Pack et al. (2016)

July 26, 2017

 

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS for

Single Case Designs

 

NOTES:

  • The summary of the intervention procedure can be viewed by scrolling about two-thirds of the way down on this page.

 

Key:

ALL = Advancing Language and Literacy

ASD = autism spectrum disorders (ASD)

C = Clinician

EBP = evidence-based practice

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

 

SOURCE: Pack, A., Colozzo, P., Bernhardt, B. M., Radanov , B., Rosebush, R., Marinova-Todd, S. H. (2015). A case study on vocal loudness with a young adult with Autism Spectrum Disorder and developmental delay. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24, 587-593.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: July 22, 2017

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE: D-   (The highest possible grade based on the case study design is D+. The grade represents the strength of the design for providing evidence. It does not reflect a judgment about the quality of the intervention.)

 

TAKE AWAY: In this case study, a P diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and developmental delay improved his rate of the production of acceptable loudness levels during treatment sessions in a generalization context.

                                                                                                           

 

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

 

 

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

                                                                                                           

– What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Level = D+        

                                                                                                           

 

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

 

 

  1. Was the participant (P) adequately described? No

 

– How many Ps were involved in the study? 1

 

– What the P characteristics were described?

  • age: mid-20s
  • gender: male
  • cognitive skills: problems in adaptive functioning; developmentally delayed
  • social emotional status: anxiety problems
  • diagnosis: autism spectrum disorders (ASD)
  • hearing: within normal limits

                                                 

–  Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes

  • Type of problems: ASD; developmentally delayed; severe communication disability
  • Other aspects of communication that were described:

– short utterances

     – intelligibility problems

     – “occasional sudden outbursts with loud voice and agitated expression” (p. 589)

 

                                                                                                                       

  1. Was membership in treatment maintained throughout the study? Not applicable, this was a single case study

 

  • Were any data removed from the study? No

 

 

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

                                                                      

  • Were baseline data collected on all behaviors? Yes

 

  • Was the data collection continuous? No

 

  • Were different treatment counterbalanced or randomized? NA

 

 

  1. Were the outcome measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

– OUTCOMES

 

  • OUTCOME #1: To identify the loudness level of sounds and speech as quiet, medium, or loud
  • OUTCOME #2: To produce unprompted acceptable levels of loudness in his speech

 

  • Both outcomes were subjective.

 

  • Neither outcome was objective.

 

–   RELIABILITY: only Outcome #2 was associated with reliability data.

 

  • OUTCOME #2: To produce unprompted acceptable levels of loudness in his speech: 93% agreement between student clinician and judge for loudness rating in selected individual sessions

 

 

  1. Results:

 

Did the target behavior(s) improve when treated? Yes, for the most part

 

The overall quality of improvement was

 

  • OUTCOME #1: To identify the loudness level of sounds and speech as quiet, medium, or loud: strong; P achieved this outcome by the 4th session

 

  • OUTCOME #2: To produce unprompted acceptable levels of loudness in his speech: strong evidence for improvement
  • percentage of unprompted utterances with acceptable loudness levels increased in the individual sessions from 42% in session 1 to the 90s (91% to 97%)in the final 3 sessions.
  • percentage of unprompted utterances with acceptable loudness levels increased in the group/generalization sessions from 25% in session 1 to the 80s (83% to 88%) in the final 3 sessions.

 

 

  1. Description of baseline:

 

– Were baseline data provided? Yes. I have accepted data as baseline that is not really baseline. The investigators reported data from the first 2 sessions (out of a total of 9 sessions) as their comparison data.

 

  • OUTCOME #1: To identify the loudness level of sounds and speech as quiet, medium, or loud—2 sessions

 

  • OUTCOME #2: To produce unprompted acceptable levels of loudness in his speech—2 sessions

 

Was baseline low (or high, as appropriate) and stable

 

  • OUTCOME #1: To identify the loudness level of sounds and speech as quiet, medium, or loud—baseline was high and stable

 

  • OUTCOME #2: To produce unprompted acceptable levels of loudness in his speech:– baseline was unstable (from low to moderate) with one set of data missing

 

Was the percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) provided? No

 

 

 

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

 

  1. Was information about treatment fidelity adequate? Not Provided

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? Yes

 

  • OUTCOME #2: To produce unprompted acceptable levels of loudness in his speech – P’s performance in the Group was regarded as generalization data. P’s performance lagged in the Group compared to the Individual sessions but by the end of the intervention is was 88%.

 

 

  1. Brief description of the design:

 

  • Single case study in which P’s performance in the first 2 treatment sessions were compared to his performance in the last 3 session (sessions 7 through 9,)

 

  • P had been participating in the Advancing Language and Literacy (ALL) Group which involved young adults with developmental delay (including ASD) and speech, language, and/or literacy problems.

 

  • P continued in the ALL program but was pulled out for speech therapy.

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE OF THE QUALITY OF SUPPORT FOR THE INTERVENTION: D-;

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention designed to modify the loudness level of speech

 

POPULATION: Autism Spectrum Disorder, Developmental Delay; Adult

 

MODALITY TARGETED: comprehension and production

 

ELEMENT/FUNCTION OF PROSODY TARGETED: loudness

 

DOSAGE:

  • ALL (group) intervention = 1 time a week; for 2 hours; 10 months of the year

 

  • Loudness (individual) intervention = pullout from ALL for 30 minutes for 9 weeks

 

ADMINISTRATOR: student speech-language pathology student supervised by a faculty member

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • The invention comprised 2 activities:

– Identification of soft, medium, and loud levels of sounds and speech

– Production of speech at acceptable loudness levels in

  • Individual sessions
  • ALL sessions

 

IDENTIFICATION ACTIVITIES

 

  • Sessions 1 through 3– The Clinician (C) provided 6 to 12 trials in which P was directed to identify whether the loudness level of a sound was quiet, medium, or loud.
  • P modeled the pairing of each loudness level with a picture.
  • C played a nonspeech sound (e.g., knocking, musical instrument) and directed P to indicate the loudness level by pointing to the appropriate picture
  • For sessions 1 and 2, C provided corrective feedback when P misidentified a loudness level by

∞ pointing to the misidentified picture,

∞ replaying the trial, and

∞ asking P to choose another picture.

∞ If P again responded inaccurately, C pointed to the appropriate picture.

 

The Clinician (C) provided 6 to 12 trials in which P was directed to identify whether the loudness level of speech was quiet, medium, or loud.

  • P modeled the pairing of each loudness level with a picture.
  • C played a brief sample of speech and directed P to indicate the loudness level by pointing to the appropriate picture.
  • For sessions 1 and 2, C provided corrective feedback when P misidentified a loudness level by

∞ pointing to the misidentified picture,

∞ replaying the trial, and

∞ asking P to choose another picture.

∞ If P again responded inaccurately, C pointed to the appropriate picture.

 

  • Sessions 4 through 9—Sound Identification activities were suspended due to P’s accurate performance. Speech Identification activities continued. The number of trials in each each session was 9.

 

PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES

 

  • Activities were administered in individual and group (ALL) sessions.

 

  • INDIVIDUAL SESSIONS:

 

– Using a question-answer conversational format, C asked P questions and P replied.

– These interactions were recorded the sessions for use in later sessions and for data analysis.

– On a regular basis but apparently not a continuous basis, C provided positive feedback to P when his response was produced with an acceptable loudness level. In the first 3 sessions, the feedback involved the pictures from the Identification activities (i.e., C pointed to the picture representing a medium loudness level) and noted that C had used his “medium voice” (p. 591.)

– When P produced a response that was of an unacceptable loudness level, C provided a corrective prompt at approximately the same rate as positive feedback.

  • For Sessions 1-3, C provided corrective feedback by

∞ pointing to the picture that represented a loud voice,

∞ noting P had used a loud voice, and

∞ asking him to point again while pointing to the picture representing a medium loudness level

  • For Sessions 4 – 9, C

∞ C displayed a cell-phone app that represented loudness levels by changes in a face.

∞ Following P’s orientation to the app, C asked him to interpret his loudness level using the read-out from the app.

 

  • SELF-CORRECTION

 

– Because P displayed considerable anxiety, C gradually introduced self-correction activities. As he progressed through the program, the rate of self-correction increased to 100% of errors.

 

 

GROUP (ALL) ACTIVITIES

 

  • Two speech-language pathologists (SLPs) led a group of 10 -12 young adults. Volunteers assisted the SLPs.

 

  • Activities in the group included

– “information sharing,

– conversational exchanges, and

– planning” (p. 591)

– review and wrap-up

 

  • On an irregular basis, C or one of the SLPs acknowledged P’s acceptable loudness levels during group conversations. The acknowledgements varied from public to private.
Advertisements