Boutsen & Dvorak (2017)

 

SECONDARY REVIEW CRITIQUE

 

NOTE: The article reviewed here does not address intervention, rather it is a critical evaluation of writings about prosody as they pertain to motor speech disorders.

 

KEY:

C = clinician

f =  female

m =  male

NA = not applicable

P = patient or participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

SR = Systematic Review

 

Source:  Boutsen, F., & Dvorak, J. (2017). Prosody and. Motor speech disorders: A retrospective review of a merger that is imminent. Lingua, 199, 50-59.

 

Reviewer(s):  pmh

 

Date:  March 16, 2020

 

Overall Assigned Grade:  No grade assigned. This is not an intervention paper. Rather, it provides background information pertaining to the application of a theoretical framework to clinical issues associated with the prosody and motor speech disorders.

 

Level of Evidence:  Not Applicable.

 

Take Away:  This analysis of history of scholarship exploring the relationship between prosody and motor speech disorders can serve as an aid to readers who wish to track the evolution of thought about prosody and the diagnosis of motor speech disorders. Moreover, it explores current and historic terminology and strategies used to describe atypical prosody.

 

What type of secondary review?   Narrative Review

 

  • Were the results valid? Yes

–  Was the review based on a clinically sound clinical question?  Yes

–  Did the reviewers clearly describe reasonable criteria for inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review (i.e., sources)?  No

– The authors of the secondary research noted that they reviewed the following resources:  NA

–  Did the sources involve only English language publications? No

–  Did the sources include unpublished studies?  No

 

– Was the time frame for the publication of the sources sufficient?  NA

–  Did the authors of the secondary research identify the level of evidence of the sources?   No

–  Were there a sufficient number of sources?  Yes

 

  • Description of outcome measures: NA,  this is not an intervention article.

 

  • Description of findings:

–  Historically, scholars have linked prosody and motor speech disorders. Only relatively recently has there emerged a coherent merger between prosodic scholarship (especially rhythm and intonational analysis) and motor speech disorders research. The authors described some acoustic metrics that may be reasonably associated with perceptions of motor speech disorders, although research needs to continue in this area.

–  Were the results of individual studies clearly displayed/presented?  Yes

–  Were the findings reasonable in view of the current literature?  Yes 

 

  • Were maintenance data reported? NA

 

  • Were generalization data reported? Yes

______________________________________________________________

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 )

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: