Yenkimaleki (2017)

November 26, 2018

 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

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh =  Patricia  Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

 

 

SOURCE: Yenkimaleki, M. (2017). Developing listening comprehension skills by interpreter trainees through prosody teaching: Does methodology make a difference.  Educational Research Review, 3 (2), 26-42DOI: 10.20319/pijss.2017.32.2642

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: October 25, 2018

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY:  B The highest possible grade based on this this design was  A. The Assigned Grade for Overall Quality is not a judgment about the worth of the intervention; it merely rates the quality of the evidence supporting the intervention.

 

TAKE AWAY: The results of this investigation that compared a control intervention and two experimental interventions (implicit and explicit instruction in prosody awareness) revealed that the explicit intervention yielded significantly higher scores on tests of the comprehension of English than either the implicit or control interventions for students in Iran who were training to be Farsi-English interpreters.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified? Prospective, Randomized Group Design with Controls

                                                                                                          

  • What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence?

Level = A

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

  • Were participants (Ps) randomly assigned to groups? Yes. It was referred to as random by the investigator. However, there was matching/blocking for certain P characteristics.

 

 

  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?

                                                                                                           

  • from participants? No
  • from clinicians?No
  • from analyzers?No

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 

–  How many  Ps were involved in the study?

  • total # of Ps: 18 
  • # of groups:3
  • List names of groups and the # of participants in each group:

     –  Control Group  (Foil intervention); n = 6

–  Implicit Group (Comparison intervention); n = 6

–  Explicit Group (Experimental intervention); n = 6

           

–  CONTROLLED P CHARACTERISTICS

  • age:age range of all ages 18-27 years
  • gender:each group 6m and 6f
  • native language: all Ps spoke Farsi
  • language learning to translate:English (for all Ps_
  • nationality: Iranian
  • Social Economic Status:
  • educational level of all groups of Ps:undergraduate students, majoring in translation and interpreting; in last year of studies at University of Applied Sciences in Iran

 

–  DESCRIBED P CHARACTERISTICS

 

  • Listening Component Score on TOEFL proficiency test:

     –  Control Group =  mean – 56.4

     –  Implicit Intervention =  mean –  56.5

     –  Explicit Intervention =  mean –  56.5

  • Writing Component Score on TOEFL proficiency test:

     –  Control Group =  mean – 56.7

     –  Implicit Intervention =  mean – 57.1

     –  Explicit Intervention =  mean – 56.2

  • Reading Component Score on TOEFL proficiency test:

     –  Control Group =  mean – 56.0

     –  Implicit Intervention =  mean – 54.8

     –  Explicit Intervention =  mean –  56.0

  • Overall Score on TOEFL proficiency test:

     –  Control Group =  mean –  563.5

     –  Implicit Intervention =  mean – 561.6

     –  Explicit Intervention =  mean – 562.7

 

–   Were the groups similar before intervention began? Yes

                                                         

–  Were the communication problems adequately described?  Not Applicable, (NA), the Ps did not have impairments. They were learning to be Farsi-English interpreters.

 

 

  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?No   
  • Was there a foil intervention group? Yes
  • Was there a comparison group?Yes
  • Was the time involved in the foil/comparison and the target groups constant? Yes

 

 

  1. Was the outcome measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

  • OUTCOME: Overall quality of Listening Comprehension on Longman’s TOEFL comprehension module

 

–  The outcome measures was subjective.

–  The outcome measure was NOT objective.

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?
  • Interobserver for analyzers?No 
  • Intraobserver for analyzers?No 
  • Treatment fidelity for teachers?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 = 0.05

 

TREATMENT AND FOIL/COMPARISON GROUP ANALYSES

 

  • OUTCOME: Overall quality of Listening Comprehension on Longman’s TOEFL comprehension module

–  The gain in performance from preintervention to postintervention was

∞  NOT significant for control versus implicit intervention

∞  was significantly different for

  • explicit versus control
  • explicit versus implicit

 

  • What was the statistical test used to determine significance?ANOVA

 

  • Were confidence interval (CI) provided?No

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significanceNA

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

  1. Were generalization data reported?No

 

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.

 

  • Eighteen Farsi speaking Iranian University students learning to interpret English were sorted into 3 groups (control, implicit intervention, explicit intervention.) The groups were controlled for test performance on measure of English, gender, and educational level.

 

  • The Ps were administered pre and post intervention tests of English listening comprehension before and after being exposed to the interventions which were administered at similar dosage rates.

 

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:  B

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of implicit versus explicit teaching of  prosody awareness on the listening comprehension of English Language Learners.

 

POPULATION: English Language Learners; Adults

 

MODALITY TARGETED: comprehension

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION:  Not clear. This information may be available in references provided by the investigator.

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED:  comprehension of spoken English

 

DOSAGE: Ps from all 3 groups received a total of 400 minutes of treatment. All Ps participated in all treatment sessions

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • There were 3 treatment groups:

– Control  (received a placebo intervention)

– Experimental: Implicit intervention

– Experimental:  Explicit intervention

 

  • The content of the intervention was awareness of prosody

 

CONTROL INTERVENTION

  • Dosage = 400 minutes

–  of “authentic audio tracks” (p. 30)  and

– completed listening comprehension exercises

  • Instructor explained procedures and provided feedback.

 

EXPLICIT INTERVENTION

  • Part 1: Dosage = 200 minutes

– of “authentic audio tracks” (p. 30) and

– completed listening comprehension exercises

  • Instructor explained procedures and provided feedback.

 

  • Part 2: Dosage = 200 minutes

–  Instructor provided explicit instruction (theoretical explanations regarding English prosody.)

– Ps completed exercises based on the instruction.

 

IMPLICIT INTERVENTION

  • Part 1:Dosage = 200 minutes

– of “authentic audio tracks” (p. 30) and

– completed listening comprehension exercises

  • Instructor explained procedures and provided feedback.

 

  • Part 2: Dosage = 200 minutes

– Ps were provided with implicit instruction via “authentic audios.”

– Ps completed exercises based on the authentic audios

– Recasts (rewording but maintaining meaning) were used (by the instructor?) immediately after the Ps errors

_______________________________________________________________

 

 

 


Sousa (2017)

June 1, 2018

CRITIQUE OF UNSUPPORTED PROCEDURAL DESCRIPTIONS

(also known as Expert Opinion)

NOTE:  A summary of the intervention can be found by scrolling about one-half of the way down this page.

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. S. S. (2017).  Prosodic exercises for children with ASD via virtual therapy. Thesis in Electrical and Computer Engineering, Técnico Lisboa (Portugal).  Retrieved from Semantic Scholar (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Prosodic-exercises-for-children-with-ASD-via-Sousa-Trancoso/800334b2054586baaa055b01f08c2932df93eb77) 

Reviewer(s):  pmh

Date:  May 31.2018 

Overall Assigned Grade for Evidence (because there are no supporting data, the highest grade will be F, ):  The grade of F should not be interpreted as an evaluation of the intervention described in this paper or the quality of the paper itself. It merely reflects the quality of the support for the intervention. Because there were no data, the grade is F.

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 author detailed the strategies for developing a mobile phone-based prosodic intervention for young Portuguese speaking children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD.) The author described methods for assessing the quality of the auditory stimuli used in the treatment and for evaluating acoustically imitations produced during the intervention by the children with ASD. The author consulted the existing literature as well as “therapists”  to identify important learning strategies and targets. Although this mobile-phone prosodic intervention was not administered, it does have potential as a model for future development.

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

 

  1. Were the specific procedures/components of the intervention tied to the reviewed literature? Yes

  

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

 

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

 

  1. Description of outcome measures:

–  Are outcome measures suggested?  Yes

  • Outcome #1: Discrimination of same and different using visual stimuli

 

  • Outcome #2: Discrimination of nonspeech auditory stimuli (affirmation versus question; pleasure versus displeasure) that differ only in intonation

 

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

 

  • Outcome #4: Discriminate low versus high pitches in single words

 

  • Outcome #5: Identification of the direction of the pitches of 2 syllable productions

 

  • Outcome #6: Imitate intonation of single words

  

  1. Was generalization addressed? No

 

  1. Was maintenance addressed? No

  

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: to develop an Android application for teaching the comprehension and production of intonation

POPULATION:  Autism Spectrum Disorder; children

MODALITY TARGETED: comprehension, production (imitation)

 ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: pitch, intonation

OTHER TARGETS:  concepts of same/different

DOSAGE: not applicable because the program was not administered

ADMINISTRATOR:  mobile phones? (this is virtual therapy)

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

  • This intervention was developed to fulfill the thesis requirement for the Master of Science in Electrical and Computer Engineering at Ténico Lisboa (Portugal.)

 

  • Several tasks were developed for nonreading children to use on Android phones including

–  2 activities to teach the concept of same/different

– one activity to teach the discrimination of single words as being same or different when they could differ only by intonation patterns representing question/affirmation  or pleasure/displeasure.

–  one activity to teach the imitation of single words that differed only by intonation patterns representing question/affirmation  or pleasure/displeasure.

– one activity to teach the identification of pleasure/displeasure affective states of single words.

– one activity to teach the identification of high versus low pitches on auditory stimuli (initially nonspeech sounds, moving to speech sounds)

– one activity to teach the identification of sequences of pitches produced on sounds (e.g., high-high, low-low, high-low, etc.)

 

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

 


Medina (1990)

December 27, 2017

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Note: Scroll about two-thirds of the way down the page to read the summary of the procedures.

Key:

A = Administrator

C = Clinician

EBP = evidence-based practice

Gain1 = Gain score from Pretest to Post test 1

Gain2 = Gain score from Post test 1 to Post test 2

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

 

SOURCE: Medina, S. L. (1990). The effects of music on second language acquisition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (San Francisco, CA, March 1990) ERIC Educational Resources Information Center data base. ERIC Document # ED 352-834 retrieved from http://www.geocities.ws/ESLmusic/articles/print/article02.html  on March 8, 2015.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: December 26, 2017

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY:  C+ (The highest possible grade based on the design of the study, Prospective, Nonrandomized Group with Controls, is B+.) The assigned overall grade represents the quality of the evidence supporting the intervention; it is not meant as a judgment regarding the quality of the intervention.

 

TAKE AWAY: Second-graders who were speakers of Spanish and learning English as a second language were treated with one of four story-based interventions that compared music versus speech as a presentation strategy and illustrations versus no illustrations as extralinguistic support. The target of the intervention was increased receptive vocabulary. Inferential statistics revealed that there were no significant differences between music versus speech and the illustration versus no illustration contexts. This was interpreted as supporting the use of music as an intervention because it yielded results similar to speech only presentations. Analysis of descriptive statistics suggested that while low proficiency students improved performance at follow-up, high proficiency students’ performance decreased.

 

  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? Unclear

– Participants (Ps) were initially sorted into 4 groups based on performance on a vocabulary test.

– The investigator then randomly assigned members of the groups to one of four treatment groups. P. 4 this is my interpretation it may be wrong but the writing is not clear to me

 

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

– matching/sorting is on the basis of pretreatment vocabulary. Then the Ps were randomly assigned—sounds more like block assignment to me.

If the answer to 2a and 2b is ‘no’ or ‘unclear,’ describe the assignment strategy:

 

 

  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?
  • from participants? No
  • from clinicians? No
  • from analyzers? No

 

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? No.

 

–           How many Ps were involved in the study?

  • total # of Ps:   48
  • # of groups: 4
  • Names of groups and the number of participants in each group:

     ∞ No Music- Illustrations, N = 13

     ∞ No Music- No Illustration, N = 11

     ∞ Music- Illustrations, N = 12

     ∞ Music – No Illustrations, N = 12

 

CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS:

  • language skills: Spanish speaking, limited English proficiency
  • educational level of parents: Second Grade

 

DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS:

  • location: Suburb of Los Angeles (CA)
  • Social-Economic Status: Students in the school were primarily low income

 

–   Were the groups similar before intervention began? Unclear

 

– Were the communication problems adequately described? No

  • Participants (Ps) were Spanish speakers who were learning English as a Second Language.

 

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?
  • Did each of the groups maintain at least 80% of their original members? Yes, probably. Originally, there were 52 Ps but 4 Ps dropped out. The distribution of those who discontinued was not identified but the overall maintenance level was 92%

 

  • Were data from outliers removed from the study?

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Unclear
  • Was there a no intervention group? No
  • Was there a foil intervention group? No
  • Was there a comparison group? Yes
  • Was the time involved in the comparison and target groups constant? Yes

 

 

  1. Was the outcome measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  • OUTCOME #1: The amount of gain in receptive vocabulary
  • The outcome measure was subjective.
  • The outcome measures was NOT objective.

 

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?
  • Interobserver for analyzers? No
  • Intraobserver for analyzers?
  • Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No

 

 

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

Summary Of Important Results

— What level of significance was required to claim significance? p = 0.05

 

 

PRE AND POST TREATMENT ANALYSES

 

  • OUTCOME #1: The amount of gain in receptive vocabulary

∞ There were no significant differences for music versus no music and illustration versus no illustration (and their interactions) among the 4 treatment groups at the post test 1 (immediately after the intervention) and post test 2 (follow up, 1.5 weeks after intervention.)

     ∞ The investigator noted some patterns descriptively:

  • Immediately after treatment (post test 1) and the 1.5 week delay (post test 2 or follow up) the scores of Ps receive music treatment and viewing illustrations tended to be higher.

    ∞ The following patterns also were evident in the description of the results

  • Average gains at post test 1 following the 4 treatment sessions ranged from 0.73 (No Music, No Illustration Group) to 1.5 (Music and Illustration Group.)
  • Average gains at post test 2 (or follow up) ranged from 0.82 (No Music, No Illustration Group) to 1.75 (Music and Illustration Group.)

     ∞ The investigator also described the performance of a small group of Low Proficiency Ps (i.e., Ps who had scores below 8 of 20 items correct on the pretest.)

  • Low Proficiency Ps tended to gain more than higher proficiency Ps.
  • Average gains at post test 1 ranged from 0.33 (No Music, No Illustration Group) to 2.33 (Music and Illustration Group.)
  • Average gains at post test 2 (follow up) ranged from 1.00 (No Music, No Illustration Group) to 3.33 (Music and Illustration Group.)

 

  • What was the statistical test used to determine significance? ANOVA
  • Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significance?  NA, no EBP data were reported.

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? Yes. The difference in gains from post test 1 to post test 2 were not compared using inferential statistics. However, post test 2 performance regularly outpaced post test 1 performance. This suggests that Ps, not only maintained their gains but that the gains increased over the 1.5 weeks.

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.
  • Four groups of 2nd grade speakers of Spanish who were also English Language Learners received a story-related treatment to improve receptive vocabulary.

 

  • There were four different versions of the story-related treatment. The Ps listened to a cassette recorded story that included the target. The 4 versions were

∞ No Music- Illustrations, story spoken accompanied by illustrations

∞ No Music- No Illustration, story spoken accompanied but no illustrations

∞ Music- Illustrations, story sung accompanied by illustrations

∞ Music – No Illustrations, story sung accompanied by no illustrations

 

  • The spoken and sung versions of the story had identical scripts.

 

  • Prior to the initiation of treatment, the investigator met with the Ps to establish rapport and then she administered a pretest (baseline.)

 

  • Treatment lasted for 4 days and then the investigator administered Post Test 1.

 

  • One and one-half weeks following the termination of the intervention, Post Test 2 (i.e., follow-up) was administered.

 

  • Receptive vocabulary scores were compared using two 2-way (2×2, Medium x Extralinguistic Support) ANOVA for the following dependent measures:

–   Gain score from Pretest to Post test 1 (Gain1)

–   Gain score from Post test 1 to Post test 2 (Gain2)

 

  • The condition each had 2 aspects:

– Medium: Music; No Music

– Extralinguistic Support: Illustrations: NO Illustrations

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: C+

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate whether (1) stories set to music were associated with the same amount of improvement in receptive vocabulary as stories presented orally and (2) stories paired with illustrations were associated with the same amount of improvement in receptive vocabulary as stories presented without illustrations.

 

POPULATION: Second language learners

 

MODALITY TARGETED: Receptive vocabulary

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION:   music (pitch, rhythm)

 

DOSAGE: small groups; 4 days; tapes (spoken or song) were played 3 times in each treatment session

 

STIMULI: songs, spoken scripts, and illustrations

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • The administrator (A) provided one of four treatments to each of the groups of Ps:

∞ No Music- Illustrations, N = 13

∞ No Music- No Illustration, N = 11

∞ Music- Illustrations, N = 12

∞ Music – No Illustrations, N = 12

 

  • Overall, the treatment sessions were similar. The Ps were treated in groups sessions in which A played a prerecorded sung or spoken story 3 times. The story was accompanied by pictures for the “Illustration” treatment groups but not for the “No Illustration” treatment group. The stories for all groups were the same and used identical scripts.

 

  • For the Music and No Music Treatment conditions, the tapes were clear and intelligible. Both Music and No Music tapes were described as “appealing.” The song for the Music tape was a simple tune.

 

• For the Illustration and No Illustration conditions, the A displayed large pictures depicting the story. Written words were not included in the Illustration condition and, of course, the A did not use the pictures for the No Illustrat