Bertirotti (2004)

November 21, 2016

 

CRITIQUE OF UNSUPPORTED PROCEDURAL DESCRIPTIONS

(also known as Expert Opinion)

 

KEY
C = clinician

NA = not applicable

P = patient or participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

 

 

Source: Bertirotti, A. (2004.) Theoretical aims on music for prosody in speech therapy setting. neuroscienze.net Retrieved from http://www.neuroscienze.net/?p=387

 

Reviewer(s): pmh

 

Date: November 15, 2016

 

 

Level of Evidence: F = Expert Opinion, no supporting evidence for the effectiveness of the intervention although the author may provide secondary evidence supporting components of the intervention.

 

Take Away: This expository paper presents a case for why music should be incorporated into speech-language therapy. The author discusses links between music and language including evolutionary and functional perspectives, neurological representations, and the therapeutic uses of music outside of speech-language therapy. One of the major arguments for the use of music in speech-language therapy is tied to prosody, especially rhythm and pitch. The author provides some treatment recommendations.

 

 

  1. Was there a review of the literature supporting components of the intervention? No

 

 

  1. Were the specific procedures/components of the intervention tied to the reviewed literature? Not Applicable (NA)

 

 

  1. Was the intervention based on clinically sound clinical procedures? NA

 

 

  1. Did the authors provide a rationale the intervention? Yes

 

 

  1. Description of outcome measures:

 

  • Are outcome measures suggested? No

 

 

  1. Was generalization addressed? No

 

 

  1. Was maintenance addressed? No

 

Advertisements

Akbarpour & Roohani (2015)

November 11, 2016

 

 

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Treatment Groups

 

 

Note: Scroll about two-thirds of the way down the page to read the summary of the procedures.

 

Key:

C = Clinician

EBP = evidence-based practice

ELL = English Language Learner, in this case learning Iranian English as a foreign language

f = female

m = male

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

 

 

SOURCE: Akbarpour, S., & Roohani, A. (2015.) The comparative impact of song and nonsong vocabulary instruction. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 10 (1), 1-12.

 

NOTE: although the copy of the article I received clearly listed the issue number to be #2; I found the article on the Journal’s webpage to be issue #1. I am using issue #1 in this citation. Went you go to the webpage, select “September 2015 full version” and click on the following pdf: finalversion1011   JOURNAL ADDRESS: http://ijllalw.org/Past-Issues.html

 

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: November 10, 2016

 

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

 

TAKE AWAY: School-aged Iranian English language learners (ELL) were randomly assigned to one of 4 groups comparing the use of songs to a traditional (nonsong) method to teach vocabulary. Although both groups improved over the 12 weeks of intervention, the song and nonsong methods were not significantly different post intervention. This suggests that song is a reasonable but not a superior intervention procedure.

 

 

  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

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

  • If there was more than one group, were participants (Ps) randomly assigned to groups? Yes, they were randomly assigned to treatment but not to gender (obviously.)

 

 

  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?

                                                                                                           

  • from participants? No

                                                                    

  • from clinicians? No

                                                                    

  • from analyzers? No

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 

– How many Ps were involved in the study?

 

  • total # of Ps:   100
  • # of groups: 4
  • Groups and the # of participants in each group:

     – Male English Language Learners (ELL) who received song-based intervention (Male Song Group) = 25

     – Male ELL who received an intervention that did not involve song (Male Nonsong Group) = 25

     – Female ELL who received song-based intervention (Female Song Group) = 25

     – Female ELL who received an intervention that did not involve song (Female Nonsong Group) = 25

 

– P characteristics that were controlled or described. Provide data for each characteristic.

 

  • age: 9 – 12 years
  • gender: 50m; 50f
  • educational level of Ps: learned English alphabet, some reading and writing of English vocabulary; Ps could read words in the pretest/posttest

 

–   Were the groups similar before intervention began? Yes

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? Not Applicable (NA) X . All the Ps were ELL; they were not communicatively impaired.

 

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?

                                                                                                             

  • Did each of the groups maintain at least 80% of their original members? Yes

                                                               

  • Were data from outliers removed from the study? No

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably?

                                                                                                             

  • Was there a no intervention group? No

                                   

  • Was there a foil intervention group? No

                                   

  • Was there a comparison group? Yes

 

  • Was the time involved in the foil/comparison and the target groups constant? Yes

 

 

  1. Was the outcome measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

– The outcome was

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Performance on an Iranian English vocabulary test

 

The test was objective

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

– Interobserver for analyzers? No

 

– Intraobserver for analyzers? No

 

– Treatment fidelity for clinician? No

 

– But, there was strong validity and reliability data for the test.

 

 

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

 

  • Summary Of Important Results

 

     — What level of significance was required to claim significance? p = 0.05

 

TREATMENT AND COMPARISON GROUP ANALYSIS

 

OUTCOME #1: Performance on an English vocabulary test– Both Song and Nonsong groups improved following treatment but the difference between the 2 groups was not significant.

 

  • The statistical tests used to determine significance were ANOVA and ANCOVA.

 

  • Were confidence interval (CI) provided? Yes

 

  • The reported CI was 99%.

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significance?

 

  • The investigators provided the following measure ETA.

 

  • Results of EBP testing and the interpretation:

– OUTCOME #1: Performance on a Iranian English vocabulary test; compared the post intervention outcomes of the Song and Nonsong Groups: eta = 0.001 (No Effect)

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

12 Were generalization data reported? Yes

 

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.

 

  • Four groups of school-aged children who were learning Iranian English (ELL) were divided into 4 groups: Song Males, Song Females, Nonsong Males, and Nonsong Females.

 

  • There were 25 Ps in each group and assignments to the Song or Nonsong groups was random.

 

  • Ps were exposed to the teaching methods in group interventions administered by the same teacher.

 

  • The groups had the same amount of intervention (about 12 hours each group) over a one month period.

 

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: B+

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the use of song in acquiring Iranian English vocabulary.

 

POPULATION: Typical Learners, Iranian English Language Learners

 

MODALITY TARGETED: comprehension

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION:   song (rhythm, pitch/intonation)

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: semantics/vocabulary

 

DOSAGE: 12 sessions over about a month, group treatment, about 30 minutes a session

 

ADMINISTRATOR: teacher

 

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • The investigators compared the use of songs and a traditional procedure to teach Iranian English Vocabulary.

 

  • The treatments were not described.

 

 

_______________________________________________________________

 


Poore & Ferguson (2008)

November 5, 2016

ANALYSIS GUIDELINES

Comparison Research

 

NOTE: No summary of intervention is included in the review because the investigation does not involve therapy.

 KEY:

 eta =   partial eta squared

f = female

fo = Fundamental frequency

m = male

MLU = mean length of utterance

NA = Not Applicable

P = participant or patient

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

 

 

SOURCE: Poore, M. A., & Ferguson, S. H. (2008.) Methodological variables in choral reading. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 22 (1), 13-24.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: November 4, 2016

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: Not graded because this was not an intervention study; nevertheless, it does have clinical implications.

 

TAKE AWAY: The investigators explored prosody of typical adults in a variety of reading contexts (3 scripts and 3 reading conditions.) Compared to Solo reading, Choral reading resulted in smaller fundamental frequency (fo) variability, smaller amplitude variability, and smaller vowel duration variability. Track reading (i.e., in unison with prerecorded scripts) resulted in significantly more vowel errors, suggesting that Track reading might not be a feasible alternative to Choral reading.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

  • What was the type of design? Prospective Single Group Experiment (exposed to Mmultiple conditions)

 

  • What was the focus of the research? Clinically Related

           

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

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

  • If there were groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? Not Applicable (NA), there was only one group.

 

 

  1. Were experimental conditions concealed?

                                                                                                           

  • from participants? No

                                                                    

  • from administrators of experimental conditions? No

                                                                    

  • from analyzers/judges? Unclear

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 

–   How many participants were involved in the study?

 

  • total # of Ps:  22 Ps (11 pairs) were in the original group. See question about maintenance below for description of loss of participants (Ps.)
  • # of groups: 1
  • Did the group maintain membership throughout the investigation? No, 6 of the pairs (i.e., 12 Ps) were eliminated from the investigation due to recording and/or interference issues at the time of the recording. Therefore, there were only 5 pairs of Ps resulting in 10 Ps.

 

DESCRIBED OR CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS                 

  • age:

     – original group: 18 to 25 years

– final group: not reported

  • gender:

     – original group: 8m; 14f

– final group: 4m; 6f:

  • dialect: South Midland Dialect of American English
  • communication skills: No history of speech, language, or hearing disorders; investigator judged speech to be typical

 

Were the groups similar? NA

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes

  • disorder type: NA, communication skills of all Ps were within normal limits

 

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

                                                                                                             

  • Subject (Classification) Groups?

                                                               

  • Experimental Conditions? Yes

– type of reading material: poetry, fiction, textbook

– reading condition: solo, track, choral

 

  • Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? No

 

 

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

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

The dependent measures were

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Fundamental frequency (fo) variability
  • OUTCOME #2: Amplitude variability
  • OUTCOME #3: Vowel duration
  • OUTCOME #4: Number of vowel errors

 

– Outcome #4 (Number of vowel errors) was subjective.

 

Three of the outcomes (see below) were objective:

  • OUTCOME #1: Fundamental frequency (fo) variability
  • OUTCOME #2: Amplitude variability
  • OUTCOME #3: Vowel duration

 

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

– Interobserver for analyzers? No

 

– Intraobserver for analyzers? Yes

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Vowel duration- Because the measurement of vowel duration required judgment on the part of the analyzers, the investigators provided intraobserver reliability data. The correlation for remeasured vowels was 0.95

 

– Treatment or test administration fidelity for investigators? No

 

 

  1. Description of design:

 

  • Although 22 Ps (11 pairs) initially participated in the investigation, only the data from 10 Ps were analyzed due to technical issues with the recordings.

 

  • All reading were recorded.

 

  • Pairs of Ps elicited the samples by reading scripts in the following order:

– Each speaker in the pair was directed to read silently the 3 scripts (poetry, nonfiction, textbook.) The order of the scripts was counterbalanced.

– First: Solo reading of all designated scripts alone. While separated from his/her experimental partner, each P read his/her scripts alone.

– Second and Third: The order of Track and Choral readings were counterbalanced.

  • TRACK READINIG: Using his/her partner’s Solo reading script as stimuli, P read aloud his/her scripts in unison with the recorded readings of his/her experimental partner.
  • CHORAL READINIG: P read aloud his scripts in unison with the live reading of the same scripts with his/her experimental partner.

 

  • Some data were removed from the investigation:

– Potential outliers were identified for fo variability by highlighting

  • fo more than 2 standard deviations (SD) from the mean

     – The potential outliers were then inspected. If a fo was not continuous with the upper and/or lower limits of the P’s range, it was removed.

 

 

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

 

– Comparisons that were significant (e.g., p ≤ 0.05):

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Fundamental frequency (fo) variability

– fo was significantly more variable in the solo condition

– script type, gender, gender pair, interactions were not associated with significant fo variability

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Amplitude variability

– Amplitude variability was significantly smaller for choral reading compared to solo and track reading

– script type and interactions were not associated with significant amplitude variability

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Vowel duration variability

– Differences among the 3 reading conditions were significantly different

– order of variability from most to least: track, solo, choral

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Number of vowel errors

     – The track condition was associated with significantly more errors than the other 2 conditions.

 

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

 

– Were effect sizes provided? Yes, for some, but not all, comparisons..

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Fundamental frequency (fo) variability;

– Solo condition most variable; eta = 0.83 (strong)

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Amplitude variability

– Amplitude variability least variable in choral reading; eta = 0.73 (strong)

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Vowel duration variability

– Order of variability from most to least: track, solo, choral; eta = 0. 69 (strong)

 

– Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. Summary of correlational results:  NA

 

 

  1. Summary of descriptive results: Qualitative research NA (this item is completed only when the investigation was solely or primarily Qualitative in nature.)

 

 

  1. Brief summary of clinically relevant results:

 

  • The fo variability, amplitude variability, vowel duration variability, and vowel errors did not differ in the 3 types of script (poetry, nonfiction, textbook.) The investigators suggested this could be associated with the small N.

 

  • Choral reading appeared to be associated with

– smaller fo variability

– smaller amplitude variability

– smaller vowel duration variability

 

  • Track reading often differed from the other conditions in fo variability and vowel duration variability. Moreover, significantly more errors were noted in the track condition.

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: NA