Keith & Aronson (1975)

September 30, 2016

 

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS for

Single Case Designs

 

NOTES:

  • 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

EBP = evidence-based practice

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

PICA = Porch Index of Communicative Ability

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

 

SOURCE: Keith, R. L., & Aronson, A. E. (1975). Singing as therapy for apraxia of speech and aphasia: Report of a case. Brain and Language, 2, 483-488.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: September 24, 2016

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE:  D+ (The highest possible grade for this investigation was D+   based on its design, a case study.)

 

TAKE AWAY: This case study is reviewed to focus attention on the history of music in speech-language pathology. The authors provided some references to the historical use of singing with people with aphasia. They also described a case in which a woman with aphasia and apraxia profited from the addition of singing into her therapy programming when traditional therapy had failed. Evidence of progress took the form of performance on the Profile of Communicative Ability (PICA) and summaries of clinical notes.

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                           

  1. What was the focus of the research? Clinical Research

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  • What type of single case design was used? Case Study: Description with Pre and Post Test Results

– Other

                                                                                                           

  • What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Level = D+ (case study)

                                                                                                           

 

 

  1. Was the phase of treatment concealed?
  • from participants? No
  • from clinicians? No
  • from data analyzers? Unclear

 

 

  1. Was the participant (P) adequately described? Yes

– How many Ps were involved in the study? 1

 

– What the P characteristics were described?

  • age: 48 years
  • gender: female
  • diagnosis: right hemiplegia, right hemianopsia, severe apraxia (phonation, articulation), aphasia
  • previous therapy: conventional therapy was administered for approximately 1 month following onset; the authors were disappointed in the progress; treatment targets were auditory comprehension and increasing volitional articulator movement
  • receptive language: diagnosed with receptive aphasia
  • expressive language: diagnosed with expressive aphasia

                                                 

– Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes

 

– Disorder types: severe apraxia (phonation, articulation), aphasia (expressive and receptive)

 

– Other aspects impaired communication included

  • left hemiparesis of the tongue which occurred 27 years prior to event that was the subject of the investigation (due to inadvertent damage to the left hypoglossal nerve during surgery)
  • approximately 1 month post onset the participant (P) could
  • phonate on request, most commonly /a/,
  • produce the following speech sounds when modeled by the clinician (C): /m/, /a/, /ai/, /n/, /o/, and /mai/,
  • respond to verbal-visual stimulation by pointing to objects correctly 80% of the time.

 

                                                                                                                       

  1. Was membership in treatment maintained throughout the study? Yes

 

  • Were any data removed from the study? No

 

 

  1. Did the design include appropriate controls? No, this was a case study.

                                                                      

  • Were preintervention data collected on all behaviors? Yes

 

  • Did intervention data include untrained stimuli? Yes

 

  • Did intervention data include trained stimuli? No

 

  • Was the data collection continuous? No

 

  • Were different treatment counterbalanced or randomized? NA

 

 

  1. Were the outcome measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

– The outcomes/dependent variables included

  • OUTCOME #1: Performance on the Porch Index of Communicative Ability (PICA) – Overall score
  • OUTCOME #2: Performance on the PICA – Gestural score
  • OUTCOME #3: Performance on the PICA – Verbal score
  • OUTCOME #4: Performance on the PICA – Graphic score

 

All the outcomes were subjective.

 

None of the outcomes were objective.

 

–  No reliability data were provided. (

 

 

  1. Results:

 

Did the target behavior(s) improve when treated? Yes

 

– The quality of improvement on the outcome was

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Performance on the Porch Index of Communicative Ability (PICA) – Overall score: moderate
  • OUTCOME #2: Performance on the PICA – Gestural score: moderate
  • OUTCOME #3: Performance on the PICA – Verbal score: moderate
  • OUTCOME #4: Performance on the PICA – Graphic score: limited

 

 

  1. Description of baseline:

 

  • Were baseline data provided? No

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significanceNA

 

  1. Was information about treatment fidelity adequate? Not Provided

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported?

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? Yes
  • The PICA was not taught in therapy and can be considered generalization data. See item 8 for results.

 

 

  1. Brief description of the design:
  • The authors provided quotes from historic (as early as 18th century) documents describing links between singing and aphasia. In addition, they postulated the basis of links between singing and language.
  • The authors presented a case study of a woman with apraxia and aphasia who profited from the incorporation of singing into therapy.

 

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE OF THE QUALITY OF SUPPORT FOR THE INTERVENTION: D+

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To describe the use of singing with a P with aphasia and apraxia

 

POPULATION: Aphasia, Apraxia; Adult

 

MODALITY TARGETED: production

 

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

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: performance on the PICA: overall, gestural, verbal, and graphic scores

 

DOSAGE: inpatient dosage was not clear; outpatient dosage was 1 time a week with homework

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • C sang a familiar song and directed P to repeat the song.

 

  • The C sang a carrier phrase and pointed to a common object, item, or body part (e.g., “This is my _____” while pointing to P’s hand.) P was to sign the name of the item or body part.

 

  • P practiced singing functional requests (e.g., “I want coffee,” “Hello,” “See you tomorrow,”)

 

  • C encouraged P to use singing to communicate on the hospital ward.

 

  • After discharge, P continued working and a workbook was incorporated into treatment.

 

  • At this point, P could initiate communication without singing but produced rhythm and pitch that sounded musical. Moreover, her speech contained grammatical and word finding errors as well as apraxic errors (.g., false starts, sound substitutions, final consonant deletions, etc.)

 

  • Following 2 months of treatment, the P was no longer needing to use singing to communicate. She still exhibited considerable communication impairment.
Advertisements

Murray et al. (2014)

September 26, 2016

SECONDARY REVIEW CRITIQUE

 

 

NOTE: Scroll approximately two-thirds of the way down the page to access the summaries. You will note that there are no descriptions of the treatments. They were not provided in the body of the article.

 

KEY:

 

C = clinician

CAS = Childhood Apraxia of Speech

DTTC = Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing (DTTC)

MIT = Melodic Intonation Therapy

NA = not applicable

P = patient or participant

PICA =

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

ReST = Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment

SCED = single case experimental design

SLP = speech-language pathologist

SR = Systematic Review

TCM = Tactile Cue Method

 

Source: Murray, E., McCabe, P., & Ballard, K. J. (2014). A systematic review of treatment outcomes for children with childhood apraxia of speech. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23, 486-504.

 

Reviewer(s): pmh

 

Date: September 22, 2016

 

Overall Assigned Grade: B- (The highest possible grade based on the design of the investigation is B.)

 

Level of Evidence: B (Systematic Review, SR, with broad criteria)

 

Take Away: This SR is concerned with a variety of treatment outcomes. Only those outcomes or treatments concerned with prosody will be analyzed and summarized in this review. The SR reviewers recommended two prosody-related interventions.

 

What type of secondary review? Narrative Systematic Review

 

 

  1. Were the results valid? Yes

 

  • Was the review based on a clinically sound clinical question? Yes

 

  • Did the reviewers clearly describe reasonable criteria for inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review (i.e., sources)? Yes

 

  • The authors of the secondary research noted that they reviewed the following resources: internet based databases

 

  • Did the sources involve only English language publications? Yes

 

  • Did the sources include unpublished studies? No

 

  • Was the time frame for the publication of the sources sufficient? Yes

 

  • Did the authors of the secondary research identify the level of evidence of the sources? Yes

 

  • Did the authors of the secondary research describe procedures used to evaluate the validity of each of the sources? Yes

 

  • Was there evidence that a specific, predetermined strategy was used to evaluate the sources? Yes

 

  • Did the authors of the secondary research or review teams rate the sources independently? Variable, apparently some but not all aspects of the reviews were independently analyzed by two or more authors.

 

  • Were interrater reliability data provided? Yes

 

  • If the authors of the secondary research provided interrater reliability data, list the data here:
  • Intrarater reliability for judgments of the confidence of the diagnosis of CAS = 94%
  • Inter-rater reliability for judgments of the confidence of the diagnosis of CAS = 91%
  • Intrarater reliability for exclusion of article = 96%
  • Interrater reliability for exclusion of article = 91%

 

  • Were assessments of sources sufficiently reliable? Yes, reliability data that were provided were good

 

  • Was the information provided sufficient for the reader to undertake a replication? Yes

 

  • Did the sources that were evaluated involve a sufficient number of participants? Yes, across all the articles (not just the prosody related articles) in the SR there were 83 participants (Ps.)

 

  • Were there a sufficient number of sources? Variable, across all the articles in the SR there were 42 studies of which only 23 articles using single case experimental designs (SCED) were analyzed thoroughly in the SR. In this review, only articles/treatments concerned with prosody have been analyzed and summarized .

 

  1. Description of prosody-related outcome measures:

 

  • Outcomes #1: Improved prosodic accuracy –using Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment (ReST) from Ballard et al. (2010); Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

 

  • Outcome #2: Increase vowel accuracy using Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing (DTTC) or combined Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT)/Tactile Cue Method (TCM)

– from Maas et al. (2012) America Journal of Speech- Language Pathology;

– from Maas & Farinella (2012); Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research; and

– from Martikainen & Korpilahti (2011); Child Language Teaching and Therapy

 

  • Outcome #3: Improved diagnostic accuracy from Rosenthal (1994) using Rate Control Therapy in Clinics in Communication Disorders

 

  • Outcome #4: Improved performance on the PICAC from Krauss & Galloway (1982) using MIT combined with traditional therapy in Journal of Music Therapy

 

  • Outcome #5: Increased MLU from Krauss & Galloway (1982) using MIT combined with traditional therapy in Journal of Music Therapy

 

 

  1. Description of results:

 

– What measures were used to represent the magnitude of the treatment/effect size? Improvement Rate Difference (IDR) was calculated on treatments identified as having a preponderance of supporting evidence. Table 3 notes effect sizes and significant effects but does not identify the methods used within the articles to calculate the measures.

 

– Summarize overall findings of the secondary research:

 

  • The following treatments are the most likely to be associated with progress on targeted prosodic outcomes for children with CAS:

– Motor Approaches:

  • DTTC
  • ReST

 

  • Sessions should be scheduled for at 2 times a week with 60 trial in each session.

 

  • DTTC appears to be most effective with Ps with severe CAS.

 

  • ReST appears to be most effective with Ps 7 to 10 years of age with mild to moderate CAS.

 

  • The SR reviewers classified each of the treatments as having conclusive, preponderant, or suggestive evidence of effectiveness. The ranking for the treatments using prosody as a treatment or targeting prosody as an outcome are:

 

CONCLUSIVE: none

 

PREPONDERANT:

– DTTC

– ReST

 

SUGGESTIVE:

– MIT/TCM

– MIT combined with traditional therapy

– Rate Control Therapy

 

– Were the results precise? NA

 

– If confidence intervals were provided in the sources, did the reviewers consider whether evaluations would have varied if the “true” value of metrics were at the upper or lower boundary of the confidence interval? NA

 

– Were the results of individual studies clearly displayed/presented? Yes, for the most part.

 

  • For the most part, were the results similar from source to source? Unclear

 

  • Were the results in the same direction? Yes

 

  • Did a forest plot indicate homogeneity? NA

 

  • Was heterogeneity of results explored? Yes

 

  • Were the findings reasonable in view of the current literature? Yes
  • Were negative outcomes noted? Yes

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? Yes
  • Only about 25% of the articles reported maintenance data. Most of the reported results were positive, although some of the maintenance results varied within the Ps of an investigation.

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? Yes
  • Twelve article reported generalization data: 7 reported response generalization, 5 reported stimulus generalization

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

NOTE:  The descriptions of the treatment procedures are limited because they were not provided in the body of the article.

 

Population: CAS

 

Prosodic Targets: duration, stress, prosody accuracy

 

Nonprosodic Targets: vowel accuracy, diagnostic accuracy, MLU, performance on the PICAC (naming, imitation.)

 

 

RAPID SYLLABLE TRANSITION TREATMENT (ReST)

from Ballard et al. (2010)

 

Description of Procedure/Source #1—(Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment, ReST)

  • The authors of the SR classified this procedure as primarily motor.

 

Evidence Supporting Procedure/Source #1—(Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment, ReST)

  • The authors of the SR classified the certainty of effectiveness of this treatment to be Preponderant.
  • The treatment and maintenance (2 to 4 weeks post intervention) were judged to reflect positive outcomes.
  • This was one of the interventions that reported improved prosodic accuracy, in this case with a large effect size for pairwise variability index duration.
  • The effect sizes associated with generalization measures was small to moderate.
  • ReST was recommended for children between the ages of 7 to 10 years.

 

 

 

DYNAMIC TEMPORAL AND TACTILE CUEING (DTTC)

– from Maas et al. (2012) America Journal of Speech- Language Pathology and

– from Maas & Farinella (2012); Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

 

Description of Procedure/Source #2—(Dynamic Temporal And Tactile Cueing, DTTC)

  • The authors of the SR classified this procedure as primarily motor.

 

Evidence Supporting Procedure/Source #2——(Dynamic Temporal And Tactile Cueing, DTTC)

  • The authors of the SR classified the certainty of effectiveness of this treatment to be Preponderant.
  • The treatment and maintenance (4 weeks post intervention) were judged to reflect positive outcomes.
  • This was one of the interventions that reported improved prosodic accuracy with effect sizes from moderate to large for the some of the outcomes.
  • The effect sizes associated with generalization measures was small to moderate.
  • The authors of the SR recommended DTTC for Ps with severe CAS.

 

Evidence Contraindicating Procedure/Source #2——(Dynamic Temporal And Tactile Cueing, DTTC)

  • The overall treatment effect for treatments was small or questionable.
  • The effect sizes associated with generalization measures was small or questionable.

 

 

 

MELODIC INTONATION THERAPY (MIT)/TACTILE CUE METHOD (TCM)

– from Martikainen & Korpilahti (2011); Child Language Teaching and Therapy

 

Description of Procedure/Source #3—(Melodic Intonation Therapy, MIT/Tactile Cue Method, TCM)

  • The authors of the SR classified this procedure as primarily motor.

 

Evidence Supporting Procedure/Source #3——(Melodic Intonation Therapy, MIT/Tactile Cue Method, TCM)

  • The authors of the SR classified the certainty of effectiveness of this treatment to be Suggestive.
  • The treatment was judged, for the most part, to reflect positive outcome.
  • Positive outcomes, for the most part, were maintained for 12 weeks.

 

Evidence Contraindicating Procedure/Source #3——(Melodic Intonation Therapy, MIT/Tactile Cue Method, TCM)

  • Generalization was not reported.

 

 

 

RATE CONTROL THERAPY

– from Rosenthal (1994) in Clinics in Communication Disorders I

 

Description of Procedure/Source #4—(Rate Control Therapy)

  • The authors of the SR classified this procedure as primarily motor.

 

Evidence Supporting Procedure/Source #4—(Rate Control Therapy)

  • The authors of the SR classified the certainty of effectiveness of this treatment to be Suggestive.

 

Evidence Contraindicating Procedure/Source #4—(Rate Control Therapy)

  • Statistical analysis was not provided for outcome data.
  • Maintenance and generalization data were not reported.

 

 

 

MIT COMBINED WITH TRADITIONAL THERAPY

– from Krauss & Galloway (1982) in Journal of Music Therapy

 

Description of Procedure/Source #5—(MIT combined with traditional therapy)

  • The authors of the SR classified this procedure as primarily linguistic.

 

Evidence Supporting Procedure/Source #5–(MIT combined with traditional therapy)

  • The authors of the SR classified the certainty of effectiveness of this treatment to be Suggestive.
  • There was significant improvement on the PICAC (naming, imitation.)

 

 

Evidence Contraindicating Procedure/Source #5—(MIT combined with traditional therapy)

  • Maintenance and generalization data were not reported.

 


Hoque (2008)

September 8, 2016

ANALYSIS GUIDELINES

Comparison Research

 

NOTE: The focus of the investigation is not on intervention. Accordingly, no summary of intervention is included in the review.

 

KEY:

 

ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorder

DS = Down syndrome

EI = early intervention

NA = Not Applicable

P = participant or patient

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

 

 

SOURCE: Hoque, M. E. (2008). Analysis of speech properties of neurotypicals and individuals diagnosed with autism and Down syndrome. Proceedings of the 10th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Assets ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 311-312. ARTICLE: DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1414471.1414554

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: August 28, 2016

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: Not graded; this investigation was concerned with the nature of prosodic impairments in individuals diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Down syndrome (DS.)

 

TAKE AWAY: This brief report in conference proceedings of an investigation involving a small number of participants provides preliminary support for differential use of prosody among NT Ps, ASD Ps, and DS Ps. NT Ps exhibited longer speaking turns than ASD and DS peers and they were most likely to produce pause features that corresponded to typical pause strategies. DS Ps produced speech with higher energy values than DS or NT peers. In addition, ASD (but not DS Ps) and NT Ps produced the same number of rising and falling edges in conversation. However, both the ASD and DS Ps differed from the NT peers in their execution of rising and falling edges with NT Ps producing higher maximum. Interestingly, the DS Ps productions of edges also were higher than the ASD Ps.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

  • What was the type of design? Comparison Research

 

  • What was the focus of the research? Clinically Related

                                                                                                           

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

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

  • If there were groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? Not Applicable (NA)

 

 

  1. Were experimental conditions concealed?

                                                                                                           

  • from participants (Ps)? NA

                                                                    

  • from administrators of experimental conditions? NA

                                                                    

  • from analyzers/judges? NA

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? No

 

–   How many participants were involved in the study?

  • total # of Ps: 6
  • # of groups: 3
  • List names of groups and the number of Ps in each group:

     – Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) = 3

– Down syndrome (DS) = 1

– Neurotypical (NT) = 2

 

  • Did all groups maintain membership throughout the investigation? Yes, there was only one session.

                                                                                

– CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS—none described                 

 

– DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

  • education of Ps: All ASD and DS Ps attended a nonprofit school that provided early intervention (EI) services to children with disabilities
  • severity of ASD: mild or moderate

 

– Were the groups similar? Unclear

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described?

 

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

                                                                                                             

– Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes

  • ASD
  • DS
  • NT

                                                               

– Experimental Conditions? No

 

–  Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? No

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably?

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

                                                                                                             

– DEPENDENT MEASURES:

 

NOTE: The investigator noted that more than 50 features associated with segmental and suprasegmental aspects of speech were analyzed but only the following prosody related features are listed here

 

PITCH FEATURES

  • OUTCOME #1: Minimum pitch
  • OUTCOME #2: Maximum pitch
  • OUTCOME #3: Mean pitch
  • OUTCOME #4: Pitch standard deviation
  • OUTCOME #5: Absolute value of pitch
  • OUTCOME #6: Quantiles (pitch)
  • OUTCOME #7: Ratio between voiced and unvoiced frames

 

INTENSITY FEATURES

  • OUTCOME #8: Minimum intensity
  • OUTCOME #9: Maximum intensity
  • OUTCOME #10: Mean intensity
  • OUTCOME #11: Intensity standard deviation
  • OUTCOME #12: Quantiles (intensity)

 

RATE FEATURE

  • OUTCOME #13: Speaking rate

 

PAUSE FEATURES

  • OUTCOME #14: Number of pauses in an utterance
  • OUTCOME #15: Percent of Unvoiced Frames
  • OUTCOME #16: Number of voice breaks
  • OUTCOME #17: Maximum duration of pauses
  • OUTCOME #18: Average duration of pauses
  • OUTCOME #19: Total duration of pauses

 

DURATION FEATURE

  • OUTCOME #20: Average duration per turn

 

None of the dependent measures were subjective.

 

– All of the dependent measures were objective.

 

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

  • Interobserver for analyzers?  No

 

  • Intraobserver for analyzers? No

 

  • Treatment or administration fidelity for investigators? No

 

 

  1. Description of design:

 

  • Pairs of Ps engaged in a conversation while seated across from one another a table. Each conversational pair comprised one NT P and either one P with ASD or one P with DS. Each member of the pair was recorded separately.

 

  • The NT P selected a topic and each P’s speech was recorded onto its own channel.

 

  • More than 50 segmental and suprasegmental features were calculated from each of the recorded samples.

 

  • The investigator analyzed the data using feature mining algorithms. These algorithms were used to identify similarities and differences among the three P groups (ASD, DS, NT.)

 

  1. What were the results of the statistical testing?

 

– OUTCOMES (For the most part, the results are reported in feature grouping. The outcomes associated with each feature group are provided to assist in comprehensibility.)

 

PITCH FEATURES—Ps with ASD exhibited lower maximum falling and rising edges than the P with DS or the NT Ps.

  • OUTCOME #1: Minimum pitch
  • OUTCOME #2: Maximum pitch
  • OUTCOME #3: Mean pitch
  • OUTCOME #4: Pitch standard deviation
  • OUTCOME #5: Absolute value of pitch
  • OUTCOME #6: Quantiles (pitch)
  • OUTCOME #7: Ratio between voiced and unvoiced frames

 

INTENSITY FEATURES— Ps with DS exhibited higher intensity features than Ps with ASD or NT Ps.

  • OUTCOME #8: Minimum intensity
  • OUTCOME #9: Maximum intensity
  • OUTCOME #10: Mean intensity
  • OUTCOME #11: Intensity standard deviation
  • OUTCOME #12: Quantiles (intensity)

 

RATE FEATURE

  • OUTCOME #13: Speaking rate

 

PAUSE FEATURES—NT Ps used pauses more appropriately than Ps with either ASD or DS but ASD Ps produced a similar number of pauses as NT peers.

  • OUTCOME #14: Number of pauses in an utterance
  • OUTCOME #15: Percent of Unvoiced Frames
  • OUTCOME #16: Number of voice breaks
  • OUTCOME #17: Maximum duration of pauses
  • OUTCOME #18: Average duration of pauses
  • OUTCOME #19: Total duration of pauses

 

DURATION FEATURE

  • OUTCOME #20: Average duration per turn—The utterance durations of Ps with NT were longer than the durations of Ps with either ASD or DS.

 

PROSODIC FEATURES THAT WERE SIMILAR ACROSS THE GROUPS:

  • Speaking rate
  • Number of pauses per turn
  • Maximum duration of pauses

 

PROSODIC FEATURES THAT WERE DISSIMILAR ACROSS THE GROUPS:

  • Minimum pitch
  • Mean pitch
  • Maximum pitch
  • Mean intensity
  • Maximum intensity
  • Minimum intensity
  • Energy

 

(add additional outcomes as appropriate)

 

– What was the statistical test used to determine significance? Feature Mining Algorithm—Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis (WEKA)

 

– 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:
  • On average in conversations, NT Ps exhibited longer speaking turns than ASD and DS peers. The investigator noted that is supports the view that NT speakers tend to dominate conversations with ASD and DS partners.

 

  • NT speakers were most likely to produce pause features that corresponded to typical pause strategies.

 

  • On average in conversations, DS Ps produced speech with higher energy values than DS or NT peers. The investigators posited that this supports characterizations of DS speakers as being easily excited.

 

  • On average in conversations, ASD (but not DS Ps) and NT Ps produced the same number of rising and falling edges in conversation.

 

  • However, both the ASD and DS Ps differed from the NT peers in their execution of rising and falling edges with NT Ps producing higher maximum edges. Interestingly, the DS Ps also were higher than the ASD Ps. This corresponds with previous characterizations of ASD Ps.