Darnell (2015)

CRITIQUE OF GROUP RESEARCH

NOTE: This review does not contain a treatment summary because the investigation was a survey about the use of music (in general) in speech-language intervention. Specific interventions were not addressed.

KEY
C = clinician

NA = not applicable

P = patient or participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

 

 

Source: Farnell, T. L. (2015). The inclusion of music therapy in speech-language interventions. Undergraduate honor thesis. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AK. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=rhrcuht

 

 

Reviewer(s): pmh

 

Date: August 15, 2015

 

Overall Assigned Grade: There is no grade because this investigation was concerned with whether speech language pathologists (SLPs) use music therapy in speech-language interventions. It was a clinically related article and was not concerned with specific clinical interventions.

 

Level of Evidence: Not applicable (NA)

 

Take Away: This investigation is not concerned with the effectiveness of prosody interventions. Rather, it is a clinically related survey about the inclusion of music in the practice of speech-language pathology. The results indicate that SLPs use music to treat a variety of outcomes with both children and adults, although music is more likely to be used with children. Music is most likely to be employed for the following purposes calming, focus, vocalization, language, and vocabulary.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

  • What was the type of evidence? SURVEY

                                                                                                          

  • What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? NOT GRADED

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

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

 

  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed? NA, no intervention was administered.

                                                                                                                       

 

  1. Was the group adequately described? Yes

 

– How many Ps were involved in the study?

 

  • total # of Ps: 100 t
  • # of groups: 1
  • List names of groups and the # of participants in each group: practicing SLP (recruited via electronic media)

 

– DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS:

  • number of years of experiences as an SLP: 11 years or more (53%)
  • educational level of Participants (Ps):

– master’s degree = 95%

     – bachelor’s degree or doctorate = 5%

  • work setting:

– medical settings = 31%

     – schools, home, nonmedical = 73%

 

Were the groups similar before intervention began? NA, there was only one group

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? NA, Ps were typical speakers.

 

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?

                                                                                                             

  • Did the group maintain at least 80% of their original members? Yes, this was a survey

                                                               

  • Were data from outliers removed from the study? No

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? NA, there was only one group.

 

 

  1. Were the survey questions appropriate and meaningful? Yes

                                                                                                             

– The survey questions included

  • DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS:

     – Level of education of P

     – Years working as SLP

     – Work settings – 6 choices

     – Ages of clients –3 choices

  • QUESTION #1: How often is music used? –4 choices
  • QUESTION #2: Type of client P uses music with –3 choices (speech, language, voice)
  • QUESTION #3: For Ps working with adults, for what disorders does the P use music (6 choices)
  • QUESTION #4: For Ps working with children, for what disorders does the P use music (4 choices)
  • QUESTION #5: When using music to achieve specific goals, frequency of use with a specific client—4 choices
  • QUESTION #6: List general outcomes targeted when using music

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided? NA

 

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT RESULTS

 

  • QUESTION #1: How often is music used?

– Often: 29%

– Sometimes: 49%

– Seldom: 18%

– Never: 4%

– Combined this question with the setting type demographic question:

  • The highest frequency of use of music was in schools and clinics.

– Combined this question with the client age demographic question:

  • Although music therapy was used with both children and adults, it was more likely to be used with children.

 

  • QUESTION #2: Type of client P uses music with –3 choices (speech, language, voice)—Did not find data

 

 

  • QUESTION #3: For Ps working with adults, for what disorders does the P use music (6 choices)

– Most likely to be with Ps diagnosed with aphasia, least likely was Ps diagnosed with hearing impairment.

  • QUESTION #4: For Ps working with children, for what disorders does the P use music (4 choices)

– Most likely to be with children diagnosed with developmental delay, least likely voice and fluency.

 

  • QUESTION #5: When using music to achieve specific goals, frequency of use with a specific client (daily, weekly, etc.)—did not find data.

 

  • QUESTION #6: List general outcomes targeted when using music—59 Ps responded to this question. The investigator qualitatively analyzed the data. Five categories of treatment outcomes were noted in the responses:

– Calming

– Focus

– Vocalization

– Language

– Vocabulary

 

 

  • DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS:

     – Level of education of P—reported in item #4

     – Years of working as SLP — reported in item #4

     – Work settings – 6 choices — reported in item #4

     – Ages of clients –3 choices — reported in item #4

 

– What was the statistical test used to determine significance? NA, the investigator only presented descriptive statistics.

 

Were confidence interval (CI) provided? Yes ___         No __x___

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significanceNA, these data were not provided.

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

 

  1. Describe the design of the investigation.

 

  • The first 100 responses to an electronically distributed questionnaire were selected for this investigation.
  • The questionnaire contained 10 questions concerned with the use of music therapy in speech-language intervention and some demographic information.

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: no grade

 

 

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: