Fromius (2018)

ANALYSIS

KEY: 

f =  female

m = male

MLU = mean length of utterance

MT = music therapist

NA = Not Applicable

P = participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

SOURCE:  Fromius, J. R. (2018). A survey of perceptions and professional boundaries between music therapy and speech-language pathology. Master’s Thesis. 3422. Western Michigan University. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/3422

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE:  April 8, 2019

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY:  Not graded. This thesis involves a survey regarding attitudes about speech-language pathology and music therapists and is not directly concerned with the application of an intervention. Accordingly, it is not assigned a grade.

 

TAKE AWAY: This investigation explored the views about professional interactions between music therapists (MTs) and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) using survey methodology. It is not a therapy investigation; rather it provides useful information about the application of music to speech-language pathologists, the targeting of speech-language goals in music therapy, and professional interactions between speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and music therapists (MTs). The results suggest that while SLPs are generally open to co-treatment with other disciplines, they have only limited experience co-treating and being consulted by other professions.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

  • What was the type of design? • Survey Data
  • What was the focus of the research? Clinically Related
  • What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Not graded because the investigation did not explore the effectiveness of an intervention.

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

  • If there were groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? No
  • If there were groups and Ps were not randomly assigned to groups, were members of groups carefully matched? No. The investigator used a convenience sampling strategy.

                                                                    

 

  1. Were conditions concealed? Not applicable (NA)

                                                                                                           

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 

–   How many participants were involved in the study?

  • total # of Ps: 283
  • # of groups: 2
  • List names of groups and the number of Ps in each group:

–  Music Therapists (MTs)  =  45

–  Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs)  =  238

  • Did all groups maintain membership throughout the investigation? Yes

 

–  CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS                                                  

  • educational level of participants (Ps):professional certification in their professional discipline

 

–  DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

  • age: 20s to 60s with highest percentage between 20 and 29 years
  • years of professional experience: highest percentage had less than 5 years professional experience
  • populations served by the Ps:

–  school aged children  = 45.6%

     –  early childhood preschool = 25.8%

     –  autism = 11.6%

     –  miscellaneous or multiple populations  = 8.1%

     –  geriatric, dememtia, Alzheimers = 5.7%

     –  neuroTBI, NeuroRehab = 3.2%

 

  • Were the groups similar?

                                                         

  • Were the communication problems adequately described?NA

 

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

                                                                                                             

  • Subject (Classification) Groups?  Yes

–  Music therapists (MTs)

–  Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs)

                                                               

  • Experimental Conditions? No 

 

  • Criterion/Descriptive Conditions?No 

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably?  Yes

 

 

  1. Were survey questions appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

  • OUTCOME #1:Do you co-treat with the other discipline?

 

  • OUTCOME #2:Have you ever co-treated with the other discipline?

 

  • OUTCOME #3:Do you believe that co-treatment with the other discipline helps to accomplish treatment goals?

 

  • OUTCOME #4:If available, are you open to referring a client to the other discipline’s therapy?

 

  • OUTCOME #5:I have been consulted with by someone from the other discipline.

 

  • OUTCOME #6:Has co-treatment been effective with the other discipline?

 

  • OUTCOME #7: Have you targeted speech goals in music therapy sessions (for MTs)?  or   Have you used music in speech-language therapy sessions (for SLPs)?

 

  • OUTCOME #8:Have you used songs with specific sounds or words to target sounds or words?

 

  • OUTCOME #9: Are you interested in participating in continuing education activities to learn to incorporate music (for SLPs) or speech targets (for MTs) in your clinical work?

 

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?  NA                          

 

 

  1. Description of design: (briefly describe)
  • MTs (n = 45) and SLPs  N = 238) completed online surveys concerned with their history of co-treatment between the 2 professions and views about co-treatment.
  • Ps were selected using a convenience sample.
  • The investigators analyzed the surveys descriptively and using inferential statistics.

 

 

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

 

  • OUTCOME #1:Do you co-treat with the other discipline?

–  Overall: Yes (8.1%; n = 23)

–  MTs: Yes (26.7%; n = 12)

–  SLPs = (4.6%; n = 11)

 

  • OUTCOME #2:Have you ever co-treated with the other discipline?

–  Overall: Yes (29.3%; n = 83)

–  MTs: Yes (75.6%; n = 34)

–  SLPs = (20.6%; n = 49)

 

  • OUTCOME #3:Do you believe that co-treatment with the other discipline helps to accomplish treatment goals?

–  Overall: Yes (78.8%; n = 223 ); No (1.1%; m=3), Undecided (20.1%; n = 57)

–  MTs: Yes (100; n =45 )

–  SLPs = (74.8%; n = 178 );

 

  • OUTCOME #4:If available, are you open to referring a client to the other discipline’s therapy?

–  Overall: Yes (90.4.%; n =256)

–  MTs: Yes (97.8%; n = 44)

–  SLPs = (89.1%; n = 212)

 

  • OUTCOME #5:I have been consulted with by someone from the other discipline.

–  Overall: Yes (19.1%; n = 54)

–  MTs: Yes (60%; n = 27)

–  SLPs = (1.3%; n = 27)

 

  • OUTCOME #6:Has co-treatment been effective with the other discipline?

–  No statistical association between population served and effectiveness (Chi square)

 

  • OUTCOME #7: Have you targeted speech goals in music therapy sessions (for MTs)?  or   Have you used music in speech-language therapy sessions (for SLPs)?

–  Overall: Yes (84.8%; n = 240)

–  MTs: Yes (100%; n = 45)

–  SLPs = (81.9%; n = 195)

 

  • OUTCOME #8:Have you used songs with specific sounds or words to target sounds or words?

–  Overall: Yes (75.3%; n = 213)

–  MTs: Yes (95.6%; n = 43)

–  SLPs = (71.4%; n = 170)

 

  • OUTCOME #9:  Are you interested in participating in continuing education activities to learn to incorporate music (for SLPs) or speech targets (for MTs) in your clinical work?

–  Overall: Yes (86.2%; n = 244)

 

–  What was the statistical test used to determine significance?  Fisher’s Exact and  Chi Square:  xxx

 

–  Were effect sizes provided?  NA

 

–  Were confidence interval (CI) provided?  No

 

 

  1. Summary of correlational results:   NA

 

 

  1. Summary of descriptive results: Qualitative research only  NA

 

 

  1. Brief summary of clinically relevant results:

 

  • SLPs and MTs are open to co-treatment and learning about using music to target speech-language objectives.
  • SLPs and MTs are open to referring to one another and both believe co-treatment can be effective.
  • SLPs have considerably less experience in co-treating and appear to be consulted with by other disciplines less frequently than are MTs.

 

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:   No grade, grade. This was not an intervention investigation.

 

============================================================

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: