EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS
Note: Scroll about two-thirds of the way down the page to read the summary of the procedures.
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
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.
- 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
- 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.)
- Was administration of intervention status concealed?
- from participants? No
- from clinicians? No
- from analyzers? No
- 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). All the Ps were ELL; they were not communicatively impaired.
- 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
- 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
- Was the outcome measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes
– The outcome was
- OUTCOME #1: Performance on an Iranian English vocabulary test
– The test was objective
- 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.
- 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%.
- 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)
- Were maintenance data reported? No
12 Were generalization data reported? Yes
- 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
- The investigators compared the use of songs and a traditional procedure to teach Iranian English Vocabulary.
- The treatments were not described.