Fairbanks (1960, Ch. 11., Pitch Variability)

October 16, 2019

CRITIQUE OF UNSUPPORTED PROCEDURAL DESCRIPTIONS

(also known as Expert Opinion)

KEY
C =  clinician

NA = not applicable

P =  patient or participant

pmh =  Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

 

Source:  Fairbanks, G. (1960, Ch. 11, Pitch Variability)  Voice and articulation drillbook.  New York: Harper & Row.  (pp. 129-132)

 

Reviewer(s):  pmh

 

Date:  October 9, 2019

 

Overall Assigned Grade:  Not Graded.  The Assigned Overall Grade reflects the quality of the evidence supporting the intervention and does not represent a judgment regarding the quality of the intervention.

 

Level of Evidence:  F = Expert Opinion, no supporting evidence for the effectiveness of the intervention although the author may provide secondary evidence supporting components of the intervention.

 

Take Away:  This chapter of Fairbanks (1960) is concerned with the production of Pitch. Fairbanks notes that pitch level, pitch variability (pitch range), and inflection (pitch modulation within an utterance) /shifts comprise pitch; this review, however, is only concerned with Pitch Variability. Several strategies for treating pitch variability are presented in this part of Chapter 11.

 

 

  1. Was there a review of the literature supporting components of the intervention?No

 

  1. Were the specific procedures/components of the intervention tied to the reviewed literature? Not Applicable (NA)

 

  1. Was the intervention based on clinically sound clinical procedures? Yes

 

  1. Did the authors provide a rationale for components of the intervention? Variable

 

  1. Description of outcome measures:

 Are outcome measures suggested? Yes

 

  • Outcome #1: Producing speech with the best pitch level and variability
  • Outcome #2: Producing speech with the pitch level and variability that is appropriate to the emotion of the speaker

 

  1. Was generalization addressed? No

 

  1. Was maintenance addressed? No

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To produce speech using appropriate pitch variability

 

POPULATION:  Adults

 

MODALITY TARGETED: production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED:  pitch variability, affective prosody

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION:  rate, pitch level, pitch range

 

DOSAGE: NA

 

ADMINISTRATOR:  The book is written so that a layperson could use it as a self-help book. Historically, I know of many speech-language pathologists who have used the techniques and the materials in their therapy sessions.

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • Fairbanks (1960, Ch. 11, Pitch Variability, pp. 129-132) defines several terms used in this section of the chapter. He also notes that there is not a sharp dividing line between male and female speakers. That is, the high pitches for men and low pitches for women often overlap. In treatment, speakers should target producing

–  a difference of about 2 octaves between the highest and lowest pitches,

–  the number of the pitches above and below the most frequent (modal) pitch gradually decrease as the pitch level moves from modal to above/below modal, and

–  more productions below modal than above.

 

  • Fairbanks notes that if the Participant/Patient (P) has a limited ability to produce a typical total pitch range, attention should be directed to improving the typical total pitch range. However, pitch variability can improve even for Ps with limited total pitch ranges.

 

TREATMENT IDEAS

 

  • The clinician (C) directs P to read aloud the first passage on page 130 four different ways using the best pitch level:

– chanting using a monotone,

–  a narrow range,

– an average range, and

–  a wide range.

The P should be careful to have more than just a few productions of high or low pitches when trying to produce variable pitches.

 

  • P rereads the first passage on page 130 four different ways using the a high pitch level:

– chanting using a monotone,

–  a narrow range,

– an average range, and

–  a wide range.

 

  • P rereads the first passage on page 130 four different ways using the a low pitch level:

– chanting using a monotone,

–  a narrow range,

– an average range, and

–  a wide range.

 

  • P reads the first passage on page 131 at the best pitch level and then increases the pitch variability until P produces a very wide pitch range.

 

  • P rereads the first passage on page 131 at the best pitch level and increasing the pitch variability until P or C judges it to be optimal.

 

  • P rereads the first passage on page 131 at the best pitch level and with very wide variability then decreases pitch variability until P or C judges it to be optimal.

 

  • C provides a passage of factual prose for P to read aloud. The target is

–  best pitch level and

–  optimal variability.

 

  • P gives a short impromptu speech. The target is

–  best pitch level and

–  optimal variability.

 

  • C directs P to read aloud the second passage on page 131 (at the bottom of the page) expressing different emotions using variations of rate, pitch level, and pitch variation:

–  Anger (fast rate, high pitch level, wide range for variability)

–  Fear (fast rate, high pitch level, medium range for variability)

–  Indifference (fast rate, low pitch level, narrow range for variability)

–  Grief (slow rate, low pitch level, narrow range for variability)

–  Contempt (slow rate, low pitch level, wide range for variability)

 

———————————————————————

 


Slavin & Fabus (2018)

October 9, 2019

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS for

Single Case Designs

 

NOTES: 

  • The summary of the intervention procedure(s) can be viewed by scrolling about 90% of the way down on this page.

 Key:

C = Clinician

BDAE =  Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination

EBP =  evidence-based practice

 EDAP =  Extended Day Aphasia Program

MIT – melodic intonation therapy

MLU – mean length of utterance

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

 

SOURCE:  Slavin, D., & Fabus, R. (2018). A case study using a multimodal approach to melodic intonation therapy. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 27, 1352-1362.

 

REVIEWER(S):  pmh

 

DATE:  October 2, 2019

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE:  D  The highest possible grade based on the design of this investigation (Case Study) is  D+. This grade rates the quality of the evidence supporting the intervention; it does not evaluate the quality of the intervention.

 

TAKE AWAY:  This is a case study of a patient (P) diagnosed with aphasia and apraxia 10 years prior to the investigation. The results reveal that a modified version of Melodic Intonation Therapy was successful in improving an outcome associated with comprehension as well as several measures of expressive language.

                                                                                                           

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

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  • Whattype 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?No
  • from clinicians?No
  • from data analyzers?No

 

  1. Was the participant (P) adequately described? Yes

  How many Ps were involved in the study? 1

 

–  CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS

  • diagnosis: aphasia                    

 

–  DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

  • age: 63 years
  • gender: m                                                                
  • post onset: 10 years
  • site of lesion:  left cerebrovascular accident
  • educational level of participant: college educated; no formal music education
  • previous therapy:

–  8 years of speech-language therapy 1 or 2 times per week; no singing or intoning interventions; focus included auditory comprehension, word finding, syntactic skills

     – university Extended Day Aphasia Program (EDAP); 6 years; 4  hours per session 1 time a week; focus included  meet and greet, current events, counseling (Living with Aphasia), student clinicians were trained communicative partners.

                                                 

–  Were the communication problems adequately described?  Yes

–  Disorder types:   mild to moderate aphasia, word finding problems,  apraxia of speech

–  Other aspects of communication that were described:

–  at the beginning of the investigation

          ∞ often produced single word utterances with limited content (e.g., “here.”)

          ∞ automatic speech

          ∞ empty speech

          ∞ difficulty initiating speech

          ∞ vocalizations

          ∞ ineffective gestures

          ∞ sang  familiar songs fluently

          ∞ writing: signature, copying

                                                                                                             

  1. Was membership in treatment maintained throughout the study?Not applicable (NA), this was a single case study.
  • If there was more than one participant, did at least 80% of the participants remain in the study? NA
  • Were any data removed from the study? No 

 

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

–  Were baseline/preintervention data collected on all behaviors?  Yes

–  Did probes/intervention data include untrained stimuli?Yes

–  Did probes/intervention data include trained stimuli?  Yes

–  Was the data collection continuous?No

–  Were different treatment counterbalanced or randomized? NA, only one type of intervention was investigated

 

  1. Were the outcome measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) subtest: Basic word Discrimination (Auditory Discrimination)–

 

  • OUTCOME #2:Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the BDAE subtest: Commands (Auditory Discrimination)

   

  • OUTCOME #3: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the BDAE subtest:  Complex Ideational Material- sentences and paragraphs (Auditory Discrimination)

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the BDAE subtest:  Recitation: Automatized Sequences- days of the week, counting (Auditory Discrimination)

 

  • OUTCOME #5: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the BDAE subtest:  Repetition Words

 

  • OUTCOME #6:Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the BDAE subtest:  Repetition Sentences

 

  • OUTCOME #7: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the BDAE subtest:  Responsive Naming –words of increasing length

 

  • OUTCOME #8: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the BDAE subtest:  Special Categories- Recall (letters, numbers, colors)

 

  • OUTCOME #9: Mean Length of Utterance (MLU; after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

  • OUTCOME #10: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the Apraxia Battery of Adults ratings subtest: Raw score for Increasing Word Length A

 

  • OUTCOME #11:Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the Apraxia Battery of Adults ratings subtest: Raw score for Increasing Word Length B

 

  • OUTCOME #12: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the Apraxia Battery of Adults ratings subtest: Limb

 

  • OUTCOME #13: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the Apraxia Battery of Adults ratings subtest: Oral Aphasia

 

  • OUTCOME #14:Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the Apraxia Battery of Adults ratings subtest:  Repeated trials

 

  • OUTCOME #15: Total Utterances in the Language Sample in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

  • OUTCOME #16:Utterances in Analysis Set in 3 language samples (after Semester 1,  After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

  • OUTCOME #17:All words including mazes in the Language Sample in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

  • OUTCOME #18: Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) in words in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

  • OUTCOME #19: MLU in morphemes in 3 language samples (after Semester 1,  After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

  • OUTCOME #20: Number of total words in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

  • OUTCOME #21: Number of different words in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

  • OUTCOME #22: Type-token ratio in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

  • OUTCOME #23: Number of Declarative Sentences of Spontaneous Utterances in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

  • OUTCOME #24: Number of Imperative Sentences of Spontaneous Utterances in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

  • OUTCOME #25: Number of Wh-Question Sentences of Spontaneous Utterances in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

  • OUTCOME #26: Number of Other Sentences of Spontaneous Utterances in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

  • OUTCOME #27:Number of Overlearned Social Phrases of Spontaneous Utterances in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

  • OUTCOME #28:Number of Sentence Fragments of Spontaneous Utterances in 3 language samples (after Semester 1,  After Semester 2, After Semester 3)

 

–  All of the outcomes were subjective.                                                  

 Noneof the outcomes were objective.                                                           

 There were no reliability data.

 

  1. Results:

Did the target behavior(s)/outcome improve when treated?  Yes, for several of the outcomes

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) subtest: Basic word Discrimination (Auditory Discrimination)–ineffective

 

  • OUTCOME #2:Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the BDAE subtest: Commands (Auditory Discrimination) –ineffective

   

  • OUTCOME #3: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the BDAE subtest:  Complex Ideational Material- sentences and paragraphs (Auditory Discrimination)—Strong effect

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the BDAE subtest:  Recitation: Automatized Sequences- days of the week, counting (Auditory Discrimination)—Strong effect

 

  • OUTCOME #5: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the BDAE subtest:  Repetition Words–Ineffective

 

  • OUTCOME #6: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the BDAE subtest:  Repetition Sentences—Moderate Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #7: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the BDAE subtest:  Responsive Naming –words of increasing length–Ineffective

 

  • OUTCOME #8: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the short form of the BDAE subtest:  Special Categories- Recall (letters, numbers, colors)—Limited effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #9: Mean Length of Utterance (MLU)—Moderate Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #10: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the Apraxia Battery of Adults ratings subtest: Raw score for Increasing Word Length A— Moderate Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #11:Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the Apraxia Battery of Adults ratings subtest: Raw score for Increasing Word Length B—Limited Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #12: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the Apraxia Battery of Adults ratings subtest: Limb—Limited Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #13: Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the Apraxia Battery of Adults ratings subtest: Oral Aphasia–Ineffective

 

  • OUTCOME #14:Performance on 4 administrations (pretest, after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) of the Apraxia Battery of Adults ratings subtest:  Repeated trials–Ineffective

 

  • OUTCOME #15: Total Utterances in the Language Sample in 3 language samples (after Semester 1,  After Semester 2, After Semester 3)—Strong Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #16:Utterances in Analysis Set in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)—Strong Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #17: All words including mazes in the Language Sample in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) —Strong Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #18: Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) in words in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3—Moderate Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #19: MLU in morphemes in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)—Moderate Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #20: Number of total words in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)—Strong Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #21: Number of different words in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3) —Strong Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #22: Type-token ratio in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)—Moderate Effectivenss

 

  • OUTCOME #23: Number of Declarative Sentences of Spontaneous Utterances in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)—Moderate Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #24: Number of Imperative Sentences of Spontaneous Utterances in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)–  Ineffective

 

  • OUTCOME #25: Number of Wh-Question Sentences of Spontaneous Utterances in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)—Limited Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #26: Number of Other Sentences of Spontaneous Utterances in 3 language samples (after Semester 1,  After Semester 2, After Semester 3—Could not interpret the change

 

  • OUTCOME #27:Number of Overlearned Social Phrases of Spontaneous Utterances in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)—Moderate Effectiveness

 

  • OUTCOME #28: Number of Sentence Fragments of Spontaneous Utterances in 3 language samples (after Semester 1, After Semester 2, After Semester 3)– –  Strong Effectivenss

 

  1. Description of baseline/preintervention data:

 

  • Were preintervention data provided? Yes, but when it was provided it was a single data point and could not be considered baseline.

 

  1. What is the clinical significanceNA
  2. Was information about treatment fidelity adequate? No

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported?No

 

  1. Were generalization data reported?Yes. Many of the outcomes were not targets of intervention. Accordingly, most of the outcomes could be considered measures of generalization.

 

  1. Brief description of the design:
  • A 10-year post onset patient (P) diagnosed with aphasia and apraxia was treated using a modified version of MIT.
  • The investigators tested the P before intervention and after each of the 3 academic semesters of treatment.

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE:  to explore the effectiveness of a modified version of MIT.

 

POPULATION:  Aphasia, Apraxia; Adults

 

MODALITY TARGETED:  production

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: intonation/pitch, rhythm, rate, duration

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: MLU, auditory comprehension, expressive syntas/morphology, expressive semantics, repetition, oral apraxia, expressive sentence types

 

DOSAGE:  three 12-week sessions (semesters); two 50-minute individual sessions per week; one 4-hour group session per week

 

ADMINISTRATOR:  graduate students

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

MODIFIED MIT

 

  • Sessions generally involved

– nonlinguistic and rhythm tasks

– linguistic musical tasks

 

  • Order of activities each 12-week session (semester)

 

NONLINGUISTIC RHYTHM TASKS (criterion for learning these tasks = 5 consecutive correct productions; after reaching criterion the tasks were used as warm ups for sessions)

– Clinician (C) directs P in breathing exercise involving 3 steps (inhale, hold, exhale).

–  C directs P to sing up and down musical scale and downward glides

–  C models and P imitates a rhythm of 3 to 7 hand taps

–  C directs P to sustain the vowel /a/.

 

LINGUISTIC MUSICAL TASKS  (Using the MIT procedures; the content includes

∞ first, brief portions of familiar, overlearned songs

∞ then, longer and/or less familiar songs, and

∞ finally, functional phrases.)

 

–  C models humming and tapping of rhythms ranging from 3 to 7 taps. P imitates and C uses a hand-over-hand technique to assist with tapping.

–  C models the singing of phrases with hand-over hand tapping

–  C and P tap and sing in unison phrases.

–  C fades singing as P sings.

–  C prompts P to sing the phrase independently. If needed, C reduces the rate by prolonging vowels.

–  C prompts P with questions to elicit sung and then spoken phrases.

–  C elicits spontaneous conversation on a variety of topics (for 5 minutes at the beginning and end of the session).