Sousa et al. (2017)

September 17, 2020

 CRITIQUE OF UNSUPPORTED PROCEDURAL DESCRIPTIONS

(also known as Expert Opinion)

NOTE:  A brief summary of the intervention described by the authors can be found by scrolling about two-thirds of the way down this review.

KEY
ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorder

C =  clinician

NA = not applicable

P =  patient or participant

pmh =  Patricia Hargrove, blog developer 

SLP = speech-language pathologist

Source: Sousa, M., Trancoso, I., Moniz, H., & Batista, F. (2017, November). Prosodic exercises for children with ASD via virtual therapy. In A. Londral, A. Coffdia de Barros, A. Matos, C. Sousa, L. Garcia, L., & R. Oliveira (Eds.) Atas da Conferência Jornadas Supera 2017 [2017 Conference Proceedings and Minutes] (pp. 59-69).  Sociedade Portuguesa de Engenharia de Reabilitação, Tecnologias de Apoio e Acessibilidade [Portuguese Society for Rehabilitation Engineering, Assistive Technologies and  Accessibility] ARTICLE:  http://supera.org.pt/jornadas2017/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/05/Atas_Jornadas_SUPERA_2017-1.pdf#page=59

Reviewer(s): pmh

Date: September 15, 2020

Overall Assigned Grade: No data provided; therefore, there is no grade.  

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:  The authors detail strategies for developing prosodic assessment and provide ideas for treating affective prosody in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD.) The recommended prosodic intervention was not administered but it does have potential as a model for future development.

1.  Was there a review of the literature supporting components of the intervention?   Yes 

– The type of literature review was a Narrative Review. 

2.  Were the specific procedures/components of the intervention tied to the reviewed literature?  No  

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

4.  Did the author(s) provide a rationale for components of the intervention?  Yes

5.  Description of outcome measures:

  Are outcome measures suggested? Yes 

•  Outcome #1:  Discrimination of nonspeech auditory stimuli that differ only in intonation 

•  Outcome #2:  Discriminate low versus high pitches in single tones

•  Outcome #3:  Discrimination of single words as representing pleasure or displeasure affective states

•  Outcome #4:  Imitation of the intonation of single words represent different affective states.

6.  Was generalization addressed? No

7.  Was maintenance addressed? No  

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

PURPOSE: to improve affective prosody

POPULATION: Autism Spectrum Disorders; children

MODALITY TARGETED: receptive and production

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED:  affective prosody

MAJOR COMPONENTS:  

–  Some tasks were recommended for achieving the objectives/outcomes. 

•  Outcome #1:  Discrimination of nonspeech auditory stimuli that differ only in intonation 

     ∞ The Participant (P) listens to 2 auditory stimuli and categorizes them as “different “or “equal” (same).

•  Outcome #2:  Discriminate low versus high pitches in single words

     ∞ P listens to a tone and categorizes it as “high” or “low”

     ∞ The Clinician (C) presents, as a model, a low and high tone. Then, P listens to 2 tones and rates them as “high-high”, “low-low”, “high-low or “low-high.”

•  Outcome #3:  Discrimination of single words as representing pleasure or displeasure affective states

     ∞ C presents the image of a common object. 

     ∞ Then the name of the item is presented with prosody signifying pleasure or displeasure. 

     ∞ C selects a symbol representing pleasure (smiley face) or displeasure (frowning face).

•  Outcome #4:  Imitation of the  intonation of single words representing different affective states.

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


Van Stan et al. (2015)

September 10, 2020

SECONDARY REVIEW CRITIQUE

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: Van Stan, J., Roy, N., Awan, S., Stemple, J., & Hillman, R. E. (2015). A taxonomy of voice therapy. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24, 101-125. https://pubs.asha.org/doi/pdf/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0030

Reviewer(s):  pmh

Date:  September 10, 2020

Overall Assigned Grade: No grade is assigned to this article because it was not concerned with directly with intervention. Rather, it provides guidance in identifying a classification system for voice therapy.

Level of Evidence:  D (Traditional Review)

Take Away:  Although the purpose of this article was to initiate the development of a taxonomy of voice therapy treatment procedures, readers can use this article as a source for treatments of prosodic targets. 

What type of secondary review?  Narrative 

1.  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)? Yes

• The authors of the secondary research did not describe the search strategy.  

• Did the sources involve only English language publications? Yes 

•  Did the sources include unpublished studies? No

• Was the time frame for the publication of the sources sufficient? No 

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

• Did the authors of the secondary research describe procedures used to evaluate the validity of each of the sources? Not Applicable (NA )

• Was there evidence that a specific, predetermined strategy was used to evaluate the sources? NA

•  Did the authors of the secondary research or review teams rate the sources independently? NA 

• Were interrater reliability data provided? No

• Were assessments of sources sufficiently reliable? NA, reliability data were not provided.

• Was the information provided sufficient for the reader to undertake a replication? Yes

• Did the sources that were evaluated involve a sufficient number of participants? NA 

• Were there a sufficient number of sources? Yes _ 

2.  Description of outcome measures:

DIRECT INTERVENTIONS 

•  Outcome  #1: Improved pitch modification

INDIRECT INTERVENTIONS (These are treatments that included prosodic treatment techniques used in the described programs for treating voice disordders.)

•  Confidental Voice Therapy: soft loudness

•  Resonant Voice Therapy: pitch variability, loudness variability, rate variability  

•  Voice Function Exercises: soft loudness, sustained duration, pitch direction, pitch variation (includes glides or chants)

•  Lee Silverman Voice Therapy: increased loudness, sustained duration, pitch variation (includes glides or chants)

•  Manual Circumlaryngeal Therapy: prolonged duration, pitch variation

•  Laryngeal Manual Therapy: pitch level, pitch variation (includes glides or chants)

•  Accent Method: rhythm, sustained duration, loudness, pitch, intonation, 

3.  Description of results:   NA, this article did not involve treatment. It is included in the Clinical Prosody Blog because it lists sources that are concerned with voice therapy, including some that target prosodic element or use prosody to treatment certain aspects of voice.

4.  Were maintenance data reported? NA 

5.  Were generalization data reported?