Thaut (1985)

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Groups 

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

Key:

Auditory Rhythm = a four beat percussion pattern used a cue in a gross motor sequence

C = Clinician

CMPT = Component Mean Performance Time

Ct = Control group

EBP = evidence-based practice

MT = music therapist

MRA = motor rhythm accuracy

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove (blog developer)

SLP = speech–language pathologist

Speech Rhythm = 4 single syllable directions used as a cue in a gross motor sequence

Tx = Treatment group

Tx faded = the Treatment group performance when the auditory rhythm cues were faded

 

SOURCE: Thaut, M. H. (1985). The use of auditory rhythm and rhythmic speech to aid temporal muscular control in children with gross motor dysfunction. Journal of Music Therapy, 22 (3), 108-128.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE:   June 23, 2016

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: Not graded because it was clinically related rather than clinical research.

 

TAKE AWAY: This investigation focuses on clinically relevant issues rather than solely on clinical effectiveness. Nevertheless, the investigator found that a short intervention (3 session) of Auditory Rhythm plus Speech Rhythm cues was more successful than Visual Modeling in improving performance of a gross motor sequence.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

  • What was the type of evidence? Prospective, Randomized Group Design with Controls

                                                                                                           

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

 

  • What was the focus of the research? Clinically Related

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

  • If there was more than one group, were participants (Ps) randomly assigned to groups?

 

 

  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?

                                                                                                           

  • from participants? No

                                                                    

  • from clinicians? No

                                                                    

  • from analyzers? Unclear

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Variable

 

– How many Ps were involved in the study?

 

  • total # of Ps: 24
  • # of groups: 2
  • List names of groups and the # of participants in each group:

– Treatment (Tx) = 12 Ps

– Control (Ct) = 12 Ps  

 

– The controlled characteristics included.

 

  • age: 3 age brackets with 4 Ps from each of the age brackets in Tx and C groups– 6:0 to 6:11; 7:0 to 7:11; 8:0 to 8:11
  • gender: all Ps were male
  • cognitive skills: no cognitive problems
  • referral source: outside referral source to motor treatment programs at Michigan State; sources were physicians, teachers, therapists
  • motor skills: overall 40th percentile rank on the Bruininks-Oserestsky Test of Motor Proficiency
  • emotional status: no reported problems
  • orthopedic status: no reported problems

 

–   Were the groups similar before intervention began? Yes

 

– Were the communication problems adequately described? Not Applicable (NA

 

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

                                                                                                             

  • Subject (Classification) Groups? No

                                                               

  • Experimental Conditions? Yes

Treatment status: Treatment (Tx) and Control (Ct)

 

  • Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? Yes

– Age: within the Tx and Ct groups there were 3 age groups: 6-year-olds; 7 year-olds, and 8 year-olds

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

                                                                                                             

– The dependent/outcome measures were

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Component Mean Performance Time (CMPT) for the execution of 4 repetitions of the following motor sequence

     – preferred foot to the side

     – support foot follows

     – with stationary feet swing arms up

     – with stationary feet swing arms down

  • OUTCOME #2: Average time deviation from CMPT (also called motor rhythm accuracy, MRA)

 

 

Neither of the dependent measures were subjective.

 

Both of the dependent/ outcome measures were objective.

 

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

– Interobserver for analyzers? No

 

– Intraobserver for analyzers? No

 

 

– Treatment or test administration fidelity for investigators? No

 

 

  1. Description of design:

 

  • 24 male children with gross motor problems were recruited. Ps were randomly assigned to either the Tx or Ct groups with age counterbalanced so that there were 4 children from each of the age groups (6-, 7-, and 8-year olds) within the Tx and Ct groups.

 

  • The Ps were screened and administered 3 individual intervention sessions over 3 weeks. Each of the intervention sessions involved recording (measurement) and teaching/practice. Ps in both Tx and Ct groups received the same dosage of their respective intervention.

 

  • The outcomes measures were acquired using an electromechanical measurement system. Ps were not recorded during teaching/practice, nor were they wearing the recording equipment.

 

  • The statistical analysis involved a 2 (Tx vs Ct) x 3 (the 3 age groups) analysis of covariance with the baseline score serving as the covariate.

 

  1. What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing?

 

– RESULTS

 

  • Outcome #2: Average time deviation from CMPT (also called motor rhythm accuracy, MRA)

– Tx was significantly better than Ct

     – Age did not significantly improve performance for Tx or Ct

     – Both groups (Tx and Ct ) improved significantly over the course of the investigation.

     – The investigator also explored whether the improvement in the Tx group could be sustained when the auditory rhythm was faded from treatment (i.e., Tx faded). He determined that

  • There was no significant difference between Tx and Ct when the Tx group was in the faded context (i.e., Tx faded.)
  • Tx was significantly better than Tx faded.
  • Age did not significantly improve performance for Tx faded or Ct
  • Tx faded improved significantly over the course of the investigation.

   – Analysis revealed that there was the shape of the change profiles differed for the Tx and Tx faced scores were increasingly similar through the course of the investigation.

 

 

 

(add additional outcomes as appropriate)

 

– What was the statistical test used to determine significance? Analysis of Covariance; Multivariate Analyses

 

– Were effect sizes provided? No

 

– Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. Summary of correlational results: NA

 

 

  1. Summary of descriptive results: Qualitative research— NA

 

 

  1. Brief summary of clinically relevant results:

 

  • Children with gross motor problems responded more positively to Auditory Rhythm plus Speech Rhythm intervention than to Visual Modeling intervention although both groups improved significantly. It is not clear that the differences between the Tx and Ct groups would have been sustained if there had been more treatment sessions.

 

  • When Auditory Rhythm was faded from the intervention, the Ps could not sustain their progress although they continued to perform better than the Visual Modeling (Ct) group. This difference was not significant.

 

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: NOT GRADED

 

 

 

—————————————————————————————————–

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of a short dose og auditory rhythm and rhythmic speech in improving performance on a gross motor task and whether the skills acquired in the intervention could be sustained when the auditory rhythm cues were removed

 

POPULATION: Gross motor problems; children

 

MODALITY TARGETED: production

 

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: rhythm

 

DOSAGE: 3 individual sessions, a week apart, 30 minutes in length

 

ADMINISTRATOR: Music Therapist (MT)

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • The MT administered 3 sessions individual to each of the Ps. For the most part, the format of the sessions was. The only difference is noted in the Baselining during Session #1 and the RECORDING TIME portion of the sessions.

– Session 1:

  • MT recorded baseline by demonstrating the target sequence

and directing P to imitate. Following the initial orientation, MT recorded 4 repetitions of the target sequence.

  • The remainder of the session was devoted to Teaching Time, Practice Time, and Recording Time

∞ TEACHING TIME: MT demonstrated the sequence. (P was not wearing sensors.)

∞ PRACTICE TIME: P practiced the sequence. (P was not wearing sensors.)

∞ RECORDING TIME: P wore sensors and performed the targeted gross motor sequence multiple times. The data collected here was the basis of the statistical analysis.

  • For the Tx group, there were 10 cycles of the targeted gross motor sequence:

– Cycle 1: Practice and orientation. These data were NOT used in data analysis

– Cycles 2, 3, 4, and 5: Cues of Auditory Rhythm and Speech Rhythm were presented. These data were used for the Tx data analysis.

– Cycle 6: Auditory Rhythm cues were faded out, although Speech Rhythms cues remained (i.e., this was Tx faded.) This was practice and orientation and the data were NOT used in data analysis.

– Cycles 7, 8, 9, and 10: Only the Speech Rhythm were presented. These data were used for the Tx faded data analysis.

  • For the Ct group, 10 cycles of the targeted gross motor sequence:

– Cycle 1: Practice and orientation. These data were NOT used in data analysis

– Cycles 2, 3, 4, and 5: MT presented Visual Modeling Rhythm. These data were used for the Ct data analysis.

– Cycle 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: These data were NOT used in data analysis.

 

  • Although there were only 2 intervention conditions (Tx, Ct), there were actually 3 assessments in each session:

– Tx (Auditory Rhythm plus Speech Rhythm)

– Tx faded (the Tx group in a faded condition with Speech Rhythm only)

– Ct (Visual Modeling only)

 

 

AUDITORY RHYTHM PLUS SPEECH RHYTHM (Tx)

 

  • Both auditory rhythm and speech rhythm cues were presented to the P. They were synchronized and with each set of cues P was expected to perform the targeted sequence in unison with them. This was used for Teaching Time, Practice Time, and Recording Time.

 

  • The MT presented a 4 beat prerecorded percussion pattern (i.e., Auditory Rhythm cues) in unison with speech rhythm cues.

– Beat 1 = a standing tom

– Beat 2 = a timpanetti that was higher pitched than the tom

– Beat 3 = a low pitched temple block

– Beat 4 = a high pitched temple block

 

  • The MT also presented Speech Rhythm cues in unison with the Auditory Rhythm cues. This involved a description of the behavior targeted in the sequence. Each word was chanted and paired with a beat from the Auditory Rhythm cues:

– Step, Close, Up, Down.

– Ps were encouraged to chant while performing the targeted sequence.

 

 

SPEECH RHYTHM only (Tx faded)

 

  • This was not a training/intervention condition (i.e., neither Teaching Time nor Practice Time) but was an assessment condition (i.e., Recording Time.)

 

  • The MT produced Speech Rhythm cues and expected P to enact the targeted gross motor sequence. Speech Rhythm cues involved a description of the behavior targeted in the sequence. Each word was chanted and paired with a beat from the Auditory Rhythm cues:

– Step, Close, Up, Down.

– Ps were encouraged to chant while performing the targeted sequence.

 

 

VISUAL MODELING only (Ct)

 

  • MT modeled the targeted gross motor sequence for the P.

 

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: