Pinto & Navas (2011)

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Groups 

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

Key:

A = Administrator

C = Clinician

EBP = evidence-based practice

f = female

NA = not applicable

m = male

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

WNL = within normal limits

wpm = words per minute

WRI = Words read Incorrectly

 

 

SOURCE: Pinto, J. C. B. R., & Navas, A. L. G. P. (2011). Effects of reading fluency stimulation with emphasis on prosody. Jornal da Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia, 23 (1), 21- 26. Retrieved December 27, 2017 from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/jsbf/v23n1/en_v23n1a07.pdf

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: January 6, 2018

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C+ (The highest possible grade for overall quality is B- based on the design of the intervention, Single Group with Pre and Post testing. This grade reflects the quality of the experimental support for the intervention. It is not intended to be a judgment regarding the quality of the intervention.)

 

TAKE AWAY: This therapy- related research involved typically developing Brazilian fourth graders who were speakers of Portuguese. The investigators administered a prosody-based reading-rate acceleration program to the participants (Ps.) The following outcomes improved following the 5 group sessions: oral reading rate, reading prosody, and words read Incorrectly. The following outcomes did not change or were poorer: reading comprehension, number of revisions in texts read aloud, and rate of speech during picture description task.

 

 

  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 = B-

 

                                                                                                           

  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? No

– How many Ps were involved in the study?

  • total # of Ps:   32
  • # of groups: one

 

– CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS

  • cognitive skills: within normal limits (WNL)
  • literacy: WNL
  • educational level of clients: fifth grade
  • vision: WNL
  • hearing level: WNL

 

– DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

  • age: 10 to 12 years (mean 10.62 years)
  • gender: 14m; 18f

 

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

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? NA, Ps were typically developing and their reading was WNL.

 

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?
  • Did the group maintain at least 80% of its 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: Reading rate (words per minute, wpm)

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Reading prosody adequacy categorization (adequate—appropriate prosody, intonation, and stress; average—limited prosodic variation, inappropriate stress and intonation,; inadequate—monotonous reading)

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Reading comprehension

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Words read Incorrectly (WRI)

 

  • OUTCOME #5: Number of revisions in texts read aloud

 

  • OUTCOME #6: Rate of speech during picture description task in wpm (Speech WPM)

 

— The outcome measures were subjective were

  • OUTCOME #2: Reading prosody adequacy categorization (adequate, average, inadequate)
  • OUTCOME #3: Reading comprehension
  • OUTCOME #4: Words read Incorrectly (WRI)
  • OUTCOME #5: Number of revisions in texts read aloud

 

The outcome measures that were objective were

  • OUTCOME #1: Reading rate (words per minute, wpm)
  • OUTCOME #6: Rate of speech during picture description task in wpm (Speech WPM) p. 22

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

PRE AND POST TREATMENT ANALYSES

 

Summary Of Important Results

 

— What level of significance was required to claim significance? p = 0.01

 

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Reading rate (words per minute, wpm)   Reading wpm increased significantly from pre-intervention testing to post-intervention testing.

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Reading prosody adequacy categorization (adequate, average, inadequate) Ratings of prosody were significantly higher in post-intervention testing compared to pre-intervention testing

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Reading comprehension — The difference between pre-intervention and post-intervention reading comprehension was not significant.

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Words read Incorrectly (WRI) –WRI was significantly lower in post-intervention testing compared to pre-intervention testing.

 

  • OUTCOME #5: Number of revisions in texts read aloud – The   number of revisions was stable between pre-intervention and post-intervention testing.

 

  • OUTCOME #6: Rate of speech during picture description task in wpm (Speech WPM) — The difference between pre-intervention and post-intervention speaking rate was not significant.

 

– What was the statistical test used to determine significance? t-test

 

– Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significanceNA, evidence-based practice metrics were not provided.

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.
  • All Ps were considered developmentally WNL and free of literacy problems (i.e., this is therapy-related research.)

 

  • The pre-intervention assessment measured the outcomes prior to the intervention.

 

  • Although there were 3 treatment subgroups (10Ps, 10Ps, and 12Ps), data were combined for statistical analysis.

 

  • The investigators administered the reading intervention to all the Ps in their classrooms for 5 sessions weekly sessions.

 

  • Following the fifth session, Ps were reassessed on the outcome measures.

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: C+

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of a fluency acceleration program in improving oral reading rate among typical readers

 

POPULATION: Typically developing; Children

 

MODALITY TARGETED: production and comprehension

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: intonation, stress, overall reading prosody

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: rate of speech and reading, intonation

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: reading rate, reading comprehension, reading accuracy (wri, revisions)

 

DOSAGE: 5 sessions, 15 minutes, once a week, group treatment (2 groups = 10P; 1 group = 12 P)

 

ADMINISTRATOR (A): Investigators

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • In each of the 3 subgroups of Ps, half of the Ps were categorized as higher rate readers and the other half were categorized as lower rate readers. The Ps in each subgroup were paired with one P being a faster reader and the other being a slower reader.

 

  • The pairs were consistent thoroughout the intervention. They helped one another identify errors and omissions as well as monitored reading rate.

 

  • The intervention focused on rate acceleration as a treatment and as an outcome.

 

  • During each of the 5 sessions, a different passage/text was used. The Administrator (A) monitored the targeted reading prosody and provided feedback on the following: variation of intonation and reading rate.

 

  • SESSION 1: A “exposed” (p. 23) Ps to prosody.

 

  • SESSION 2 and 3: A divided the Ps within the group into their pairs. Then using silent reading, A “exposed” Ps to the content and the vocabulary of the passage followed by modeling the reading aloud using the targeted prosody. Ps were directed to read aloud in pairs the passage using the modeled prosody.

 

  • SESSION 4: A modeled the targeted behaviors when reading aloud while Ps silently read the passage. Then, A directed the pairs of Ps to read aloud the passage (text.)

 

  • SESSION 5: Ps silently read the targeted passage and they were allowed to ask questions about unfamiliar vocabulary. Then, the Ps and A read aloud the passage in unison two times. Finally, Ps read aloud the passage in pairs.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: