production of focus/stress subtest, the scores did not differ significantly for the 3 groups (ASD, LD, TD.)

• The prosodic productions of the Ps also were measured acoustically.

– As a group, the Ps with ASD displayed significant differences from the TD on the following:

• longer duration of utterances for affect (conveying dislike) and turn-end/terminal contour tasks.
• louder intensity for stress/focus task.
• wider average f0 range for focus/stress task
• larger SD of f0 during focus/stress task

• On several expressive prosodic tasks, the Ps with LD produced prosody that differed significantly from the TD peers:
• lower average f0 for turn ends/terminal contour, chunking/phrasing, and focus/stress tasks.
• longer duration for turn-end/terminal contour

• Because the intent of Ps and ASD were regularly interpreted by judges as correct, the findings may be interpreted as indicating that most Ps with ASD or LD can convey meaning using prosody. However, at times their productions are atypical.

 

 

1. What type of evidence was identified? Prospective, Nonrandomized Group Comparison Design

2. Group membership determination:

 

• If there were groups of participants were members of groups matched? Yes

                                                                    

• The matching strategy involved

– The TD group and ASD and LD groups were matched on chronological age (CA).

–  The participants (Ps) with LD and ASD were matched on CA, nonverbal IQ, CELF-4 core, and receptive language scores,

3. Was participants’ communication status concealed?

• from participants? No
• from assessment administrators? No
• from data analyzers? Unclear

                                                                    

 

4. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

– How many participants were involved in the study?

• total # of participants: 62
• was group membership maintained throughout the experiment? Yes
• # of groups: 3
• List names of groups:

– TD (Typically developing)

– LD (Learning disability)

– ASD (Autism spectrum disorder)

• # of participants in each group:

– TD = 22

– LD = 16

– ASD = 24

 

– The following variables were CONTROLLED

 

• neurological status: neurological problems excluded
• vision: visual loss excluded, if uncorrected
• hearing: hearing loss excluded
• diagnosis:

– All ASD Ps had been diagnosed with ASD (autism, Asperger’s syndrome, or PPD-NOS);

     – All LD Ps showed no sign of ASD and there were no reports of first degree family members with ASD;

     – For the TD group, the parents reported typical development; there were no reports of first degree family members with ASD or no previous diagnoses of development disability; and TD Ps were in the appropriate grade in school

– The following variables were DESCRIBED

• age: mean age ASD group = 12.31; mean age LD group = 12.99; mean age TD group = 12.21
• gender: ASD = 16m, 8f; LD = 12m, 4f; TD = 15m, 7f
• nonverbal IQ: ASD = 103.61; LD = 96.85 (difference was not significant); TD—not reported
• core language on CELF-4: ASD = 97.21; LD = 88.94: TD—not reported
• expressive language on CELF-4: ASD = 100.54; LD = 90.00 (difference was significant); TD not reported
• receptive language: ASD = 93.67; LD = 88.73; (difference was significant); TD not reported
• learning disability: based on parent report of the LD group—5 Ps with reading disability, 11 Ps with language-based learning disability

• Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes

– Communication disorder descriptions:

 

ASD

     – The Standard Score (SS) for the Core CELF-4 for the ASD group

• ranged from 67-132
• mean was 97.21

     – The SS for the Receptive Language CELF-4 for the ASD group

• ranged from 58-121
• mean was 93.67

– The SS for the Expressive Language CELF-4 for the ASD group

• ranged from 75-126
• mean was 100.54
• This was significantly higher than the LD group.

LD

     – The SS for the Core CELF-4 for the LD group

• ranged from 60-117
• mean was 88.94

     – The Standard SS for the Receptive Language CELF-4 for the LD group

• ranged from 58-119
• mean was 88.73

– The SS for the Expressive Language CELF-4 for the LD group

• ranged from 65-114
• mean was 90.00
• This was significantly lower than the ASD group.

 

5. What were the different conditions for this research?

                                                                                                             

– Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes

• There were 3 subject groups:

     – ASD

     – LD

     – TD

                                                               

– Experimental Conditions? No

–  Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? Yes. Performance on the Profiling Elements of Prosodic Systems in Children (PEPS-C)

 

6. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes

 

 

7. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

– The dependent measures were

• Dependent Measure #1: To comprehend affect signaled by prosody (number correct)

 

• Dependent Measure #2: To express correctly affect using prosody (number correct perceptually)

 

• Dependent Measure #3: Expression of prosodic affect of all liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

• Dependent Measure #4: Expression of prosodic affect of all not liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

• Dependent Measure #5: Expression of prosodic affect of all and correct only liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #6: Expression of prosodic affect of correct not liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

• Dependent Measure #7: To comprehend when sentences contained prosody signifying question asking (correct responses)

 

• Dependent Measure #8: To express statements and questions using prosody (perceptually measured)

 

• Dependent Measure #9: Prosodic expression of all questions as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

• Dependent Measure #10: Prosodic expression of correct questions as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

• Dependent Measure #11: Prosodic expression of all statements as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

• Dependent Measure #12: Prosodic expression of correct statements as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #13: To comprehend prosodic chunking (correct responses)

 

• Dependent Measure #14: To produce accurate prosodic chunking (correct responses)

 

• Dependent Measure #15: Prosodic expression of chunking of all subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

• Dependent Measure #16: Prosodic expression of chunking of correct subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

• Dependent Measure #17: To comprehend prosodic stress/focus (correct responses)

 

• Dependent Measure #18: To express stress/focus prosodically (correct responses)

• Dependent Measure #19: Prosodic expression of stress/focus of all subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

• Dependent Measure #20: Prosodic expression of stress/focus of correct subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

– The dependent measures that were subjective were

• Dependent Measure #1: To comprehend samples of prosodic affect (number correct)

• Dependent Measure #2: To express correctly affect using prosody (number correct perceptually)

• Dependent Measure #7: To comprehend when sentences contained prosody signifying question asking (correct responses)

• Dependent Measure #8: To express statements and questions using prosody (perceptually measured)

• Dependent Measure #13: To comprehend prosodic chunking (correct responses)

• Dependent Measure #14: To produce accurate prosodic chunking (correct responses)

• Dependent Measure #17: To comprehend prosodic stress/focus (correct responses)

• Dependent Measure #18: To express stress/focus prosodically (correct responses)

–   The dependent/ outcome measures that were objective are

 

• Dependent Measure #3: Expression of prosodic affect of all liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #4: Expression of prosodic affect of all not liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #5: Expression of prosodic affect of all and correct only liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #6: Expression of prosodic affect of correct not liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #9: Prosodic expression of all questions as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #10: Prosodic expression of correct questions as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #11: Prosodic expression of all statements as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #12: Prosodic expression of correct statements as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #15: Prosodic expression of chunking of all subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #16: Prosodic expression of chunking of correct subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #19: Prosodic expression of stress/focus of all subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 variability/range

– f0 standard deviation

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #20: Prosodic expression of stress/focus of correct subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

                                         

 

8. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

– Interobserver for analyzers? Yes

• Average overall interrater reliability for combined combined Dependent Measures #2 was 0.88. (As a reminder, Dependent Measures #2 is listed below.)

– Dependent Measure #2: To express correctly affect using prosody (number correct perceptually)

–  Intraobserver for analyzers? No

 

– Treatment/Procedural fidelity for investigators? No

 

 

9. Description of design:

• This investigation involved a prospective, nonrandom comparison design.
• There were 3 groups of Ps:

– ASD

– LD

– TD

• All 3 groups were administered the PEPS-C.
• The dependent measures involved

– perceptual judgments of correction on and production subtests of the PEPS-C

– acoustic analysis of the production subtests.

• The acoustic analyses comprised:

– average f0

– standard deviation of f0

– f0 range

– utterance duration

– utterance intensity

 

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

– The comparisons are significant presented with p ≤ 0.05.

• Dependent Measure #1: To comprehend affect using prosody (number correct): TD was significantly better than ASD and LD

• Dependent Measure #2: To express correctly affect using prosody (number correct perceptually): No significant differences

• Dependent Measure #3: Expression of prosodic affect of all liking food items as measured by the 5 variables: No significant differences

• Dependent Measure #4: Expression of prosodic affect of all not liking food items as measured by the 5 variables: No significant differences

• Dependent Measure #5: Expression of prosodic affect of all and correct liking food items as measured by the 5 variables: No significant differences

• Dependent Measure #6: Expression of prosodic affect of correct not liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation:

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance: The ASD group produced significantly longer utterances than the LD group and the TD group.

• Dependent Measure #7: To comprehend when sentences contained prosody signifying question asking (correct responses): TD was significantly better than ASD and LD

• Dependent Measure #8: To express statements and questions using prosody (perceptually measured): No significant differences:

• Dependent Measure #9: Prosodic expression of all questions as measured by

– average f0: The LD group produced significantly lower average f0 and the TD group

– f0 standard deviation:

– f0 variability/range:

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance: The Ps with ASD produced significantly longer utterances than the TD peers.

• Dependent Measure #10: Prosodic expression of correct questions as measured by

– average f0: : The LD group produced significantly lower average f0 and the TD group

– f0 standard deviation:

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #11: Prosodic expression of all statements as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation:

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance: Ps with ASD produced significantly longer utterances than Ps with LD and those with TD. The Ps with LD produced significantly longer utterances than TD peers.

• Dependent Measure #12: Prosodic expression of correct statements as measured by

– average f0: The LD group produced significantly lower average f0 and the TD group

– f0 standard deviation:

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance: Ps with ASD produced significantly longer utterances than Ps with LD and those with TD. The Ps with LD produced significantly longer utterances than TD peers.

• Dependent Measure #13: To comprehend prosodic chunking/phrasing (correct responses) No significant differences

• Dependent Measure #14: To produce accurate prosodic chunking/phasing (correct responses): The Ps with LD displayed significantly lower scores than Ps with ASD and the TD peers.

• Dependent Measure #15: Prosodic expression of chunking of all subtest items as measured by

– average f0: Ps with LD produced significantly lower f0 than TD peers and Ps with ASD.

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #16: Prosodic expression of chunking of correct subtest items as measured by

– average f0: Ps with LD produced significantly lower f0 than TD peers and Ps with ASD.

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #17: To comprehend prosodic stress/focus (correct responses): The TD group exhibited significantly higher scores than the ASD and LD groups.

• Dependent Measure #18: To express stress/focus prosodically (correct responses): No significant differences

• Dependent Measure #19: Prosodic expression of stress/focus of all subtest items as measured by

– average f0: The LD group was significantly lower than the TD and ASD groups

– f0 standard deviation: The ASD and LD groups were significantly larger than the TF group

– f0 variability/range: Ps with ASD used a significantly wider range than TD.

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

• Dependent Measure #20: Prosodic expression of stress/focus of correct subtest items as measured by

– average f0: The LD group was significantly lower than the TD and ASD groups

– f0 standard deviation: The f0 SD was significantly smaller for the TD group than for the ASD group.

– f0 variability/range: The range of the ASD group was significantly larger range than the TD group.

– intensity of utterance: The Ps with ASD were significantly louder than the Ps with LD.

– duration of utterance

 

– What was the statistical test used to determine significance? ANOVA

–   Were effect sizes provided? Yes. The effect sizes for significant comparisons ranged from 0.05 (small) to 0.25 (large).

– Were confidence intervals (CI) provided? No

 

 

11. What were the results of the correlational statistical testing? There was no correlational analysis.

 

12. What were the results of the descriptive analysis? The descriptive analysis was secondary to the inferential analysis.