Park et al. (2016)

January 26, 2017

 

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Treatment Group

Note: Scroll about two-thirds of the way down the page to read the summary of the procedure(s).

Key:

ASSIDS = Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech (ASSIDS)

C = Clinician

CER = communication efficiency ratio

DIP = Dysarthria Impact Profile

EBP = evidence-based practice

f = female

m = male

KP feedback = Knowledge of Production (KP) feedback

KR feedback = Feedback Knowledge of Results (KR) feedback

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

WPM = words per minute

 

 

SOURCE: Park, S., Theodoros, D., Finch, E., & Cardell, E. (2016). Be Clear: A new intensive speech treatment for adults with nonprogressive dysarthria. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25, 97-110.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: January 14, 2017

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C (The highest possible overall grade for this investigation was C+ based on its experimental design: prospective, single group, pretest vs posttest.)

 

TAKE AWAY: This preliminary investigation determined the feasibility of using Clear Speech as a treatment for adults with nonprogressive dysarthria. The results indicated that there was statistical or clinical improvement in 8 participants’ (Ps) intelligibility and some improvements in perceived (by P or by a communicative partner) communication status. It should be noted that statistical and clinical interpretations did not always agree. In addition, there was a decrease in speaking rate for the Ps.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

  • What was the type of evidence? Prospective, Single Group with Pre- and Post-Testing

                                                                                                          

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

Level = C+

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

  • If there was more than one group, were participants (Ps) randomly assigned to groups? Not Applicable (NA), there was only one group.

 

 

  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?

                                                                                                           

  • from participants? No

                                                                    

  • from clinician? No

                                                                    

  • from analyzers? Yes, perceptual analysis of conversational samples, ratings of sentence intelligibility, and ratings of word intelligibility involved listeners who were blinded to the timing of the elicitation of the samples.

                                                                    

 

  1. Was the group adequately described? Yes

 

– How many Ps were involved in the study?

  • total # of Ps:   8
  • # of groups: 1
  • List names of groups and the # of participants in each group: NA

 

– CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS

  • cognitive skills: SLP judged P to have sufficient cognition to participate; no dementia
  • language skills: “able to speak and understand English” (p. 100); no aphasia or apraxia of speech
  • diagnosis: dysarthria by a speech-language pathologist (SLP)
  • post onset time: at least 6 months
  • stimulability: pretreatment assessment reveal P was stimulable for Clear Speech
  • hearing: no significant loss
  • vision: no significant loss

 

– DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

  • age: 18 – 51 years (mean = 35 years_
  • gender: 5m, 3f
  • cognitive skills: 7Ps had documented cognitive problems that were not judged to interfere with the treatment. The types of cognitive problems are listed; most Ps had multiple cognitive impairments:

     – divided attention

     – memory

     – verbal fluency

     – visual memory

     – visuo-spatial memory

     – processing speed

     – complex planning and problem solving

     – planning

     – verbal concepts

     – mental control

     – recall

     – attention

     – organization

  • diagnosis: persistent nonprogressive dysarthria
  • neurological condition:

– Traumatic Brain Injury = 6

     – Stroke = 2

  • post onset time: 10 – 72 months (mean = 26 months)
  • previous therapy: all Ps had previously received therapy

 

Were the communication problems adequately described?

 

  • disorder type: nonprogressive dysarthria; types of dysarthria

– flaccid- ataxic (2)

– ataxic (3)

– spastic-ataxic (1)

– hypokinetic (1)

– spastic (1)

  • functional level: mild to severe

 

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?

                                                                                                             

– Did the group maintain at least 80% of their original members? Yes

                                                               

– Were data from outliers removed from the study? No, but due to instrumentation issues some of the analyses were not complete:

     – P5 had only 1 pretreatment sample

     – P2 had only 1 posttreatment sample

     – P4 had only 1 follow up sample

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? NA, there was only one group.

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

– OUTCOMES

 

PERCEPTUAL MEASURES

  • OUTCOME #1: Improved rating of intelligibility (i.e., clearer or easier to understand) of speech samples.
  • OUTCOME #2: Improved percentage of word intelligibility on the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech (ASSIDS)
  • OUTCOME #3: Improved percentage of sentence intelligibility on the ASSIDS
  • OUTCOME #4: Improved speaking rate (words per minute, WPM) derived from the sentence intelligibility portion of ASSIDS
  • OUTCOME #5: Improved communication efficiency ratio (CER; rate of intelligible words minute divided by 190)
  • OUTCOME #6: Improved self-rating for the total score of the Dysarthria Impact Profile (DIP)
  • OUTCOME #7: Improved self -rating for the Section A score of the DIP (effect of dysarthria on P)
  • OUTCOME #8: Improved self- rating for the Section B score of the DIP (acceptance of dysarthria)
  • OUTCOME #9: Improved self- rating for the Section C score of the DIP (how P perceives other react to his/her speech)
  • OUTCOME #10: Improved self- rating for the Section D score of the DIP (how dysarthria affects communication with others)
  • OUTCOME #11: Improved self-rating for the Section E score of the DIP (concerns about dysarthria compared to other possible concerns)
  • OUTCOME #12: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about understanding the P
  • OUTCOME #13: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about requests for repetition of P’s speech
  • OUTCOME #14: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about P’s conversational initiations with familiar individuals
  • OUTCOME #15: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about P’s conversational initiations with strangers
  • OUTCOME #16: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about P’s overall communication

 

ALL the outcome measures were subjective.

 

NONE of the outcome measures were objective.

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

– Interobserver for analyzers? Yes

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Improved percentage of word intelligibility on the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech (ASSIDS)—investigators cited previous literature in which interrater, intrarater, and test-retest reliability had been established

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Improved percentage of sentence intelligibility on the ASSIDS —investigators cited previous literature in which interrater, intrarater, and test-retest reliability had been established

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Improved speaking rate (words per minute, WPM) derived from the sentence intelligibility portion ASSIDS —investigators cited previous literature in which interrater, intrarater, and test-retest reliability had been established

 

  • OUTCOME #5: Improved communication efficiency ratio (CER; rate of intelligible words minute divided by 190) —investigators cited previous literature in which interrater, intrarater, and test-retest reliability had been established

 

Intraobserver for analyzers?

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Improved percentage of word intelligibility on the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech (ASSIDS) )—investigators cited previous literature in which interrater, intrarater, and test-retest reliability had been established

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Improved percentage of sentence intelligibility on the ASSIDS)—investigators cited previous literature in which interrater, intrarater, and test-retest reliability had been established

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Improved speaking rate (words per minute, WPM) derived from the sentence intelligibility portion ASSIDS)—investigators cited previous literature in which interrater, intrarater, and test-retest reliability had been established

 

  • OUTCOME #5: Improved communication efficiency ratio (CER; rate of intelligible words minute divided by 190) —investigators cited previous literature in which interrater, intrarater, and test-retest reliability had been established

 

– Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No

 

 

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

 

— What level of significance was required to claim significance?

  • for inferential statistical analyses p ≤ 0.05
  • for descriptive analysis (clinical significance)

∞ for word intelligibility — gains ≥ 3.2%

∞ for sentence intelligibility – gains ≥ 8.6%

 

PRE AND POST TREATMENT ANALYSES

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Improved rating of intelligibility (i.e., clearer or easier to understand) of speech samples.
  • At post test, 72% of the Ps were rated as easier to understand than the pretreatment sample

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Improved percentage of word intelligibility on the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech (ASSIDS)
  • differences were not significantly different across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)
  • Clinically significant improvement was achieved for posttreatment

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Improved percentage of sentence intelligibility on the ASSIDS
  • Significant differences across the 3 testing times (pre, post, follow-up)
  • Posttreatment was significantly better than pretreatment

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Improved speaking rate (words per minute, WPM) derived from the sentence intelligibility portion ASSIDS
  • Significant decrease from pretreatment to posttreatment
  • Criteria for clinical significance were not reached for posttreatment and for follow-up

 

  • OUTCOME #5: Improved communication efficiency ratio (CER; rate of intelligible words minute divided by 190)
  • differences were not significantly different or clinically significant across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #6: Improved self-rating for the total score of the Dysarthria Impact Profile (DIP)
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #7: Improved self -rating for the Section A score of the DIP (effect of dysarthria on P)
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #8: Improved self- rating for the Section B score of the DIP (acceptance of dysarthria)
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #9: Improved self- rating for the Section C score of the DIP (how P perceives other react to his/her speech)
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #10: Improved self- rating for the Section D score of the DIP (how dysarthria affects communication with others)
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #11: Improved self-rating for the Section E score of the DIP (concerns about dysarthria compared to other possible concerns)
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #12: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about understanding the P
  • Compared to pretreatment, Ps were rated as significantly easier to understand at posttreatment but not at follow-up
  • OUTCOME #13: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about requests for repetition of P’s speech
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #14: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about P’s conversational initiations with familiar individuals
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #15: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about P’s conversational initiations with strangers
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #16: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about P’s overall communication
  • Compared to pretreatment, Ps were rated as significantly better communicator at posttreatment and at follow-up.

 

 

— What were the statistical tests used to determine significance? Wilcoxon; Friedman’s two way analysis of ranks

 

— Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significance(List outcome number with data with the appropriate Evidence Based Practice, EBP, measure.) NA. No tests of clinical significance were reported. Rather, the authors descriptively cited criteria for claiming clinical significance. These findings are reported in the descriptive data associate with item #9.

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? Yes

 

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Improved rating of intelligibility (i.e., clearer or easier to understand) of speech samples.
  • At follow up, 64% of the Ps were rated as easier to understand than the pretreatment sample

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Improved percentage of word intelligibility on the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech (ASSIDS)
  • differences were not significantly different across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)
  • Clinically significant improvement was achieved for follow-up

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Improved percentage of sentence intelligibility on the ASSIDS
  • Significant differences across the 3 testing times (pre, post, follow-up)
  • Significant progress was maintained at follow up
  • OUTCOME #4: Improved speaking rate (words per minute, WPM) derived from the sentence intelligibility portion ASSIDS
  • Significant decrease from pretreatment to follow – up
  • Criteria for clinically significant were not reached for posttreatment and for follow-up

 

  • OUTCOME #5: Improved communication efficiency ratio (CER; rate of intelligible words minute divided by 190)
  • differences were not significantly different or clinically significant across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #6: Improved self-rating for the total score of the Dysarthria Impact Profile (DIP)
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #7: Improved self -rating for the Section A score of the DIP (effect of dysarthria on P)
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #8: Improved self- rating for the Section B score of the DIP (acceptance of dysarthria)
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #9: Improved self- rating for the Section C score of the DIP (how P perceives other react to his/her speech)
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #10: Improved self- rating for the Section D score of the DIP (how dysarthria affects communication with others)
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #11: Improved self-rating for the Section E score of the DIP (concerns about dysarthria compared to other possible concerns)
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #12: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about understanding the P
  • Compared to pretreatment, Ps were rated as significantly easier to understand at posttreatment but not at follow-up
  • OUTCOME #13: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about requests for repetition of P’s speech
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #14: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about P’s conversational initiations with familiar individuals
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #15: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about P’s conversational initiations with strangers
  • No significant changes were noted across testing times (pre, post, follow-up)

 

  • OUTCOME #16: Improved rating on communication partner questionnaire for question about P’s overall communication
  • Compared to pretreatment, Ps were rated as significantly better communicator at posttreatment and at follow-up.

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No __x___     Not clear _____

If yes, summarize findings

 

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.
  • This preliminary investigation was designed as a Phase II feasibility trial. Its purpose was to determine if

– treatment can be completed within the targeted time frame

– the intensive treatment schedule is appropriate for the Ps

– there is some evidence of improved intelligibility among the Ps

– if there is a need to modify Clear Speech procedures

 

  • Eight speakers diagnosed with nonprogressive dysarthria served as Ps.

 

  • The Ps were assessed 3 times: pretreatment, posttreatment, and follow-up (1 to 3 months following the termination of Clear Speech intervention.)

 

  • There were 2 major classes of outcomes: Perceptual Assessments and Everyday Communication Assessments.

 

  • The Perceptual Assessments were administered 2 times during each of the 3 assessment phases. The Perceptual Assessment included:

– Intelligibility judgments of short speech samples by blinded naïve listeners .

– Administration of ASSIDS which tapped word intelligibility, sentence intelligibility, WPM, and CER.

 

  • The Everyday Communication Assessment were administered only 1 time during each of the 3 assessment phases. The Everyday Communication Assessment explored the Ps’ and Ps’ communicative partners perceptions of the Ps communication status.

 

  • The statistical analyses involved nonparametric and descriptive statistics including a measure of clinical significance. Paired comparisons were of pretreatment vs posttreatment and pretreatment vs follow-up. Not sure why they did not do post vs follow up.

 

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: C

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: The purpose of this preliminary investigation was to determine the feasibility of using Clear Speech intervention.

 

POPULATION: dysarthria (nonprogressive); Adults

 

MODALITY TARGETED: production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: rate of speech

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: “decreased speech rate, increased fundamental frequency and frequency range, increased pause frequency and duration, increased sound pressure level….” (p. 98)

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: intelligibility, perceived communication status

 

DOSAGE: 17 one-hour sessions (16 of the sessions, the Intensive Practice Phase, were administered 4 times a week for 4 weeks)

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP (the lead author administered all therapy)

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • There were 2 phases: Prepractice Phase (1 session) and the Intensive Practice Phase (16 sessions)

 

PREPRACTICE PHASE (1 session)

  • The clinician (C) worked with the P to confirm that he/she

– could follow the Clear Speech treatment protocol

– understood what clear speech sounded like

– could produce clear speech with the assistance of C’s shaping and stimulation, if necessary

 

  • To establish P’s understanding of the targeted behavior (i.e., clear speech), P viewed a video in which

– P identified the clearest speech,

– P described characteristics that were associated with the clearest speech (e.g., slow speech), and

– P then read aloud a passage while trying to replicate strategies observed in the video.

 

  • C used the following techniques to elicit correct responses from Ps.

– modeling

– Knowledge of Production (KP) Ffeedback which was used to shape behaviors. C described behaviors that might enable P to produce the targeted clear speech (e.g., “Slow down,” “Pause between phrases.”)

 

 

INTENSIVE PRACTICE PHASE (16 sessions)

  • There were 3 components in each Intensive Practice Phase session: Brief Prepractice Component, Intensive Practice Component, and Homework.

 

 

Brief Prepractice Component of the Intensive Practice Phase

 

  • C directed P to read aloud target sentences using clear speech.

 

  • C shaped P’s production using modeling and KP feedback.

 

  • C moved P into the next component when he/she produced the target sentences with adequate clear speech.

 

Intensive Practice Component of the Intensive Phase

 

  • The Intensive Practice Component of the Intensive Phase had 2 parts: structured speech drill and functional speech tasks.

 

– Structured Speech Drill

 

  • Using a constant set of sentences, C imitated

– 10 sentences concerned with daily living 5 times using clear speech and

– 10 sentences requesting service 5 times using clear speech.

 

  • C provided Knowledge of Results (KR) Feedback (e.g., “clear” or “unclear”) to the P.

 

– Functional Speech Tasks

 

  • The functional tasks included

– reading aloud,

– describing pictures, and

– conversing with others.

 

  • C administered the tasks in random order with P attempting up to 3 times to produce the targeted speech using clear speech.

 

  • The targeted stimuli changed for each session.

 

  • C directed P to focus on his/her productions (or “acoustic speech signal’) when attempting to produce clear speech.

 

  • C also encouraged self-monitoring (or “self-evaluation) by

– recording P’s production,

– playing back the productions to P at intermittent intervals,

– and directing P to rate his/her clarity

 

  • C provided KR feedback to the P.

 

Homework

 

  • C assigned 15 minutes of daily homework.

 

  • During the intervention, homework was expected to be executed each day and comprised practicing

– functional phrases,

– requests for service,

– functional speech task stimuli, as well as

– using their skill in daily living activities.

 

  • When intervention had been terminated, C requested Ps to practice the same activities for about 10 minutes 3 to 5 days a week.

 

Advertisements

de Azevedo et al. (2015)

February 1, 2016

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Treatment Groups

 

 

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

 

Key:

C = Clinician

EBP = evidence-based practice

f = female

F0 = fundamental frequency

LVST = Lee Silverman Voice Treatment

LVST-a = Lee Silverman Voice Treatment-adapted

m = male

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

PT = prominent tonic

PD = Parkinson’s disease

SLP = speech–language pathologist

UPT = unstressed pre-tonic

 

 

SOURCE: de Azevedo, L. L., de Souza, I. S., de Oliveira, P. M., & Cardose, F. (2015). Effect of speech therapy and pharmacological treatment in prosody of parkinsonians. Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria i, 73 (1), 30 35. DOI: 10.1590/0004-282X20140193

 

REVIEWER(S):  pmh

 

DATE: January 30, 2016

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C+ (Highest possible grade based on the experimental design was B.)

 

TAKE AWAY: A small group of Brazilian Portuguese speakers diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease (PD) were reported to show improvement in measures of fundamental frequency, duration, and intensity following an intervention that combined the drug Levodopa and an adaptation of the Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LVST.)

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

  • What was the type of evidence? Prospective, Single Group with Pre- and Post-Testing

 

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

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

  • If there was more than one group, were participants (Ps) randomly assigned to groups? Not Applicable (NA), there was only one group.

 

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

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? No, the investigators provide some background on the Ps, more information would be helpful to those wishing to apply the findings clinically.

 

– How many Ps were involved in the study? 10

 

– total # of Ps: 10

 

– # of groups: 1

 

– The P characteristics that were CONTROLLED were i.

 

  • diagnosis: Ideopathic Parkinson’s disease
  • severity: Stages 2 or 3 on the Hoehn and Yahr Scale

 

– The P characteristics that were DESCRIBED were

  • age: 59 to 88 years
  • gender: 5m, 5f

 

   Were the groups similar before intervention began? NA, there was only one group

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? No

  • disorder type: Although the investigators did not list the disorder type, it can assumed that it was hypokinetic dysarthria

 

 

  1. Was membership in the group 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? NA, there was only one group.

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

The outcomes were

 

FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY (F0) OUTCOMES

  • OUTCOME #1: Highest F0 of the prominent pretonic (PT)
  • OUTCOME #2: Lowest F0 of the PT
  • OUTCOME #3: Amplitude of the melodic variation of PT
  • OUTCOME #4: Highest F0 of the unstressed pre-tonic (UPT); this occurs before the PT
  • OUTCOME #5: Lowest F0 of the UPT
  • OUTCOME #6: Amplitude of the melodic variation of UPT
  • OUTCOME #7: Highest F0 of the utterance
  • OUTCOME #8: Lowest F0 of the utterance
  • OUTCOME #9: Composition of the utterance
  • OUTCOME #10: Rate of change of melodic variation of PT (“composition divided by duration of PT”, p. 31)
  • OUTCOME #11: Rate of change of melodic variation of UPT (“composition divided by duration of UPT’, p. 31)
  • OUTCOME #12: Initial F0 of the utterance (abstracted from the middle of the first word of each utterance—“I”)
  • OUTCOME #13: F0 of the UPT (abstracted from the middle of the vowel of /a/ from the targeted utterances
  • OUTCOME #14: F0 of the PT (abstracted from the middle of the vowel /e/ from the targeted utterances
  • OUTCOME #15: Final F0 of utterance (abstracted from /a/ of the last word of the utterance)

 

DURATION OUTCOMES

  • OUTCOME #16: Duration of the PT
  • OUTCOME #17: Duration of the UPT
  • OUTCOME #18: Total duration of the utterance
  • OUTCOME #19: Starting point of the UPT
  • OUTCOME #20: Starting point of the PT

 

INTENSITY OUTCOMES

  • OUTCOME #21: Maximum intensity of the utterance
  • OUTCOME #22: Minimum intensity of the utterance
  • OUTCOME #23: Intensity variation of sentences
  • OUTCOME #24: Average intensity of sentences
  • OUTCOME #25: Average intensity of prolonged vowel

 

NONE of the outcome measures were subjective.

 

ALL of the outcome measures were objective.

 

                                         

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

 

 

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

 

  • Summary Of Important Results

 

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

 

 

PRE AND POST TREATMENT ONLY ANALYSES

 

  • The investigators analyzed gender differences but they are not highlighted in this review. Rather, if there was a significant difference between males and females, it is noted in the general results listed below.

 

PRETEST WITH Ps OFF LEVODOPA VS POSTTEST WITH Ps OFF LEVODOPA—Outcomes with significant differences

 

OUTCOME #6: Amplitude of melodic variation of UPTs (significantly higher for posttest)

OUTCOME #9: Composition of Utterance (significantly higher for posttest)

– Rate of change of UPT melodic variation (females were significant more pretest vs post test but not males)

OUTCOME #16: PT duration (significantly shorter for posttest)

OUTCOME #17: UPT duration (significantly higher for posttest)

OUTCOME #18: Utterance duration (durations were significantly shorter posttest compared to pretest for both males and females and durations were significantly shorter for females compared to males)

OUTCOME #24: Utterance intensity average (intensity was significantly lower for females in posttest compared to pretest.)

OUTCOME #25: Prolonged vowel intensity (significantly higher for posttest)

 

PRETEST WITH Ps OFF LEVODOPA VS POSTTEST WITH Ps ON LEVODOPA—Outcomes with significant differences

OUTCOME #10: Rate of change of PT melodic variation (significantly higher posttest)

OUTCOME #11: Rate of change of UPT melodic variation (significantly higher posttest)

OUTCOME #16: PT duration (significantly shorter posttest)

OUTCOME #18: Utterance duration (durations were significantly shorter posttest compared to pretest for both males and females and durations were significantly shorter for females compared to males)

OUTCOME #24: Utterance intensity average (intensity was significantly lower posttest compared to pretest for females)

OUTCOME #25: Prolonged vowel intensity (significantly longer for posttest)

 

 

PRETEST WITH Ps ON LEVODOPA VS POSTTEST WITH Ps ON LEVODOPA– Outcomes with significant differences

 

OUTCOME #3: Amplitude of PTs melodic variation—(significantly more posttest)

OUTCOME #6: Amplitude of UPTs melodic variation—(significantly more posttest)

OUTCOME #9: Composition of utterance —(significantly more posttest)

OUTCOME #10: Rate of change of PTs melodic variation—(significantly more posttest)

OUTCOME #11: Rate of change of UPTs melodic variation—(females produced significantly more posttest)

OUTCOME #17: UPTs duration —(females produced significantly more posttest)

OUTCOME #23: Intensity variation of utterance —(significantly more posttest)

OUTCOME #24: Utterance intensity average —(females produced significantly lower posttest)

 

 

  • What was the statistical test used to determine significance? F- test

 

  • Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significance? NA, data not provided

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? Yes, The focus of the intervention , LVST, is loudness. Therefore, the F0 (Outcomes 1-15) and duration (Outcomes 16 – 20) outcomes can be considered generalization.

 

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.

 

  • Before (pretest) and after (posttest) the intervention, the Ps produced 3 sentences in Portuguese. They spoke each sentence with 4 different intents: the affects of certainty and doubt and the modes of declaration and interrogative. Ps also produced a prolonged vowel (/a/.)

 

  • In both the pre- and post- test contexts, Ps were recorded in 2 conditions:

– when P had been off Levodopa for 12 hours (off levodopa)

– when P had been administered Levedopa 1 hour previous to the testing (on levodopa.)

 

  • The investigators recorded the Ps’ productions during pre and post testing and acoustically analyzed them using the measures listed in the outcomes.

 

  • The investigators administered an adapted version of the Lee Silverman Voice Treatment-adapted (LVST-a.) See the summary section below for the description of the adaptation/dosage.

 

  • The investigators compared the Ps’ performances by acoustically measuring the stimuli (sentences and prolongation of the vowel /a/) in 3 comparison contexts:

– Pretest with Ps off levodopa vs Posttest with Ps off levodopa

– Pretest with Ps off levodopa vs Posttest with Ps on levodopa

– Pretest with Ps on levodopa vs Posttest with Ps on levodopa

 

  • The investigators collapsed data across sentence types (certainty, double, statement, question) and most of the gender analyses in their statistical analyses.

 

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: C+

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of an intervention involving a combination of Levodopa and LVST-a.

 

POPULATION: Parkinson’s disease

 

MODALITY TARGETED: production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: Pitch, Intonation, Loudness, Duration, Rate of Speech

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: Loudness

 

DOSAGE: 16 individual 50-minute sessions, 2 times a week for 2 months

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • The investigators reported that they adapted the Lee Silverman Voice Treatment program by changing the dosage of the intervention. Instead of administering 16 sessions, 4 times a week, for 1 month they administered 16 sessions, 2 times a week, for 2 months.

 


Martens et al. (2015)

November 30, 2015

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Treatment Groups

 

 

Note: Scroll about two-thirds of the way down the page to read the summary of the procedure(s).

 

Key:

C = Clinician

EBP = evidence-based practice

f = female

Fo-max last syllable = maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable)

Fo-max median= median maximum fundamental frequency

m = male

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

SPRINT therapy = speech rate and intonation therapy

 

 

SOURCE: Martens, H., Van Nuffelen, G., Dekens, T., Hernández-Díaz Huicia, M., Arturo Kairuz Hernández-Díaz, M., De Letter, M., &, De Bodt, M. (2015). The effect of intensive speech rate and intonation therapy of intelligibility of Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Communication Disorders, 58, 91 -105.

 

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: November 23, 2015

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C+ (The highest possible grade based on the design was C+.)

 

TAKE AWAY: Eleven Dutch speakers diagnosed with hypokinetic dysarthria due to Parkinson’s disease received an intensive course of speech therapy focusing on rate and intonation to improve intelligibility. Intelligibility improved significantly with a large effect size. Several other measures also improved including measures associated with the perception of intonation representing questions or statements, the frequency of pauses, and maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of questions in reading and repetition tasks.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

– What was the type of evidence? Prospective, Single Group with Pre- and Post-Testing  

What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Level = C+

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:
  • If there was more than one group, were participants (Ps) randomly assigned to groups? Not Applicable (NA), there was only one group.

 

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

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 

How many Ps were involved in the study?

  • total # of Ps: 11 (from a volunteer group of 42)
  • # of groups: 1

 

The P characteristics that were controlled included

  • age:
  • gender:
  • diagnosis: idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (PD)
  • neurological status: no comorbid neurological disorders
  • motivation: following screening interview still indicated he/she was willing to participate in rigorous intervention
  • vision: determined to be sufficient during screening interview
  • hearing: determined to be sufficient during screening interview
  • cognitive skills: determined to be sufficient during screening interview
  • language: determined to be sufficient during screening interview
  • reading: determined to be sufficient during screening interview
  • intelligibility: reduced intelligibility on the Dutch Sentence Intelligibility Assessment (<90% intelligible)        
  • receptive prosody skills: score ≥ 80% on test, if necessary after a 1 hour receptive prosody training session

 

The P characteristics that were described included

  • age: 52 to 94 years; mean 70 years
  • gender: 7m; 4f
  • anti PD medication: All Ps were receiving anti PD medications; the specific medications for each P is listed in Table 1.  
  • received Deep Brain Stimulation: 4 yes; 7 no
  • previous speech therapy: 5 Ps had a history of speech therapy for loudness and/or rate
  • current speech therapy: suspended during the intervention
  • years since diagnosis: 4 to 29 years; mean 16 years
  • language spoken: Dutch

 

Were the groups similar before intervention began? NA

                                                         

–  Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes

  • disorder type: hypokinetic dysarthria
  • functional level:

     – severity of dysarthria ranged from mild (2 Ps) to moderate (8 Ps) with 1 P undermined

– sentence intelligibility ranged from 64% to 90%

 

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?

Did the group maintain at least 80% of their original members? Yes

Were data from outliers removed from the study? No

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? NA

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

–   The outcomes (dependent variables) were

 

PERCEPTUAL MEAURES:

  • OUTCOME #1: Improved sentence intelligibility of read aloud nonsense sentences
  • OUTCOME #2: Improved intonation of questions and statements in reading and repetition
  • OUTCOME #3: Improved intonation of questions in reading and repetition
  • OUTCOME #4: Improved intonation of statements in reading and repetition
  • OUTCOME #5: Improved intonation of questions and statements in reading
  • OUTCOME #6: Improved intonation of questions and statements in repetitions

 

AUTOMATED MEASURES:

  • OUTCOME #7: Improved speech rate (number of syllables per second including pauses) in a read passage
  • OUTCOME #8: Improved speech rate (number of syllables per second including pauses) in story telling
  • OUTCOME #9: Improved speech rate (number of syllables per second including pauses) during the intelligibility test –read nonsense syllables
  • OUTCOME #10: Improved articulation rate (number of syllables per second excluding pauses) in a read passage
  • OUTCOME #11: Improved articulation rate (number of syllables per second excluding pauses) in story telling
  • OUTCOME #12: Improved articulation rate (number of syllables per second excluding pauses) during the intelligibility test –read nonsense syllables
  • OUTCOME #13: Increased mean pause time in read passages
  • OUTCOME #14: Increased mean pause time in story telling
  • OUTCOME #15: Increased mean pause time during the intelligibility test—read nonsense test
  • OUTCOME #16: Increased mean number of pauses in read passages
  • OUTCOME #17: Increased mean number of pauses in story telling
  • OUTCOME #18: Increased mean number of pauses during the intelligibility test—read nonsense test

 

ACOUSTIC MEASURES:

  • OUTCOME #19: Improved median maximum fundamental frequency (Fo-max) of statements in a sentence reading task
  • OUTCOME #20: Improved median maximum fundamental frequency (Fo-max) of statements in a sentence repetition task
  • OUTCOME #19: Improved median maximum fundamental frequency (Fo-max) of questions in a sentence reading task
  • OUTCOME #20: Improved median maximum fundamental frequency (Fo-max) of questions in a sentence repetition task
  • OUTCOME #21: Improved maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of statements in a sentence reading task  
  • OUTCOME #22: Improved maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of statements in a sentence repetition task  
  • OUTCOME #23: Improved maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of questions in a sentence reading task  
  • OUTCOME #24: Improved maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of questions in a sentence repetition task  

 

– The outcome measures that are subjective are

 

PERCEPTUAL MEAURES:

  • OUTCOME #1: Improved sentence intelligibility of read aloud nonsense sentences
  • OUTCOME #2: Improved intonation of questions and statements in reading and repetition
  • OUTCOME #3: Improved intonation of questions in reading and repetition
  • OUTCOME #4: Improved intonation of statements in reading and repetition
  • OUTCOME #5: Improved intonation of questions and statements in reading
  • OUTCOME #6: Improved intonation of questions and statements in repetitions

 

 

– The objective outcome measures are

 

AUTOMATED MEASURES:

  • OUTCOME #7: Improved speech rate (number of syllables per second including pauses) in a read passage
  • OUTCOME #8: Improved speech rate (number of syllables per second including pauses) in story telling
  • OUTCOME #9: Improved speech rate (number of syllables per second including pauses) during the intelligibility test –read nonsense syllables
  • OUTCOME #10: Improved articulation rate (number of syllables per second excluding pauses) in a read passage
  • OUTCOME #11: Improved articulation rate (number of syllables per second excluding pauses) in story telling
  • OUTCOME #12: Improved articulation rate (number of syllables per second excluding pauses) during the intelligibility test –read nonsense syllables
  • OUTCOME #13: Increased mean pause time in read passages
  • OUTCOME #14: Increased mean pause time in story telling
  • OUTCOME #15: Increased mean pause time during the intelligibility test—read nonsense test
  • OUTCOME #16: Increased mean number of pauses in read passages
  • OUTCOME #17: Increased mean number of pauses in story telling
  • OUTCOME #18: Increased mean number of pauses during the intelligibility test—read nonsense test

 

ACOUSTIC MEASURES:

  • OUTCOME #19: Improved median maximum fundamental frequency (Fo-max) of statements in a sentence reading task
  • OUTCOME #20: Improved median maximum fundamental frequency (Fo-max) of statements in a sentence repetition task
  • OUTCOME #19: Improved median maximum fundamental frequency (Fo-max) of questions in a sentence reading task
  • OUTCOME #20: Improved median maximum fundamental frequency (Fo-max) of questions in a sentence repetition task
  • OUTCOME #21: Improved maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of statements in a sentence reading task  
  • OUTCOME #22: Improved maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of statements in a sentence repetition task  
  • OUTCOME #23: Improved maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of questions in a sentence reading task  
  • OUTCOME #24: Improved maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of questions in a sentence repetition task  

 

                                         

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

– Interobserver for analyzers? Yes

  • Combined reliability for Perceptual Measures (Outcomes #1 through #6 which are listed below the reliability data) was high:

– Pre-treatment Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.831

– Post-treatment Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.933

OUTCOME #1: Improved sentence intelligibility of read aloud nonsense sentences

OUTCOME #2: Improved intonation of questions and statements in reading and repetition

OUTCOME #3: Improved intonation of questions in reading and repetition

OUTCOME #4: Improved intonation of statements in reading and repetition

OUTCOME #5: Improved intonation of questions and statements in reading

OUTCOME #6: Improved intonation of questions and statements in repetitions

 

– Intraobserver for analyzers? Yes

  • Combined reliability for Perceptual Measures (Outcomes #1 through #6 which are listed below the reliability data) was high:

– Pre-treatment Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.935

– Post-treatment Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.799

OUTCOME #1: Improved sentence intelligibility of read aloud nonsense sentences

OUTCOME #2: Improved intonation of questions and statements in reading and repetition

OUTCOME #3: Improved intonation of questions in reading and repetition

OUTCOME #4: Improved intonation of statements in reading and repetition

OUTCOME #5: Improved intonation of questions and statements in reading

OUTCOME #6: Improved intonation of questions and statements in repetitions

 

  • Reliability for Fo max which was used for Measures/ Outcomes #19 through #24 (they are listed below the reliability data ) was high:

– Pre-treatment Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.998

– Post-treatment Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.997

OUTCOME #19: Improved median maximum fundamental frequency (Fo-max) of statements in a sentence reading task

OUTCOME #20: Improved median maximum fundamental frequency (Fo-max) of statements in a sentence repetition task

OUTCOME #19: Improved median maximum fundamental frequency (Fo-max) of questions in a sentence reading task

OUTCOME #20: Improved median maximum fundamental frequency (Fo-max) of questions in a sentence repetition task

OUTCOME #21: Improved maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of statements in a sentence reading task  

OUTCOME #22: Improved maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of statements in a sentence repetition task  

OUTCOME #23: Improved maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of questions in a sentence reading task  

OUTCOME #24: Improved maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of questions in a sentence repetition task  

 

– Treatment fidelity for clinicians? Yes

  • Clinicians (C), 4 master’s graduate students in speech-language pathology, followed a treatment protocol.
  • The first author supervised the Cs.

 

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT RESULTS

 

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

 

PRE AND POST TREATMENT ONLY ANALYSES

(only the Outcomes that achieved significance are listed)

 

PERCEPTUAL MEASURES:

  • OUTCOME #1: Improved sentence intelligibility of read aloud nonsense sentences – postintervention was significantly higher than preintervention
  • OUTCOME #2: Improved intonation of questions and statements in reading and repetition–postintervention was significantly better than preintervention
  • OUTCOME #3: Improved intonation of questions in reading and repetition – postintervention was significantly better than preintervention
  • OUTCOME #5: Improved intonation of questions and statements in reading – postintervention was significantly better than preintervention

 

AUTOMATED MEASURES:

  • OUTCOME #16: Increased mean number of pauses in read passages – postintervention was significantly larger than preintervention

 

ACOUSTIC MEASURES:

  • OUTCOME #23: Improved maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of questions in a sentence reading task – postintervention was significantly higher than preintervention
  • OUTCOME #24: Improved maximum fundamental frequency of the last syllable (Fo-max last syllable) of questions in a sentence repetition task – postintervention was significantly higher than preintervention

 

– What was the statistical test used to determine significance? Wilcoxon

 

– Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significance

– What measure was used? Nonparametric Effect Size

 

– Results of EBP testing and the interpretation:

  • OUTCOME #1: Improved sentence intelligibility of read aloud nonsense sentences—nonparametric effect sixe = 0.83 (large effect)

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

If yes, summarize findings:

 

  1. Were generalization data reported?  Yes
  • Since intelligibility was not the focus of the intervention, the outcome associated with intelligibility can be considered to be generalization.
  • The investigators reported that the post-intervention intelligibility was significantly higher than pre-invention intelligibility and that the effect size was large.

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.
  • In this single group, pre/post test investigation, 11 Ps from a volunteer group of 42 volunteers were selected using inclusion/exclusion criteria.
  • The Ps were all exposed to the same treatment administered by Cs who were master’s students in speech-language pathology. They were supervised by the first author.
  • The Ps were tested no more than 3 weeks before the intervention (pre) and no more than 3 days after treatment (post.)
  • The Cs administered the intervention over 3 weeks targeting speech rate and intonation.

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: C+

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of an intensive intervention for PD using speech rate and intonation to improve intelligibility.

 

POPULATION: Parkinson’s disease, hypokinetic dysarthria

 

MODALITY TARGETED: expression

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: rate, intonation (terminal contour, overall)

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: rate, intonation (terminal contour)

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: intelligibility

 

DOSAGE: 5 one-hour individual sessions per week for 3 weeks

 

ADMINISTRATOR: master’s students in speech-language pathology

 

STIMULI: auditory, rhythmic gestures (hand tapping)

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • Intervention included the use of the Prosodietrainer, software developed for Dutch speakers with dysarthria. The Prosodietrainer records the Ps’ verbalizations, allows the P to replay his/her attempts, and provides visual feedback. However, the visual feedback monitor was not used in this investigation because it was in an experimental phase and because there was concern that Ps might be distracted by it.

 

  • During the initial sessions, the Cs explained that rate and intonation interventions were being implemented to improve intelligibility. The Cs did not directly target intelligibility during the intervention.

 

  • Intervention was intense—5 one-hour sessions per week for 3 weeks (15 sessions.)

 

  • Cs followed a protocol that specified

– intervention dosage

– content

– hierarchy of intervention steps

– feedback strategies

 

  • Major focus:

– reduce speaking rate (during the 1st half hour of a session)

– increase the contrast of the phrase final syllable of questions and statements (during the 2nd half hour of a session)

 

  • Rate reduction procedures:

– C instructed P to reduce rate by half.

– If the instruction was not successful, C used modeling or hand tapping to reduce rate.

– C did not instruct P to increase sound length or pause length.

 

  • Final syllable contrasts for statements versus questions:

– C directed P to

– produce questions with a rising terminal contour

– produce statements with a falling terminal contour

  • C provided feedback to P regarding the accuracy of attempts.

 

  • The intervention hierarchy involved increasing the linguistic complexity, length, and task complexity of the targets. The Prosodietrainer was programmed to individualize targets based on the Ps’ skill levels.

 

  • The Cs adhered to the principles of motor learning by providing clear brief instructions and models.

 

  • SPRINT therapy also involves massed practice.

 

  • Cs provided feedback regarding P performance and the functional accuracy of productions. As intervention progress, Cs gradually increased the rate and the delay time of feedback.

Pennington et al. (2013)

November 15, 2015

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Treatment Groups

 

Note: Scroll about two-thirds of the way down the page to read the summary of the procedure(s).

 

Key:

C = Clinician

CI = confidence interval

CP = cerebral palsy

EBP = evidence-based practice

f =   female

FOCUS = Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six

m = male

MLU = mean length of utterance

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SD = Standard Deviation

SLP = speech–language pathologist

 

 

SOURCE: Pennington, L., Roelant, E., Thompson, V., Robson, S., Steen, N., & Miller, N. (2013). Intensive dysarthria therapy for younger children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.12098

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: November 11, 2015

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C+  (The highest possible grade based on the design of the investigation was C+.)

 

TAKE AWAY: This 6-week, intensive intervention resulted in increased intelligibility and communicative interactions in young children with dysarthria associated with cerebral palsy. The improvements in intelligibility were maintained for up to 12 weeks following the termination of the intervention.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

– What was the type of evidence? Prospective, Single Group with Pre- and Post-Testing

                                                                                                           

– What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Level = C+

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

  • If there was more than one group, were participants (Ps) randomly assigned to groups? Not Applicable (NA)
  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?

 

  • from participants? No
  • from clinicians? No
  • from analyzers? Yes, from some of the analyzers (familiar and unfamiliar listeners).    

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 

– How many Ps were involved in the study?

  • total # of Ps:   15
  • # of groups: 1

           

The P characteristics that were controlled are

  • age: 5 through 11 years
  • diagnosis: Cerebral palsy (CP)
  • severity of dysarthria: moderate to severe
  • hearing: no bilateral hearing loss greater than 50 dB
  • vision: no severe impairments that are not correctable with glasses
  • cognitive skills: no profound cognitive impairments

The P characteristics that were described are

  • age: range 5- 11 years; mean 8 years; Standard Deviation (SD) 2 years
  • gender: 9m; 6f
  • type of CP:

     – bilateral spastic (8)

     – dyskinetic (4)

     – Worster Drought syndrome (2)

     – ataxic (1)

  • gross motor skills: Gross Motor Function Classification System levels: II to IV; median II
  • expressive language: short phrases to complex sentences
  • MLU: mean for group 5.61 (SD = 2.96); range = 2.08 to 10.16
  • Residence: Northeast England

 

– Were the groups similar before intervention began? NA

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes

  • disorder type: Motor Speech Disorders (Verbal Motor Production Assessment for Children)
  • functional level:

     – parents’ scores on Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS) initially ranged from 148 to 257

– teachers’ scores FOCUS initially ranged from 111 to 306

 

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?

                                                                                                             

– Did the group maintain at least 80% of the original members? Yes

– Were data from outliers removed from the study? Yes. Outcome #7 (Participants’, Ps’, views of treatment effectiveness) was removed from the study because several of the Ps did not understand the task.

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? NA, there was only one group.

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

                                                                                                             

NOTE: Only outcomes concerned with treatment effectiveness are listed here:

 

The outcomes (dependent variables) were

  • OUTCOME #1: Improved intelligibility of single words by familiar listeners
  • OUTCOME #2: Improved intelligibility of connected words by familiar listeners
  • OUTCOME #3: Improved intelligibility of single words by unfamiliar listeners
  • OUTCOME #4: Improved intelligibility of connected words by unfamiliar listeners
  • OUTCOME #5: Improved FOCUS scores from parents (a measure of communicative interaction)
  • OUTCOME #6: Improved FOCUS scores from teachers parents (a measure of communicative interaction)
  • OUTCOME #7: Participants’ (Ps’) views about the effectiveness of the intervention
  • OUTCOME #8: Parents’ views about the effectiveness of the intervention

All of the outcome measures were subjective.

 

– None of the outcome measures were objective.

 

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

– Interobserver for analyzers? Yes

  • OUTCOME #1: Improved intelligibility of single words by familiar listeners (interclass coefficient correlation = 0.47; 95% CI of 0.34 – 0.61)
  • OUTCOME #2: Improved intelligibility of connected words by familiar listeners (interclass coefficient correlation = 0.31; 95% CI of 0.16 – 0.36)
  • OUTCOME #3: Improved intelligibility of single words by unfamiliar listeners

(interclass coefficient correlation = 0.88; 95% CI of 0.85 – 0.91)

  • OUTCOME #4: Improved intelligibility of connected words by unfamiliar listeners (interclass coefficient correlation = 0.92; 95% CI of 0.90 – 0.94)

 

Intraobserver for analyzers? No

– Treatment fidelity for clinicians? Yes. The investigators reported that a second clinician observed 21 treatment sessions to insure that treatment protocol was followed. The investigators did not report the degree of fidelity.

 

  1. What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing.
  • SUMMARY OF RESULTS

 

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

  • OUTCOME #1: Improved intelligibility of single words by familiar listeners

– significant difference between sessions

     – largest differences between pretreatment (times 1 and 2) and post treatment (times 3, 4, and 5) sessions

     – change from pre to post intervention testing was 10.8% (95% CI 7.2 – 14.4)

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Improved intelligibility of connected words by familiar listeners

– significant difference between sessions

     – largest differences between pretreatment (times 1 and 2) and post treatment (times 3, 4, and 5) sessions

     – change from pre to post intervention testing was 9.4% (95% CI 4.8– 14.1)

  • OUTCOME #3: Improved intelligibility of single words by unfamiliar listeners

– significant difference between sessions

     – differences between pretreatment (times 1 and 2) and post treatment (times 3, 4, and 5) sessions

     – change from pre to post intervention testing was 9.3% (95% CI 6.8 – 11.8)

  • OUTCOME #4: Improved intelligibility of connected words by unfamiliar listener

     – change from pre to post intervention testing was 10.5% (95% CI 7.3 – 13.8)

  • OUTCOME #5: Improved FOCUS scores from parents

     – mean change in scores from pre to post intervention was 30.3 (CI 95% 10.2- 50.4)

  • OUTCOME #6: Improved FOCUS scores from teachers

     – mean change in scores from pre to post intervention was 28.3 (CI 95% 14.4 – 42.1)

  • OUTCOME #7: Participants’ (Ps’) views about the effectiveness of the intervention

– data were not analyzed because some of the Ps could not complete the task

  • OUTCOME #8: Parents’ views about the effectiveness of the intervention

     good results (12 parents, 66.7%)

     – fair results ( 3 parents, 33.3%)

 

– What was the statistical test used to determine significance?

  • t-test
  • ANOVA
  • Spearman rank correlations: but these are not reported in this review because they are not directly concerned with treatment

 

– Were confidence interval (CI) provided? Yes

 

– The CIs were

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Improved intelligibility of single words by familiar listeners

     – 95% CI 7.2 – 14.4

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Improved intelligibility of connected words by familiar listeners

   – 95% CI 4.8– 14.1

  • OUTCOME #3: Improved intelligibility of single words by unfamiliar listeners

     – 95% CI 6.8 – 11.8

  • OUTCOME #4: Improved intelligibility of connected words by unfamiliar listener

     – 95% CI 7.3 – 13.8

  • OUTCOME #5: Improved FOCUS scores from parents

     – CI 95% 10.2- 50.4

  • OUTCOME #6: Improved FOCUS scores from teachers

     – CI 95% 14.4 – 42.1

  1. What is the clinical significanceNot Provided

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? Yes

– Maintenance data were reported for the following outcomes:

OUTCOME #1: Improved intelligibility of single words by familiar listeners

           OUTCOME #2: Improved intelligibility of connected words by familiar listeners

         OUTCOME #3: Improved intelligibility of single words by unfamiliar listeners

         OUTCOME #4: Improved intelligibility of connected words by unfamiliar listeners

– Maintenance was measured by comparing testing times 3 (1 week post intervention), 4 (6 weeks post intervention), and 5 (12 weeks post intervention.)

– For all 4 outcomes, there were no significant differences in the different postintervention testing times.

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.

 

  • One group of young Ps with CP were treated using a previously researched intervention involving breath support, phonation, and speech rate to improve intelligibility and communicative interactions (as measured by FOCUS.)
  • There were 3 sets of assessments: recordings of Ps, parent and teacher ratings of communicative interactions (FOCUS), and P and parent ratings of treatment effectiveness.

RECORDINGS OF Ps

  • Ps were recorded 6 weeks and 1 week prior to intervention and 1 week, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks following intervention.
  • Two sets of the measurements were made at each of the recording times.
  • The recordings consisted of two tasks:

– single word intelligibility was assess using the Children’s Speech Intelligibility Measure (CSIM)

– Ps’ responses to questions and imitations of modeled phrases.

  • There were 2 sets of listeners who rated recordings for intelligibility:

– 3 familiar listeners: they listened to both recordings from each of the recording times. Recordings were presented in random order. All 3 familiar listeners listened to all the Ps recordings.

– 125 unfamiliar listeners: they listened to one recording from 3 random recording. They could only listen to the same child one time.

RATING OF COMMUNICATIVE INTERACTIONS (FOCUS)

  • The FOCUS was administered to parents and teachers 2 times: 1 week preintervention and 10 to 12 weeks postintervention

RATINGS OF THERAPY EFFECTIVENESS

  • Ps and their parents were asked to complete a 4 point Likert scale rating therapy effectiveness following the intervention.
  • The Ps’ responses were not analyzed because some of the Ps could not complete the task.

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: C+

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of an intervention focusing on respiration, phonation, and speech rate to improve intelligibility and communicative interactions with young children with dysarthria associated with CP.

POPULATION: Dysarthria, Cerebral Palsy; Children

 

MODALITY TARGETED: expression

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION:   rate

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: intelligibility, communicative interactions

DOSAGE: three individual sessions, 35 to 40 minute sessions per week, for 6 weeks

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

  • The investigators cited previous publications with fuller descriptions of the procedures. Listed below is a summary of what was included in the current publication.
  • The Ps did not receive any other speech therapy while they were receiving the experimental intervention.
  • The intervention used motor learning principles and targeted

– control of respiration

– phonatory effort

– rate control

– control of phrase length or syllables per breath

_______________________________________________________________


Yorkston et al. (1990)

January 4, 2015

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Comparison Learning Research

 

NOTE:  Scroll about 2/3s of the way down the page to view a description of the 4 rate control strategies and procedures.

KEY:

C = clinician(s)

P = participant(s)

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

wpm = words per minute

 

SOURCE: Yorkston, K. M., Hammen, V. L., Beukelman, D. R., & Traynor, C. D. (1990). The effect of rate control on the intelligibility and naturalness of dysarthric speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 550-560.

 REVIEWER(S): pmh

DATE: January 3, 2015

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C- (The highest possible grade for this design was B+.)

 

TAKE AWAY: This investigation is concerned with learning and should not be considered evidence of the effectiveness of an intervention. Nevertheless, learning research can provide guidance to clinicians (C). The findings from this investigation indicated that slowing the rate of speech can result in improvements in the speech of participants (Ps) with ataxic or hypokinetic dysarthria. Metered strategies are more likely to improve sentence intelligibility, although one type (Additive Rhythmic) of rhythmic rate control strategy also results in sentence intelligibility improvement. On the other hand, metered strategies tend to be associated with the more severe degrading of ratings of speech naturalness than the rhythmic approaches.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  • What was the type of evidence? Comparison Research–Prospective, Nonrandomized Group Design with Controls
  • What was the focus of the research? Clinically Related
  • What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Level = B+

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:
  • If there were groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? No
  • If the Ps were not randomly assigned to groups, were members of groups carefully matched? Yes

                                                                    

    3.  Were experimental conditions concealed?

  • from participants? No
  • from administrators of experimental conditions? No
  • from analyzers/judges? Yes

                                                                   

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 How many participants were involved in the study?

  • total # of participant:  12
  • # of groups:  3
  • # of participants in each group: 4
  • List names of groups: Ataxic (A) Group, Hypokinetic (H) Group, Typical Speaking (TS) Group
  • Did all groups maintain membership? No. Only partial data are reported for 1 P from the A group due to a change in her medical status.

  The following variables were described or controlled:

  • age: 30-70 years
  • gender: 4f, 8m
  • first language: English
  • expressive language:
  • years post onset: 3-29 years
  • etiology:

     – A group = cerebellar degeneration, traumatic brain injury (2), tumor resection

     – H group = Parkinson’s disease (3), cerebral palsy with dystonic posturing

     – TS group = all Ps had no history of neurologic disorder:

  •  Were the groups similar before intervention began? Not Applicable
  •   Were the communication problems adequately described? Unclear
  • disorder type:

     – TS group – no reported speech disorder

– A group — pure ataxic (2), ataxic/spastic (1), ataxic/flaccid (1)

– H group – all hypokinetic

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

Subject (Classification) Groups?

– A group

– H group

– TS group                                                               

Experimental Conditions?

  • rate of speech (habitual, 80% of habitual, 60% of habitual)
  • rate control strategies

– Additive Metered (AM

– Additive Rhythmic (AR)

– Cued Metered (CM)

– Cued Rhythmic (CR)

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes

  

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes                                                                                                      

The dependent measures

  • Measure #1: Speaking rate in words per minute (wpm)
  • Measure #2: Sentence intelligibility
  • Measure #3: Phoneme intelligibility
  • Measure #4: Speech naturalness

The dependent measures that are subjective are

  • Measure #2: Sentence intelligibility
  • Measure #3: Phoneme intelligibility
  • Measure #4: Speech naturalness

The dependent/ outcome measures that are objective are

  • Measure #1: Speaking rate in words per minute (wpm)

                                       

  1. Were reliability measures provided? Yes, some.

Interobserver for analyzers? Yes

  • Measure #3: Phoneme intelligibility—The investigators cited previous research reporting this information. Because they used a short version of the previously researched measure, the investigators also reported the average range of judges scores:

– Overall average range = 8.9%

– Average range for consonants = 9.6%

– Average range for vowels = 17.9%

 

  • Measure #4: Speech naturalness—The average standard deviation among the 9 judges was 0.97 points on the rating scale.

 

Intraobserver for analyzers?   Yes

  • Measure #4: Speech naturalness:

– A group = 88%

– H group = 91%

– I group = 89%

 

Treatment fidelity for investigators? Yes, kind of. However, the investigators described the accuracy of the rate control conditions. That is, they determined if Ps really spoke at 60% and 80% of their habitual rates during the slowed conditions by calculating or computing the rate of speech in each of the rate conditions and rate control strategies. Overall, the investigators determined that the computer software accurately paced the Ps rate of speech.

  

  1. Description of design:
  • The investigators compared the performance of A, H, and TS group during habitual speaking rate and during 2 slowed conditions (80% and 60% of habitual rate.)
  • The rates were slowed via computer pacing using 4 different strategies:

– Additive Metered (AM)

– Additive Rhythmic (AR)

– Cued Metered (CM)

– Cued Rhythmic (CR)

  • The dependent variables/outcome measures were sentence intelligibility, phoneme intelligibility, and speech naturalness.

 

  1. What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing?—There was no inferential testing, only descriptive statistics.
  • Measure #1: Speaking rate in words per minute (wpm) — The investigators judged that the speaking rates were accurately paced. That is, the targets of 80% and 60% of habitual speech generally were accurately produced by the Ps.
  • Measure #2: Sentence intelligibility

     – The effect of rate control on the 2 clinical (A, H) groups: The investigators judged that as speakers reduced their speaking rate, sentence intelligibility improved using measures of mean sentence intelligibility and the charting of individual performances.

– The effectiveness of each of the 4 rate control strategies was investigated for the 2 clinical groups using the data associated with the 60% rate. The investigators determined that the 2 metered strategies (AM, CM) consistently resulted in higher scores than the rhythmic (AR, CR) strategies.

– Individual rankings of the 4 rate control strategies revealed that CM was most often the most effective strategy and CR was the least effective strategy.

– My (pmh) review of the data indicated that although one of the rhythmic strategies (AR) also resulted in marked improvements of sentence intelligibility.

  • Measure #3: Phoneme intelligibility

– The investigators reported that that phoneme intelligibility did not appear to vary (improve or decrease) as the clinical Ps’ (i.e., A and H groups) speaking rate decreased.

– Inspection of the data of individual clinical Ps revealed inconsistent responses to slowed rate: some Ps improved, some Ps regressed.

– Vowel intelligibility seemed to be particularly challenging for the clinical Ps. One common trend was observed in the A group: at slowed rates, judges tended to perceive single vowels as diphthongs.

  • Measure #4: Speech naturalness

– The investigators compared the 2 clinical groups (A and H) and the TS group.

– Overall (all Ps, rates, and rate control strategies) the lowest naturalness judgments were associated with the A group. The H group’s naturalness scores were in the middle and the best naturalness ratings were for the TS group.

– The largest decrease in naturalness ratings was for the TS group when comparing the habitual and the 60% of habitual rate.

– Although the A and H groups’ trends indicated that there were decreases in naturalness rating associated with the slowed rate, the changes were minimal.

– The investigators also explored the effectiveness of the different rate control strategies on speech naturalness. For this comparison, however, they combined the data from the metered (AM, CM) and the rhythmic (AR, CR) strategies.

– For all 3 groups of Ps, the metered strategies resulted in the poorest naturalness scores. The largest decrease in naturalness scores occurred in the TS group.

 

  1. Brief summary of clinically relevant results:
  • Slowed rate of speech resulted in improved sentence (but not phoneme) intelligibility in A and H speakers.
  • The most effective rate control strategies were metered strategies (AM, CM) although, the additive rhythmic strategy seemed pretty close to the metered strategies.
  • Metered rate control strategies were consistently poorer than rhythmic rate control strategies and the habitual rate.

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: ___C-__

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES

 

PURPOSE: to investigate the effect of slowed rate and four rate control strategies on sentence intelligibility, phoneme intelligibility, and speech naturalness.

POPULATION: Ataxic dysarthria, Hypokinetic dysarthria (Parkinson’s disease, PD), and typical speakers (TS)

 

MODALITY TARGETED: expression

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: rate

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: rate, rhythm

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: sentence intelligibility, phoneme intelligibility, and speech naturalness

DOSAGE: 3 two-hour sessions (this was not an intervention; it was a learning experiment.)

 

GENERAL PROCEDURE:

 

  • There were 4 rate control strategies:

– Additive Metered (AM): The C presented the words in a targeted sentence one word at a time on a computer screen at the predetermined speaking rate. Each word was presented on the screen for the same amount of time. (C had previously shared the sentences with C so as to familiarize him/her with the sentences.)

– Additive Rhythmic (AR): The C presented the words in a targeted passage using timing one would produce in typical speech. Each word was presented on the screen for the amount of time a typical speaker would produce the word. (C had previously shared the sentences with C so as to familiarize him/her with the sentences.)

– Cued Metered (CM): C presented the entire target passage to the P on a computer screen. C cued the words at the predetermined rate by underlining each targeted word. Each word was underlined for the same amount of time

– Cued Rhythmic (CR): C presented the entire target passage on a computer screen to the P. C cued the words at the predetermined rate by underlining each targeted word. Each word was presented on the screen for the amount of time a typical speaker would produce the word.

  • The investigators identified each P’s habitual rate of speaking using a set of read stimuli. They then had Ps read other similar stimuli at slowed rates of speech (60% and 80% of the habitual rate) using the 4different rate control strategies.

Van Nuffelen (2011)

September 22, 2014

CRITIQUE OF UNSUPPORTED PROCEDURAL DESCRIPTIONS

KEY:

C = clinician

DAF = delayed auditory feedback

P = patient or participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

Source: Van Nuffelen, G. (2011). Speech prosody in dysarthria. In V. Stojanovik & J. Setter (Eds.), Speech prosody in atypical populations: Assessment and remediation (pp. 147- 167). Surry, UK: J & R Press.

 

Reviewer(s): pmh

 

Date: September 21, 2014

 

Overall Assigned Grade (because there are no primary supporting data, the highest grade will be F): 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: As the author notes, despite the common perception of dysarthria as an adult issue, children also can exhibit one or more forms of dysarthria. The   focus of this chapter was on using prosody to improve intelligibility (ability of a listen to understand a verbal message without context) and comprehensibility (ability of a listen to understand a verbal message in context) in adults or children with dysarthria.

The author provides background information about prosody’s relevance to speech-language pathology and analyzes assessment procedures (these will be reviewed in this blog at a later date when we add a section on assessment issues.) This review is concerned with the recommendations for using prosody to improve intelligibility and/or comprehensibility. Prior to working on expressive prosody, the author recommends that receptive prosody be targeted if assessment suggests this is skill is a challenge. The author provides techniques and content for treating intonation, stress, and rate as they relate to intelligibility/comprehensibility.

    

  1. Was there review of the literature supporting components of the intervention? 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:
  • Outcome #1: to improve receptive prosody
  • Outcome #2: to improve stress and intonation by chunking utterances into appropriate syntactic units
  • Outcome #3: to increase the length of breath groups that correspond with syntactic units
  • Outcome #4: to use stress to differentiate word classes
  • Outcome #5: to use stress to emphasize appropriately a word in an utterance
  • Outcome #6: to use intonation to differentiate speech acts
  • Outcome #7– to produce utterance with appropriate affective prosody
  • Outcome #8– to produce a speaking rate that optimizes intelligibility/comprehensibility

 

  1. Was generalization addressed? No

 

  1. Was maintenance addressed? No

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

Description of Intervention #1to improve receptive prosody (specific intervention procedures and content were not provided)

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

TARGETS: to differentiate acceptable and unacceptable productions of examples of prosodic patterns

TECHNIQUES: feedback from C (clinician)

STIMULI: auditory, audio-recordings

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES

  1. C plays audio recordings of examples of prosodic patterns.
  2. P (patient) judges if the example is correct or incorrect.
  3. C provides feedback to the P regarding the accuracy of the judgment.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: The author cited research indicating that receptive prosody is co-located in the brain with certain forms of dysarthria. Accordingly, there is a possibility that some speakers with dysarthria such as those with spastic dysarthria or upper motor neuron dysarthria may also have a receptive prosodic problem. There is only limited research about the receptive prosodic skills of speakers with dysarthria so it is important to insure that receptive prosodic skills are intact. Also, among children with high-functioning autism, there is a significant correlation between receptive and expressive prosody. (Logical support)

Description of Intervention #2 to improve stress and intonation by chunking utterances into appropriate syntactic units

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

 

TARGETS: matching of the production of breath units with syntactic units.

TECHNIQUES: behavioral instruction/metalinguistics, modeling, visual feedback

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • The following are general ideas for treating prosody and specific ideas for treating chunking/phrasing listed in the chapter.

– C identifies the typical length of P’s breath group

– C guides P to produce utterances with pauses associated with a breath group at a syntactic boundaries.

– C uses the following techniques:

  1. behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics
  2. modeling

iii. visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure pauses.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Speakers with dysarthria can have short breath groups. If pausing to breath does not correspond with a syntactic boundary, intelligibility problems can occur. (Logical support)

Description of Intervention #3— to increase the length of breath groups that correspond with syntactic units

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

 

TARGETS: breath units

TECHNIQUES: behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics, modeling, visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure duration.

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • The following are general ideas for treating prosody and specific ideas for lengthening breath groups listed in the chapter.

– C identifies the typical length of P’s breath group

– C guides P to produce longer breath groups.

– C uses the following techniques:

  1. behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics
  2. modeling

iii. visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure duration.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Speakers with dysarthria can have short breath groups. Increasing the length of breath groups can increase the length of utterances and, perhaps, intelligibility/comprehensibility. (Logical support)

Description of Intervention #4—to use stress to differentiate word classes

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

 

TARGETS: production of lexical stress (e.g., ob JECT versus OB ject)

TECHNIQUES: behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics; modeling; contrastive stress drills; visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure intensity, frequency, duration.

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • The following are general ideas for treating prosody and specific ideas for improving lexical stress listed in the chapter.

– C presents contrastive stress drills in which minimal pair words for P to produce that differ only in location of stress (“RE ject” versus “re JECT”)

– C uses the following techniques:

  1. behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics
  2. modeling

iii. visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure duration, intensity, pause, and frequency.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Improving lexical stress assists the listener in understanding what the speaker is intending. (Logical support)

Description of Intervention #5–to use stress to emphasize appropriately a word in an utterance

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

 

TARGETS: phrasal/sentence stress

TECHNIQUES: behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics; modeling; contrastive stress drills; visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure intensity, frequency, and duration.

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • The following are general ideas for treating prosody and specific ideas for improving phrasal stress listed in the chapter.

– C presents contrastive stress drills in which minimal pair sentences which P will produce will differ only in location of stress (e.g., “DAVID took the money” versus “David took the MONEY”)

– C uses the following techniques:

  1. behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics
  2. modeling

iii. visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure duration, intensity, pause, and frequency.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: The speaker should stress the word that he/she believes is the most important word in the sentence for the listener. (Logical support)

Description of Intervention #6—to use intonation to differentiate speech acts

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

 

TARGETS: intonation, intonation terminal contour

TECHNIQUES: behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics; modeling; contrastive stress drills; visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure frequency

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • The following are general ideas for treating prosody and specific ideas for improving intonation listed in the chapter.

– C presents contrastive stress drills in which minimal pair sentences which P will produce will differ only in the intonation (terminal contour) signaling different speech acts (e.g., “David took the money.” versus “David took the money?”)

– C uses the following techniques:

  1. behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics
  2. modeling

iii. visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure frequency.

Description of Intervention #7– to produce utterance with appropriate affective prosody

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

 

TARGETS: affective prosody

TECHNIQUES: behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics; modeling; contrastive stress drills; visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure frequency, intensity, pause, and duration

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • The following are general ideas for treating prosody and specific ideas for improving affective prosody listed in the chapter.

– C presents contrastive stress drills in which minimal pair sentences which P will produce will differ only in the intonation (terminal contour) signaling different emotions (e.g., happy, sad, angry)

– C uses the following techniques:

  1. behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics
  2. modeling

iii. visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure frequency.

Description of Intervention #8– to produce a speaking rate that optimizes intelligibility/comprehensibility

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

 

TARGETS: rate, intelligibility, comprehensibility

TECHNIQUES: behavioral description/metalingustics, speaking slower on demand, pacing, alphabet board, hand or finger tapping, delayed auditory feedback

STIMULI: auditory, visual, tactile/kinesthetic

 

ADMINISTRATOR:

 

PROCEDURES:

  • To reduce the rate of speech, the clinician may focus on
  1. reducing articulation rate
  2. inserting additional, syntactically appropriate pauses
  3. increasing the length/duration of pauses
  • The author described several approaches for slowing speech rate”
  1. Speaking slower on demand—C instructs P to talk at a specific percentage of his/her typical speaking rate (e.g., one-third P’s normal rate).
  1. Pacing – C directs P’s attention to a device (e.g., pacing board, metronome, Facilitator of Metronomic Pacing by Key Elemetrics, or the computer software Pacer) and asks P to talk saying a word or syllable for each square on the pacing board or in time with the metronome or computer program.
  1. Alphabet Board – P points to the first letter of each word when speaking.
  1. Hand or Finger Tapping – P taps for each intended syllable when speaking.
  1. Delayed Auditory Feedback (DAF) –C identifies the optimal delay time and then directs P to talk while wearing the DAF device..

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Logical—

  • Rather than normalizing the rate of speech, the target should be to produce speech at a rate that optimizes intelligibility/comprehensibility. At this point, there is no strategy that has been identified as superior for all Ps. Rather, Cs should identify the strategy that works for the individual P insuring that it improves intelligibility/comprehensibility.
  • Of the approaches for reducing rate, the author presented the following rationales:
  1. reducing articulation rate—a number of studies support that this increases articulatory precision (distinctiveness) but research is contradictory as to whether reducing rate increases intelligibility
  2. inserting additional, syntactically appropriate pauses—this may improve comprehensibility by highlighting syntactic and/or word boundaries or by giving the listener additional time to interpret the utterance
  3. increasing the length/duration of pauses–—this may improve comprehensibility by highlighting syntactic and/or word boundaries or by giving the listener additional time to interpret the utterance
  • The author presented the following support for the techniques for slowing speech rate”
  1. Speaking slower on demand—The author cited research to support this approach but her own previously reported research did not yield significant changes in articulation rate, pause duration, or pause frequency.
  2. Pacing –The author cited her own previously reported research indicating a significant decrease articulation in rate and significant increases in total pause duration and pause frequency.
  3. Alphabet Board –The author cited her own previously reported research indicating significant decreases in articulation rate and pause frequency and significant increases in mean and total pause duration.
  4. Hand or Finger Tapping – The author cited her own previously reported research indicating a significant a decrease articulation in rate and a significant increase pause frequency.
  5. Delayed Auditory Feedback (DAF) – The author cited her own previously reported research indicating a significant decrease articulation rate.

 

CONTRAINDICATIONS FOR USE OF THE INTERVENTION—see above


Ramig et al. (2001b)

September 5, 2014

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

f = female

LSVT = Lee Silverman Voice Treatment

m = male

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

PD = Parkinson’s disease

pmh = Patricia Hargrove (blog developer)

RET = respiratory therapy

UPDRS = Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale

SLP = speech–language pathologist

SPL = sound pressure level, a measure of loudness

STSD = semi-tone standard deviation, a measure of inflection/intonation

 

 

SOURCE: Ramig, L. O., Sapir, S., Countryman, A. A., O’Brien, C., Hoehn, M., & Thompson, L. L. (2001b). Intensive voice treatment for patients with Parkinson’s disease: A 2 year follow up. Journal of Neurological and Neurosurgical Psychiatry, 71, 493-498.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: September 5, 2014

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: B+ (The highest possible grade, based on the design was A.)

 

TAKE AWAY: The investigators compared outcomes from Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT) and respiratory therapy (RET) for speakers with Parkinson’s disease. LSVT outperformed RET on acoustic outcomes measuring loudness and intonation. The gains made using LSVT persisted for 2 years following treatment.

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  2. What was the type of evidence? Prospective, Randomized Group Design with Controls
  3. What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Level = A

                                                                                                           

 

  1. Group membership determination:
  2. If there were groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? Yes, but only after they had been stratified.

 

 

  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?
  2. from participants? No
  3. from clinicians? No
  4. from analyzers and test administrators? Yes

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes, for the most part but see 4a and 5a.
  2. How many participants were involved in the study?
  • total # of participant:   29 [the original group was larger but the number of participants (Ps) that withdrew was not specified]
  • # of groups: 2
  • # of participants in each group: 21, 12 and data was not collected for all outcomes at all testing times – pre, post, follow-up (2 years after termination of treatment)
  • List names of groups: LSVT (21); RET (12)

                                                                                

  1. The following characteristic was controlled:
  • Ps were excluded if laryngeal pathology not related to PD. That is, none of the Ps exhibited laryngeal pathology not related to PD.

 

The following characteristics were described:

  • age: mean ages—LSVT 61.3; RET 63.3
  • gender: LSVT (17m, 4f); RET (7m, 5f)
  • Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS): LSVT = 27.7; RET 12.9
  • Stage of disease: LSVT = 2.6; RET = 2.2
  • time since diagnosis: LSVT = 7.2 years; RET = 5.0 years
  • medication: all Ps were optimally medicated and medications did not change over course of investigation

 

  1. Were the groups similar before intervention began? Yes but preintervention differences between groups on UPDRS and Stage were not reported.

                                                         

  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes
  • disorder type: (List) dysarthria associated with Parkinson’s disease
  • Speech severity rating: LSVT = 1.2; RET = 1.7 (1 = mild; 5= severe)
  • Voice severity rating: LSVT = 2.5; RET = 2.3 (1 = mild; 5= severe)

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?

                                                                                                             

  1. Did each of the groups maintain at least 80% of their original members? Unclear. There was some attrition but it was not described.
  2. Were data from outliers removed from the study? No

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes
  2. Was there a no intervention group? No
  3. Was there a foil intervention group? No
  4. Was there a comparison group? Yes
  5. Was the time involved in the foil/comparison and the target groups constant? Yes

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  2. List outcomes
  • OUTCOME #1: Increase sound pressure level (SPL) during production of “ah”
  • OUTCOME #2: Increase SPL during reading of the “Rainbow” passage
  • OUTCOME #3: Increase SPL during 25-30 seconds of monologue
  • OUTCOME #4: Increase semitone standard deviation (STSD) during reading of the “Rainbow” passage
  • OUTCOME #5: Increase STSD during 25-30 seconds of monologue

 

  1. None of the outcome measures are subjective.

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided? Yes
  2. Interobserver for analyzers? Yes.
  • The investigators only provided data for STSD measures (i.e., outcomes #4 and #5). They claimed that previous reports indicated SPL (outcomes #1, #2, and #3) were reliable.
  • OUTCOME #4: Increase semitone standard deviation (STSD) during reading of the “Rainbow” passage—greater than 0.97
  • OUTCOME #5: Increase STSD during 25-30 seconds of monologue –greater than 0.97

 

  1. Intraobserver for analyzers? No

 

  1. Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No. There were no data supporting reliability. However, the clinicians worked together during the sessions with the purpose of achieving consistency in application of the interventions.

 

  1. What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing?
  2. Data analysis revealed:

 

TREATMENT GROUP VERSUS COMPARISON TREATMENT GROUP

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Increase sound pressure level (SPL) during production of “ah”—LSVT significantly higher than RET at post-treatment and 2-year follow-up
  • OUTCOME #2: Increase SPL during reading of the “Rainbow” passage —LSVT significantly higher than RET at post-treatment and 2-year follow-up
  • OUTCOME #3: Increase SPL during 25-30 seconds of monologue —LSVT significantly higher than RET post-treatment
  • OUTCOME #4: Increase semitone standard deviation (STSD) during reading of the “Rainbow” passage —LSVT significantly higher than RET post-treatment
  • OUTCOME #5: Increase STSD during 25-30 seconds of monologue—No significant differences between groups

 

 

PRE VS POST TREATMENT (only significant changes are noted)

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Increase sound pressure level (SPL) during production of “ah”

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to post

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to 2-year follow up

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Increase SPL during reading of the “Rainbow” passage

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to post

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to 2-year follow up

–RET: significant improvement from pre to post

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Increase SPL during 25-30 seconds of monologue

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to post

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to 2-year follow up

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Increase semitone standard deviation (STSD) during reading of the “Rainbow” passage

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to post

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to 2-year follow up

–RET: significant improvement from pre to post

 

  • OUTCOME #5: Increase STSD during 25-30 seconds of monologue

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to post

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to 2-year follow up

 

  1. What was the statistical test used to determine significance? ANOVA and t-tests.

 

  1. Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

                                               

  1. What is the clinical significance? NA. No EBP data were provided.

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? Yes. The investigators retested Ps two years after the end of the intervention. For LSVT, all outcomes that improved significantly from pre to post intervention also improved from pre to 2-year follow up. For RET, neither of the improved outcomes significantly increased from pre to 2 year follow up.

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: B+

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of LSVT

 

POPULATION: Parkinson’s disease

 

MODALITY TARGETED: production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: loudness, intonation

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: loudness, pitch range, duration

 

OTHER TARGETS:

 

DOSAGE: 16 sessions (4 sessions per week for 4 weeks), 1-hour sessions

 

ADMINISTRATOR: 2 SLPs

 

STIMULI: auditory stimuli, visual feedback

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • Two treatments were compared: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT) and respiratory therapy (RET). Both interventions

– focused on high and maximum effort

– included exercises for the first half of the session and speech tasks for the second half of the session

– assigned daily homework

 

LSVT
• Purpose: to increase loudness by increasing (vocal) effort

  • C was careful to avoid vocal hyperfunction while encouraging P to increase effort.
  • To increase vocal effort, C led P in lifting and pushing tasks.
  • Drills included prolongation of “ah” and fundamental frequency range drills
  • C encouraged P to use maximum effort during treatment tasks by reminding P to “think loud” and to take a deep breath.

 

RET

  • Purpose: to increase respiratory muscles function thereby improving volume, subglottal air pressure, and loudness
  • Tasks: inspiration, expiration, prolongation of speech sounds, sustaining intraoral air pressure
  • C encouraged P to use maximal respiratory effort, cued P to breathe before tasks and during reading/conversational pauses
  • C provided visual feedback to P using a Respigraph.