Medina (1990)

December 27, 2017

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

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

Key:

A = Administrator

C = Clinician

EBP = evidence-based practice

Gain1 = Gain score from Pretest to Post test 1

Gain2 = Gain score from Post test 1 to Post test 2

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

 

SOURCE: Medina, S. L. (1990). The effects of music on second language acquisition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (San Francisco, CA, March 1990) ERIC Educational Resources Information Center data base. ERIC Document # ED 352-834 retrieved from http://www.geocities.ws/ESLmusic/articles/print/article02.html  on March 8, 2015.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: December 26, 2017

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY:  C+ (The highest possible grade based on the design of the study, Prospective, Nonrandomized Group with Controls, is B+.) The assigned overall grade represents the quality of the evidence supporting the intervention; it is not meant as a judgment regarding the quality of the intervention.

 

TAKE AWAY: Second-graders who were speakers of Spanish and learning English as a second language were treated with one of four story-based interventions that compared music versus speech as a presentation strategy and illustrations versus no illustrations as extralinguistic support. The target of the intervention was increased receptive vocabulary. Inferential statistics revealed that there were no significant differences between music versus speech and the illustration versus no illustration contexts. This was interpreted as supporting the use of music as an intervention because it yielded results similar to speech only presentations. Analysis of descriptive statistics suggested that while low proficiency students improved performance at follow-up, high proficiency students’ performance decreased.

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

 

  • What was the type of evidence? Prospective, Nonrandomized Group Design with Controls

 

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

Level = B+

 

 

  1. Group membership determination:
  • If there was more than one group, were participants (Ps) randomly assigned to groups? Unclear

– Participants (Ps) were initially sorted into 4 groups based on performance on a vocabulary test.

– The investigator then randomly assigned members of the groups to one of four treatment groups. P. 4 this is my interpretation it may be wrong but the writing is not clear to me

 

  • If there were groups and Ps were not randomly assigned to groups, were members of groups carefully matched? Unclear

– matching/sorting is on the basis of pretreatment vocabulary. Then the Ps were randomly assigned—sounds more like block assignment to me.

If the answer to 2a and 2b is ‘no’ or ‘unclear,’ describe the assignment strategy:

 

 

  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?
  • from participants? No
  • from clinicians? No
  • from analyzers? No

 

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? No.

 

–           How many Ps were involved in the study?

  • total # of Ps:   48
  • # of groups: 4
  • Names of groups and the number of participants in each group:

     ∞ No Music- Illustrations, N = 13

     ∞ No Music- No Illustration, N = 11

     ∞ Music- Illustrations, N = 12

     ∞ Music – No Illustrations, N = 12

 

CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS:

  • language skills: Spanish speaking, limited English proficiency
  • educational level of parents: Second Grade

 

DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS:

  • location: Suburb of Los Angeles (CA)
  • Social-Economic Status: Students in the school were primarily low income

 

–   Were the groups similar before intervention began? Unclear

 

– Were the communication problems adequately described? No

  • Participants (Ps) were Spanish speakers who were learning English as a Second Language.

 

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?
  • Did each of the groups maintain at least 80% of their original members? Yes, probably. Originally, there were 52 Ps but 4 Ps dropped out. The distribution of those who discontinued was not identified but the overall maintenance level was 92%

 

  • Were data from outliers removed from the study?

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Unclear
  • 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 comparison and target groups constant? Yes

 

 

  1. Was the outcome measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  • OUTCOME #1: The amount of gain in receptive vocabulary
  • The outcome measure was subjective.
  • The outcome measures was NOT objective.

 

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?
  • Interobserver for analyzers? No
  • Intraobserver for analyzers?
  • Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No

 

 

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

Summary Of Important Results

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

 

 

PRE AND POST TREATMENT ANALYSES

 

  • OUTCOME #1: The amount of gain in receptive vocabulary

∞ There were no significant differences for music versus no music and illustration versus no illustration (and their interactions) among the 4 treatment groups at the post test 1 (immediately after the intervention) and post test 2 (follow up, 1.5 weeks after intervention.)

     ∞ The investigator noted some patterns descriptively:

  • Immediately after treatment (post test 1) and the 1.5 week delay (post test 2 or follow up) the scores of Ps receive music treatment and viewing illustrations tended to be higher.

    ∞ The following patterns also were evident in the description of the results

  • Average gains at post test 1 following the 4 treatment sessions ranged from 0.73 (No Music, No Illustration Group) to 1.5 (Music and Illustration Group.)
  • Average gains at post test 2 (or follow up) ranged from 0.82 (No Music, No Illustration Group) to 1.75 (Music and Illustration Group.)

     ∞ The investigator also described the performance of a small group of Low Proficiency Ps (i.e., Ps who had scores below 8 of 20 items correct on the pretest.)

  • Low Proficiency Ps tended to gain more than higher proficiency Ps.
  • Average gains at post test 1 ranged from 0.33 (No Music, No Illustration Group) to 2.33 (Music and Illustration Group.)
  • Average gains at post test 2 (follow up) ranged from 1.00 (No Music, No Illustration Group) to 3.33 (Music and Illustration Group.)

 

  • What was the statistical test used to determine significance? ANOVA
  • Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significance?  NA, no EBP data were reported.

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? Yes. The difference in gains from post test 1 to post test 2 were not compared using inferential statistics. However, post test 2 performance regularly outpaced post test 1 performance. This suggests that Ps, not only maintained their gains but that the gains increased over the 1.5 weeks.

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.
  • Four groups of 2nd grade speakers of Spanish who were also English Language Learners received a story-related treatment to improve receptive vocabulary.

 

  • There were four different versions of the story-related treatment. The Ps listened to a cassette recorded story that included the target. The 4 versions were

∞ No Music- Illustrations, story spoken accompanied by illustrations

∞ No Music- No Illustration, story spoken accompanied but no illustrations

∞ Music- Illustrations, story sung accompanied by illustrations

∞ Music – No Illustrations, story sung accompanied by no illustrations

 

  • The spoken and sung versions of the story had identical scripts.

 

  • Prior to the initiation of treatment, the investigator met with the Ps to establish rapport and then she administered a pretest (baseline.)

 

  • Treatment lasted for 4 days and then the investigator administered Post Test 1.

 

  • One and one-half weeks following the termination of the intervention, Post Test 2 (i.e., follow-up) was administered.

 

  • Receptive vocabulary scores were compared using two 2-way (2×2, Medium x Extralinguistic Support) ANOVA for the following dependent measures:

–   Gain score from Pretest to Post test 1 (Gain1)

–   Gain score from Post test 1 to Post test 2 (Gain2)

 

  • The condition each had 2 aspects:

– Medium: Music; No Music

– Extralinguistic Support: Illustrations: NO Illustrations

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: C+

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate whether (1) stories set to music were associated with the same amount of improvement in receptive vocabulary as stories presented orally and (2) stories paired with illustrations were associated with the same amount of improvement in receptive vocabulary as stories presented without illustrations.

 

POPULATION: Second language learners

 

MODALITY TARGETED: Receptive vocabulary

 

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

 

DOSAGE: small groups; 4 days; tapes (spoken or song) were played 3 times in each treatment session

 

STIMULI: songs, spoken scripts, and illustrations

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • The administrator (A) provided one of four treatments to each of the groups of Ps:

∞ No Music- Illustrations, N = 13

∞ No Music- No Illustration, N = 11

∞ Music- Illustrations, N = 12

∞ Music – No Illustrations, N = 12

 

  • Overall, the treatment sessions were similar. The Ps were treated in groups sessions in which A played a prerecorded sung or spoken story 3 times. The story was accompanied by pictures for the “Illustration” treatment groups but not for the “No Illustration” treatment group. The stories for all groups were the same and used identical scripts.

 

  • For the Music and No Music Treatment conditions, the tapes were clear and intelligible. Both Music and No Music tapes were described as “appealing.” The song for the Music tape was a simple tune.

 

• For the Illustration and No Illustration conditions, the A displayed large pictures depicting the story. Written words were not included in the Illustration condition and, of course, the A did not use the pictures for the No Illustrat

Advertisements

Hancock et al. (2017)

December 12, 2017

 

 

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

CPP = cepstral peak prominence

EBP = evidence-based practice

F0 = fundamental frequency

Hz = Hertz

JITT = jitter

MaxF0 = Maximum fundamental frequency

MF0 = minimum fundamental frequency

Min-max F0 = change in fundamental frequency

NA = not applicable

NHR = noise-to-harmonic levels

P = Patient or Participant

PFR = Phonation frequency range

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SHIM = shimmer

ST = semitones

SLP = speech–language pathologist

Trans men = individuals who had been assigned as female sex at birth but who identified as male

WNL = within normal limits

 

 

SOURCE: Hancock, A. B., Childs, K. D., & Irwig, M. (2017.) Trans male voice in the first year of testosterone treatment: Make no assumptions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60, 2472-2482.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: December 11, 2017

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C (The highest possible grade based on the design of the investigation was C+, Prospective, Single Group with Pre and Post Testing.)

 

TAKE AWAY: The investigators explored the changes in fundamental frequency, pitch range, voice quality, and perceptions of effectiveness of hormone therapy administered to transgender males. Although there was individual variation, overall participants tended to produce lower pitch levels indicating a deepening of their voices.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

  • What was the type of evidence? Prospective, Single Group with Pre- and Post-Testing

                                                                                                          

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

Level = _ C+___

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

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

 

  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?

                                                                                                           

  • from participants? No
  • from clinicians? No
  • from analyzers? No

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes, if one includes the baseline data a descriptors

 

           How many Ps were involved in the study?

  • total # of Ps: 7
  • # of groups: 1
  • List names of groups and the # of participants (Ps) in each group:

     – Trans men (individuals who had been assigned as female sex at birth but who identified as male.)

 

– CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS

  • gender: trans men
  • previous and current voice therapy: None
  • smokers/nonsmokers: 6 nonsmokers; 1 smoked 1 -7 cigarettes a day
  • medications: none of the Ps had used testosterone

 

– DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

  • age: 18 to 39 years
  • ethnic/racial background: Black (2), Racially mixed (3), White (2)
  • professional singer?: none

 

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

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes

 

  • other: baseline data describes jitter (JITT), shimmer (SHIM), noise-to-harmonic levels (NHR), cepstral peak prominence (CPP), fundamental frequency (F0), minimum fundamental frequency (MF0), change in fundamental frequency (Min-max F0), Phonation frequency range (PFR), Habitual pitch level. Only some of these measures were atypical for some of the participants (Ps.)

 

 

  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? NA. there was only one group.

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

– OUTCOMES

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Percentage Jitter (JITT)
  • OUTCOME #2: Percentage Shimmer (SHIM)
  • OUTCOME #3: Noise-to-harmonic ration (NHR)
  • OUTCOME #4: Minimum fundamental frequency (MF0)
  • OUTCOME #5: Cepstral peak prominence (CPP)
  • OUTCOME #6: Maximum fundamental frequency (MaxF0)
  • OUTCOME #7: Change in fundamental frequency from minimum to maximum pitch (Min-Max F0)
  • OUTCOME #8: Phonation frequency range (PFR) in Hertz (Hz) and semitones (ST)
  • OUTCOME #9: Habitual pitch level
  • OUTCOME #10: Self –perception of “maleness” of voice
  • OUTCOME #11: Self-perception that P’s voice reflects true self
  • OUTCOME #12: Self-perception of error required to produce voice they way P wants it to sound.

 

– The following outcome measures were subjective:

 

  • OUTCOME #10: Self –perception of “maleness” of voice
  • OUTCOME #11: Self-perception that P’s voice reflects true self
  • OUTCOME #12: Self-perception of error required to produce voice they way P wants it to sound.

 

The following outcome measures were objective:

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Percentage Jitter (JITT)
  • OUTCOME #2: Percentage Shimmer (SHIM)
  • OUTCOME #3: Noise-to-harmonic ration (NHR)
  • OUTCOME #4: Minimum fundamental frequency (MF0)
  • OUTCOME #5: Cepstral peak prominence (CPP)
  • OUTCOME #6: Maximum fundamental frequency (MaxF0)
  • OUTCOME #7: Change in fundamental frequency from minimum to maximum pitch (Min-Max F0)
  • OUTCOME #8: Phonation frequency range (PFR) in Hertz (Hz) and semitones (ST)
  • OUTCOME #9: Habitual pitch level

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

  • Interobserver for analyzers? No
  • Intraobserver for analyzers?
  • Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No _x__     Unclear ____
  • If yes, describe

 

  1. What were the results?

 

∞ What level of significance was required to claim significance? NA. For the most part, the results were presented descriptively; that is, inferential statistics were not used. However, there were some correlational statistics but they will not be described here. To signify significant change, the investigators noted if the 12 month results 2 standard deviations from the 2 baseline data points.

 

PRE AND POST TREATMENT ANALYSES

 

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Percentage Jitter (JITT3

– At 12 months, variable results: some Ps JITT increased above threshold and for others threshold decreased.

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Percentage Shimmer (SHIM)

3 additional Ps produced SHIM beyond threshold at 12 months

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Noise-to-harmonic ration (NHR)

2 Ps were above threshold at baseline; all Ps were below threshold at 12 months.

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Minimum fundamental frequency (MF0)

Ps’ MF0s were closer to the predicted mean for mean (123 Hz) at the 12 month data collection.

– All Ps’ MF0s were significantly lower than the baseline.

 

  • OUTCOME #5: Cepstral peak prominence (CPP)

– CPP was within normal limits (WNL) for all Ps at baseline and at 12 months.

 

  • OUTCOME #6: Maximum fundamental frequency (MaxF0)

– For 5 of 7 Ps, the change from baseline to 12 months was significantly lower.

 

  • OUTCOME #7: Change in fundamental frequency from minimum to maximum pitch (Min-Max F0)

At 12 months, this measures was WNL.

 

  • OUTCOME #8: Phonation frequency range (PFR) in Hertz (Hz) and semitones (ST)

– For all Ps, the lowest and highest notes decreased from baseline to 12 months but there was variability in the individual Ps’ amount of decrease.

 

  • OUTCOME #9: Habitual pitch level

– One P produced a significant decrease in habitual pitch and one P produced a significant increase.

 

  • OUTCOME #10: Self –perception of “maleness” of voice

Self-perception of male gender of all Ps’ voices increased.

 

  • OUTCOME #11: Self-perception that P’s voice reflects true self

Self-perception that Ps’ voices reflected their true selves increased.

 

  • OUTCOME #12: Self-perception of effort required to produce voice they way P wants it to sound.

3 of the Ps never reported experiencing effort in producing their voices in the way they wanted at baseline or at 12 months.

– 4 of the Ps reported experiencing decreased effort in producing their voices in the way they wanted from baseline to12 months.

 

 

 

∞ What was the statistical test used to determine significance? Place xxx after any statistical test that was used to determine significance.

 

  • Spearman Rho
  • To signify significant change, the investigators noted if the 12 month data was 2 standard deviations from the 2 baseline data points.

 

Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significanceNA

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.
  • Ps were assessed at baseline (prior to hormone treatment) and 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months into the hormone treatment.
  • The baseline consisted of 2 sessions. All other testing periods involved only one session.
  • Following baseline, Ps, who were treated by the same endocrinologist, initiated hormone treatment (serum testosterone and estradiol.)
  • Ps enrolled in neither voice therapy or voice lessons during the intervention.

 

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: C

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To measure the changes associated with the hormone therapy with transgender males.

 

POPULATION: Transgender Males; Adults

 

MODALITY TARGETED: Production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: pitch (level and range)

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: voice quality

 

OTHER TARGETS: self- perception of effectiveness

 

DOSAGE: Ps were monitored every 2 weeks. All Ps started at 50 mg and the physician increased dose levels at needed based on clinical data and testosterone levels.

 

ADMINISTRATOR: endocrinologist

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • Under the direction of the same endocrinologist, all Ps were administered either testosterone enanthate or cypionate.

 

 

_______________________________________________________________

 


Halpern et al. (2012)

December 1, 2017

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Treatment Groups

Note: Scroll about two-thirds of the way down the page to read the summary of the procedure(s). 

Key:

C = Clinician

CI = Confidence Interval

EBP = evidence-based practice

f = female

LSVT Companion = Lee Silverman Voice Treatment Companion

LSVT Loud = Lee Silverman Voice Treatment Loud

m = male

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

PD = Parkinson disease

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

 

 

SOURCE: Halpern, A. E., Ramig, L. O., Matos, C. E. C., Petska-Cable, J. A., Spielman, J. L., Pogoda, J. M., Gilley, P. M., Sapir, S., Bennett, J. K., & McFarland, D. H. (2012). Innovative technology for assisted delivery of intensive voice treatment (LSVT®LOUD) for Parkinson disease. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21, 354-367.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: November 29, 2017

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: B (The highest possible grade based on the design of the investigation, a Prospective Randomized Group with Controls, is B+. The grade should not be construed to represent a judgment about the value of the intervention; it represents the quality of the evidence supporting the intervention.)

 

TAKE AWAY: This small group comparison investigation revealed that using an assistive technology (Lee Silverman Voice Treatment Companion, LSVT Companion) is an effective way to deliver Lee Silverman Voice Treatment Loud (LSVT-LOUD) for patients with Parkinson disease (PD.) LSVT-Companion allows the patient to self-administer some LSVT-LOUD sessions using interactive technology in the home. Improvement was noted in sound pressure level production and in several perceptual measures immediately following the termination of therapy and at 6 month post therapy follow up.

 

 

  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 = B+

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

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

 

  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?
  • from participants? No
  • from clinicians? No
  • from analyzers? Yes, for some outcomes.

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

– How many Ps were involved in the study?

  • total # of Ps: 31
  • # of groups: 3
  • List names of groups and the # of participants in each group:

∞ Immediate Group = 9 (8 continued to the end of the intervention)

∞ Delayed Group = 9 (8 continued to the end of the intervention)

∞ Historical Group = 13

 

— CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS

  • cognitive skills: no evidence of dementia

 

  • medications:  optimally medicated at the beginning of the intervention. There were some changes during the course of the intervention.

 

  • diagnosis: Idiopathic PD

 

  • ability to use LSVT Companion: all Ps passed a usability test

 

— DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS:

  • age:

∞ Immediate Group = mean 65.8

∞ Delayed Group = mean 63.3

∞ Historical Group =   mean 68.5

 

  • gender:

∞ Immediate Group = 4f, 4m

∞ Delayed Group = 4f, 4m

∞ Historical Group = 6f, 7m

 

  • speech and voice severity (higher # = more severe):

∞ Immediate Group = 2.3

∞ Delayed Group = 2.0

∞ Historical Group = 2.7

 

  • emotional/psychological status: All Ps were free from severe depression

 

  • race: All Ps identified as white.

 

  • ethnicity: All Ps identified as not Hispanic or Latino

 

  • years post diagnosis:

∞ Immediate Group = 4.4

∞ Delayed Group = 4.7

∞ Historical Group = 8.5

 

  • severity of PD (higher # = more severe):

∞ Immediate Group = 1.9

∞ Delayed Group = 2.0

∞ Historical Group = not available

 

–   Were the groups similar before intervention began? Yes

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes

  • disorder type: Parkinson disease, hypokinetic dysarthria
  • functional level: severity ratings of speech and volce ranged from 1 to 3.6 with average of 2.3 (Immediate group) and 2.0 (Delayed group.)

 

 

  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?

Yes ____     No __x___     Unclear ____

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes
  • Was there a no intervention group? Yes (actually it was a Delayed Intervention group
  • Was there a foil intervention group? No
  • Was there a comparison group? No

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

OUTCOMES:

                                                                                                             

  • OUTCOME #1: Vocal sound pressure (SPL) level during a portion of the Rainbow Passage

 

  • OUTCOME #2: SPL during maximum duration production of “Ah”

 

  • OUTCOME #3: SPL during a monologue

 

  • OUTCOME #4: SPL during a picture description task

 

  • OUTCOME #5: SPL during a fluency task

 

  • OUTCOME #6: Rating of better or worse from listeners

 

  • OUTCOME #7: Rating of improvements by Ps and their significant others

 

  • OUTCOME #8: Rating of usefulness of LSVT-Companion by Ps and their significant others

 

 

– The outcome measures that were objective are

  • OUTCOME #1: Vocal sound pressure (SPL) level during a portion of the Rainbow Passage

 

  • OUTCOME #2: SPL during maximum duration production of “Ah”

 

  • OUTCOME #3: SPL during a monologue

 

  • OUTCOME #4: SPL during a picture description task

 

  • OUTCOME #5: SPL during a fluency task

 

– The outcome measures that were subjective are

  • OUTCOME #6: Rating of better or worse from listeners

 

  • OUTCOME #7: Rating of improvements by Ps and their significant others

 

                                         

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

– Interobserver for analyzers? Variable _x____, some of the Outcomes were associated with reliability data.

  • OUTCOMES #1 through 5 (i.e., SPL measures): no significant difference between the original rater and the reliability judge

 

  • OUTCOME #6 (i.e., perceptual rating by SLPs or graduate students in SLP): 90% of ratings were within 20 points

 

– Intraobserver for analyzers? Yes, for one outcome.

  • OUTCOME #6 (i.e., perceptual rating by SLPs or graduate students in SLP): 90% of ratings were within 20 points

 

– Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No, but the 3 SLPs who provided the intervention specialized in LSVT Loud.

 

 

  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/NO TREATMENT GROUP ANALYSES

 

NOTE: The investigators provided extensive supporting data. Only selected results are summarized

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Vocal sound pressure (SPL) level during a portion of the Rainbow Passage

∞ Immediate Group = improved from Pre to Post intervention assessment; decrease from Post intervention to Follow-up assessment

∞ Delayed Group = improved from Pre to Post intervention assessment; decrease from Post intervention to Follow-up assessment

∞ Historical Group = improved from Pre to Post intervention assessment; decrease from Post intervention to Follow-up

 

  • OUTCOME #2: SPL during maximum duration production of “Ah”

∞ Immediate Group = improved from Pre to Post intervention assessment; no significant change from Post intervention to Follow-up

∞ Delayed Group = improved from Pre to Post intervention assessment; no significant change from Post intervention to Follow-up

∞ Historical Group = improved from Pre to Post intervention assessment; no significant change from Post intervention to Follow-up

 

  • OUTCOME #3: SPL during a monologue

∞ Immediate Group = improved from Pre to Post intervention assessment; decrease from Post intervention to Follow-up assessment

∞ Delayed Group = improved from Pre to Post intervention assessment; decrease from Post intervention to Follow-up assessment

∞ Historical Group = improved from Pre to Post intervention assessment; decrease from Post intervention to Follow-up assessment

 

  • OUTCOME #4: SPL during a picture description task

∞ Immediate Group = improved from Pre to Post intervention assessment; no significant change from Post intervention to Follow-up

∞ Delayed Group = improved from Pre to Post intervention assessment; no significant change from Post intervention to Follow-up

∞ Historical Group = improved from Pre to Post intervention assessment; no significant change from Post intervention to Follow-up

 

  • OUTCOME #5: SPL during a fluency task

∞ Immediate Group = improved from Pre to Post intervention assessment; no significant change from Post intervention to Follow-up

∞ Delayed Group = improved from Pre to Post intervention assessment; no significant change from Post intervention to Follow-up

∞ Historical Group = data not available for this outcome

 

  • OUTCOME #6: Rating of better or worse from listeners

∞ Immediate and Delayed Groups = improvements were noted from PRE to POST measures

∞ Historical Group = data not available for this outcome

 

 

  • OUTCOME #7: Rating of improvements by Ps and their significant others

∞ Immediate Group =

  • 3 of the 16 Ps demonstrated a positive shift in self-ratings from Pre to Post assessment but, for the most part, even these were not maintained at Follow-Up. However, a total of 3 of the 16 Ps displayed a positive shift from Pre to Follow-Up
  • Significant others rated improvement for several, but not all of measures of improvement

∞ Delayed Group =

  • Significant others rated improvement some, but not all, measures of speech improvement;

∞ Historical Group = data not available for this outcome

 

  • OUTCOME #8: Rating of usefulness of LSVT-Companion by Ps and their significant others

∞ Immediate and Delayed Groups = ratings of helpfulness were primarily positive; all Ps claimed they could use the Companion;

∞ Historical Group =   data not available for this outcome

 

– What was the statistical test used to determine significance?

  • ANOVA
  • Fisher’s exact test
  • Sidak- Bonferroni correction
  • Tukey-Kramer correction

 

Were confidence interval (CI) provided? Yes , there was limited use of CIs.

 

– What was reported CI?

  • 95% CI:
  • reliability data reported for Outcome #7 was reported using CI
  • some of the data reported for Outcome #8 used CI

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significanceNA, no data were provided.

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? Yes

– All of the outcomes were measured during a follow-up session (6 months after the termination of the interventions.)

 

– Most of the interventions remained the same or continued to improve at follow-up.

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? Yes

– The outcome measures were not directly targeted in therapy, they can be considered generalization data. The results suggest that there is considerable generalization.

 

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.

 

–   Sixteen Ps were randomized into 2 groups: those who received the intervention immediately (Immediate Group) and those who received the intervention following the completion of the Immediate Group’s intervention (Delayed Group.) All the Ps in the Immediate and Delayed Groups received treatment using LSVT- Companion.

 

– In addition, there was a Historical Group (n = 13) of Ps from a previously published investigation. These Ps had not received treatment using LSVT- Companion, rather they had received LSVT-LOUD and were included to investigate whether the progress using LVST-Companion was comparable to LSVT-LOUD.

 

– Ps from the current investigation (I.e.. Immediate and Delayed Groups) received 9 treatment sessions of in the clinic and 7 sessions at home using Companion (described in the Summary of Intervention Session.) The sessions in the home were self-administered by the P using LSVT-Companion.

 

– Ps in the Historical group had received 16 sessions of LVST-LOUD in the clinic.

 

–  All Ps were tested during 3 periods:

  • before the intervention (PRE)
  • immediately after the intervention (POST)
  • 6 months after the intervention ended (FOLLOW-UP)

 

– A small number of the Historical Groups outcomes were not available for analysis.

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: B

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: to investigate the effectiveness of an assistive technology (Companion) paired with traditional LSVT-LOUD therapy.

 

POPULATION: Parkinson disease; Adults

 

MODALITY TARGETED: expression

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: loudness

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: Loudness

 

OTHER TARGETS: perception of improvement and usability

 

DOSAGE: 16 one-hour sessions; over 4 weeks (4 sessions a week)

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP qualified to administer LSVT-LOUD

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

 

  • LSVT-Companion follows the same procedures as LSVT-LOUD except LSVT-Companion uses technology to allow the P to be treated at home and to self-administer the program.

 

  • LSVT-Companion consisted of 9 LSVT-LOUD sessions administered in clinic and 7 sessions in which P used Companion at home.

 

  • The schedule for LSVT-Companion was
  • Week 1 = P received LSVT-LOUD from the clinician (C) 4 days. On the 4th day P also was trained to use the Companion.
  • Week 2 = At the clinic, C used Companion during Day 1 and asked P to operate it as independently as possible.
  • Week 3 = P and C used Companion on Day 1 and then C asked P to use it the rest of the week at home in place of the clinic sessions.
  • Week 4 = P worked in the clinic with C on Days 1 and 4 and with Companion on Days 2 and 3.

 

  • The Companion is an interactive computer program operated by the P that administers LSVT-LOUD procedures in the home. Companion allows the P to progress through the LVST-LOUD program at his/her own pace and provides audio and visual feedback to the P. In addition, the Companion generates data on selected acoustic variables (SPL, fundamental frequency, and duration), measuring the progress of the P.

 

  • The investigators did not provide a full description of LSVT-LOUD, although they provided several references.

 

 

_______________________________________________________________