Spielman et al. (2007)

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

f =  female

LSVT = Lee Silverman Voice Treatment

m = male

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

PD = Parkinson’s disease

pmh =  Patricia  Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

SPL = sound pressure level

VHI =  Voice Handicap Index, VHI)

 

SOURCE: Spielman, J., Ramig, L. O., Mahler, L. Halpern, A., & Gavin, W. J. (2007). Effects of an extended version of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment on voice and speech in Parkinson’s disease.  American Journal of Speech-Language-Pathology, 16, 95-107.

REVIEWER(S):  pmh

DATE:  February 21, 2019

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY:  B.The highest possible grade for this investigation, which is based on its experimental design, is B+. The Assigned Grade for Overall Quality should not be interpreted as a judgment of the quality of the intervention; instead it represents an evaluation of the evidence supporting the intervention.

TAKE AWAY: An extended version of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment  (LVST) increased sound pressure level (a performance similar to traditional LVST). Participants’ (Ps’) who received the extended version of LVST did not evidence significant improvements in self- ratings (as a group) on the Voice Handicap Index. However, some of the individual Ps did improve significantly from pre to post treatment. In addition, judges’ rating of the quality of the Ps’ speech revealed that Ps who received the extended version of LSVT and those who received traditional LSVT were judged to be significantly better communicators that Ps who did not receive treatment. 

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

–  There were 3 groups of Ps: one group of ‘new’ Ps and two groups of Ps who had been treated in a previous intervention (i.e., ‘old’ groups.)

–  No significant differences were identified among the 3 groups for age, years since diagnosis, Hoehn & Yahr stage, and severity of dysarthria.

  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?
  • from participants? No
  • from clinicians? No
  • from analyzers? Yes 
  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

           How many  Ps were involved in the study?

  • total # of Ps: 44
  • # of groups:3
  • Names of groups and the # of participants (Ps) in each group:

∞  new group of Ps receiving Lee Silverman Voice Therapy (LSVT) extended over 8 weeks or LVST-X (X- PD)  = 15

∞  group from previous investigation receiving standard LVST (T-PD) =  14

∞  group from previous investigation receiving not receiving treatment (NT-PD)  =  15

–  CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS:

  • cognitive skills:all Ps lived independently and were about to complete documentation associated with the investigation
  • diagnosis: Parkinson’s disease (PD)
  • medication status:medication of all Ps was stable
  • physical status:excluded Ps for whom exertion associated with high-effort voice therapy would be inappropriate

–  DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS:

  • age:

∞ X-PD =  45 years – 82 years (mean = 67.2)

∞ T-PD =  51 years – 80 years (mean = 67.9)

∞ NT-PD =  64 years – 91 years (mean 71.2)

  • gender:

∞ X-PD =  10 male (m); 5 female (f)

∞ T-PD =  7m; 7f

∞ NT-PD =  7m; 8f

  • years since diagnosis:

∞ X-PD =  0.5 years – 11 years (mean 4.8)

∞ T-PD =  1.5 years – 20 years (mean 8.6; 1 missing data point)

∞ NT-PD =  0.5 years – 19 years (mean 7.4; 1 missing data point)

  • Hoehn & Yahr stage of PD:

∞ X-PD =  2-3 (mean 2.5; 2 missing data points)

∞ T-PD =  2-5 (mean 3.1; 7 missing data points)

∞ NT-PD =  1-3 (mean 2.2; 2 missing data points)

  • severity of dysarthria:

∞ X-PD =  1-5 (mean 2.6)

∞ T-PD =  0-5 (mean 2.9)

∞ NT-PD =  0-4 (mean 2.3)

–   Were the groups similar before intervention began? Yes                                                          

–  Were the communication problems adequately described?  Yes

  • disorder type: All Ps were judged by a panel of speech-language pathologist (SLPs) to produce speech and voice that was characteristic of PD.  Some of thos characteristics include

∞  reduced loudness

∞  breathiness

∞  monopitch

∞  imprecise articulation

∞  hoarseness

∞  strained voice quality

∞  fast rate

∞  palilalia

∞  slow rate

∞  pitch breaks

  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?  Yes
  • Was there a no intervention group?Yes
  • 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, the treatment time was essentially the same in the X-PD and T-PD groups but the X-PD sessions tended to go longer because they had more homework.  (Because the X-PD group extended over 2 months they had more homework.)
  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful?  Yes

– OUTCOMES                                                                                   

  • OUTCOME #1:  Sound pressure level in 4 tasks

∞ phonation

∞  reading

∞  picture description

∞  conversation

  • OUTCOME #2:  P’s perception of voice (Voice Handicap Index, VHI)
  • OUTCOME #3:  Listener’s perception of changes in voice quality, clarity, rate, intonation, and naturalness

–  The outcome measures that are subjective are

  • OUTCOME #2:P’s perception of voice (Voice Handicap Index, VHI)
  • OUTCOME #3:Listener’s perception of changes in voice quality, clarity,

rate, intonation, and naturalness

  The outcome measures that are objective are

  • OUTCOME #1:Sound pressure level in 4 tasks

∞  phonation

∞  reading

∞  picture description

∞  conversation                                       

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

   Interobserver for analyzers?  Variable

  • OUTCOME #3:  Listener’s perception of changes in voice quality, clarity, rate, intonation, and naturalness

∞  intraclass correlation coefficient (Cronbach’s) = 0.90

–  but there were significant differences among judges 

–  Intraobserver for analyzers?  Variable

  • OUTCOME #3:  Listener’s perception of changes in voice quality, clarity,

rate, intonation, and naturalness

     –  ∞ average correlation coefficient (r) was 0.90, range 0.88 to 0.98

–  Treatment fidelity for clinicians?  No   

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

–  What level of significance was required to claim significance?  p = 0.0021

TREATMENT, COMPARISON, AND NO TREATMENT GROUP ANALYSES

  • OUTCOME #1: Sound pressure level in 4 tasks

∞  phonation

  • significant improvement for X-PD groups from pre to post treatment assessment and from pretreatment to follow up
  • no significant differences between X-PD and T-PD before and after treatment

     ∞ reading

  • significant improvement for X-PD groups from pre to post treatment and from pretreatment to follow up
  • no significant differences between X-PD and T-PD before and after treatment

∞  picture description

  • significant improvement for X-PD groups from pre to post treatment and from pretreatment to follow up
  • significant differences between X-PD and T-PD after treatment but no significant difference for pretreatment

∞ conversation

  • significant improvement for X-PD groups from pre to post treatment
  • no significant differences between X-PD and T-PD before and after treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #2:P’s perception of voice (Voice Handicap Index, VHI)

∞  no significant difference in LVST-X group’s scores from pre to post treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #3:Listener’s perception of changes in voice quality, clarity, rate, intonation, naturalness

     ∞  both treatment groups (X-PD, T-PD) were significantly better than the group that did not receive treatment (NT-PD).

 

–  Were confidence interval (CI) provided?  No

 

  1. What is the clinical significance
  • The investigators provided the following EBP: ETA
  • Results of EBP testing and the interpretation:
  • OUTCOME #1:Sound pressure level in 4 tasks: phonation, reading, picture description, and conversation

∞  eta for time of assessment (pretreatment, posttreatment, and follow-up) was 0.90 (large effect)

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? Yes. There were significant difference for SLP for pretreatment  and follow-up measures for phonation, reading, and picture description but not for conversation.

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? Yes
  • Outcomes 2 and 3 can be considered generalization outcomes.

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.
  • The investigators selected 15 Ps with PD (12 completed the investigation) who received an extended version of LSVT. This was labeled X-PD and outcomes were compared them to 2 groups from a previous investigation:T-PD (the Ps had received traditional LSVT) and NT-PD (this was a control in which Ps did not receive LSVT).

 

  • LSVT and LSVT-X treatment protocols were identical except that treatment for LSVT-X was administered 2 times a week and lasted for 8 weeks. Also, the investigators noted that sessions for the X-PD tended to go overtime because the clinicians spent more time reviewing homework as there were more days that Ps were assigned homework.

 

  • Investigators assessed Ps prior to treatment, immediately after treatment, and 6 months after the completion of treatment.

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:  B

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of an extended version of LSVT

POPULATION:  Parkinson’s disease; adults

MODALITY TARGETED: production

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION (part of independent variable:  loudness, pitch change

ASPECT OF PROSODY TARGETED:   Loudness

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED:  perception of voice and speech

DOSAGE:

  • traditional Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LVST) = 4 one-hour individual sessions for 4 weeks (16 sessions); daily homework (5 to 10 minutes a day on treatment days; 20-30 minutes on nontreatment days)
  • LVST extended version (LVST-X) = 2 one-hour individual sessions for 8 weeks (16 sessions); daily home work (5 to 10 minutes a day; 20-30 minutes on nontreatment days)

ADMINISTRATOR:  SLP trained in LSVT

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

  • Common Major Components of LSVT and LSVT-X

– individual sessions

– one hour sessions

– 16 sessions

– sessions started with review of homework

– tasks were hierarchical

– Sessions were divided into practice using a louder voice and carryover activities

– LOUDER VOICE:

∞ the target is the production of a louder voice using healthy strategies

∞ 15 repetitions of “ah” in a loud voice using high effort

∞ 15 repetition each of high pitch glides and low pitch glides

∞ 5 repetitions of 10 sentences using the louder voice produced with healthy strategies

– CARRY OVER:

∞ Use of the louder, healthy voice for the production of sentences that increase in length and complexity.

– Homework:  Clinicians assigned homework to the Ps (5 to 10 minutes a day; 20-30 minutes on nontreatment days). Homework consisted of worksheets with carryover activities and reading assignments.

 

  • Different Major Components of LSVT and LSVT-X

–  Because LSVT-X lasted for 8 weeks compared to LSVT’s 4 weeks more homework was assigned to the LSVT-X group (96 versus 40 assignments.)

–  The investigators noted that sessions for the X-PD tended to go overtime  because the clinicians spent more time reviewing homework as there were more days that Ps were assigned homework.

_______________________________________________________________

 

 

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: