Theodoros et al. (2016)

February 11, 2017

 

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

DIP = Dysarthria Impact Profile

EBP = evidence-based practice

f = female

FTF = face-to-face intervention

m = male

LSVT = Lee Silverman Voice Treatment

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

PD =   Parkinson’s Disease

PDQ-39 = Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

 

 

SOURCE: Theodoros, D. G., Hill, A. J., & Russell, T. G. (2016.) Clinical and quality of life outcomes of speech treatment for Parkinson’s Disease delivered to the home via telerehabilitation: A noninferiority randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25, 214-232.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: February 7, 2017

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: A- (The highest possible grade for overall quality of this investigation was “A” based on its experimental design, Prospective, Randomized Group Design with Controls.)

 

TAKE AWAY: Australian participants (Ps) with Parkinson’s disease (PD) enrolled in Lee Silverman Voice Treatment either face-to-face (FTF) or online. The FTF and Online interventions resulted in similar changes. Thus, as the result of both Online and FTF LVST, Ps experienced improvement in several loudness outcomes, ease of being understood, and reduced repetition requests. However, significant improvements in the following types of outcomes were not reported: pitch variability, intelligibility, and most quality of life indicators.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

  • What was the type of evidence? Prospective, Randomized Group Design with Controls

                                                                                                           

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

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

  • If there was more than one group, were participants (Ps) randomly assigned to groups? Yes, in the case where randomization was possible. (See item #4 –names of groups for explanation.)

                                                                   

 

  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?

                                                                                                           

  • from participants? No

                                                                    

  • from clinicians? No

                                                                    

  • from analyzers? Yes, judges of perceptual measures were blinded.

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 

– How many Ps were involved in the study?

 

  • total # of Ps: 52
  • # of groups: 3
  • List names of groups and the # of participants in each group:
  • Face-to-Face (FTF) Intervention Metro Group n= 16, randomly assigned
  • Online Metro Group n = 15, randomly assigned
  • Online Non-Metro Group n = 21

 

– CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS

  • age: between 18 to 89 years
  • vision and hearing: sufficient to participate in investigation via teleconferencing
  • cognitive skills: sufficient to participate in investigation tasks
  • diagnosis: diagnosis of Parkinson’s Disease (PD) from a neurologist; hypokinetic dysarthria associated with PD
  • severity of PD: Stage 1 to 5 on the modified Hoehn and Yahr Scale
  • language: English
  • stimulability: for loud speech (sustained phonation, words, short phrases)
  • vocal structure and function: otolaryngologist reported consistent with PD
  • medication: stable throughout the investigation
  • comorbid neurological disorder other than PD: excluded
  • comorbid speech and language problems not associated with PD: excluded
  • comorbid vocal fold structure and function not associated with PD: excluded
  • comorbid respiratory dysfunction not associated with PD: excluded
  • history of alcohol abuse: excluded
  • diagnosis of dementia: excluded
  • previous experience with LVST: excluded

 

– DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

  • age: overall mean 71.02; range 50-87*
  • gender: overall 36m, 16f*
  • time since diagnosis: overall 0.5 to 22 years*
  • stage of Parkinson’s Disease (PD): range 1 to 5 with majority in Stages 1 to 2.5
  • dysarthria: overallmild (77%), moderate (19%), severe (4%)*

* = no significant difference among the 3 grous

 

–   Were the groups similar before intervention began?

Yes, on the Described Characteristics signified with an asterisk (*) and the monologue Sound Pressure Level (Outcome #3.)

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? No

  • disorder type: dysarthria associated with PD

 

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?

                                                                                                             

  • Did each of the groups maintain at least 80% of their original members?

Yes _x__     No ___     Unclear

 

  • Were data from outliers removed from the study? Yes, outliers were removed from the following ratings

     – speech intelligibility

     – articulatory precision

     –   ease of understanding by partner

     – sustained phonation

     – loudness

     – articulatory precision

   – rating of communication on PDQ 39

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes

 

                                                                                                             

  • Was there a no intervention group? No  

                                   

  • Was there a foil intervention group? No

                                   

  • Was there a comparison group? Yes

 

  • Was the time involved in the comparison and the target groups constant? Yes

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

OUTCOMES

 

ACOUSTIC MEASURES:

  • OUTCOME #1: Increased loudness in dB of a sustained phonations
  • OUTCOME #2: Increased loudness in dB of a read passage
  • OUTCOME #3: Increased loudness in dB of a monologue
  • OUTCOME #4: Increased maximum fundamental frequency (F0) in Hz

 

PERCEPTUAL MEASURES:

  • OUTCOME #5: Improved perceived intelligibility
  • OUTCOME #6: Improved perceived pitch variability
  • OUTCOME #7: Improved perceived loudness
  • OUTCOME #8: Improved perceived vocal roughness
  • OUTCOME #9: Improved perceived articulatory precision
  • OUTCOME #10: Improved rating of communicative partner regarding ease of understanding
  • OUTCOME #11: Improved rating of communicative partner regarding the need to ask P for repetitions
  • OUTCOME #12: Improved rating of communicative partner regarding initiating conversation with familiar partners
  • OUTCOME #13: Improved rating of communicative partner regarding initiation conversation with unfamiliar partners
  • OUTCOME #14: Improved overall rating of communicative partner

 

QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURES

  • OUTCOME #15: P’s rating on the Dysarthria Impact Profile (DIP) of the effect of dysarthria on him/her as a person
  • OUTCOME #16: P’s rating on the DIP of his/her acceptance of dysarthria
  • OUTCOME #17: P’s rating on the DIP of how others react to dysarthria
  • OUTCOME #18: P’s rating on the DIP of how dysarthria affects others’ communication with him/her
  • OUTCOME #19: P’s overall rating on the DIP
  • OUTCOME #20: P’s rating on the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39) of overall communication
  • OUTCOME #21: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 of activities of daily living
  • OUTCOME #22: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 of cognition
  • OUTCOME #23: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 of emotion
  • OUTCOME #24: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 of social support
  • OUTCOME #25: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 of stigma
  • OUTCOME #26: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 of bodily discomfort
  • OUTCOME #27: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 of mobility
  • OUTCOME #28: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 summary

 

 

Outcomes 5 through 28 were subjective (i.e., the Perceptual and Quality of Life Outcomes.)

 

Outcomes 1 through 4 were objective (i.e., the Acoustic Outcomes.)

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

– Interobserver for analyzers? Yes

  • OUTCOME #5: Improved perceived intelligibility = 0.82
  • OUTCOME #6: Improved perceived pitch variability = 0.36
  • OUTCOME #7: Improved perceived loudness = 0.84
  • OUTCOME #8: Improved perceived vocal roughness = 0.69
  • OUTCOME #9: Improved perceived articulatory precision = 0.83

 

– Intraobserver for analyzers? Yes

There were 2 judges for this task. The results for both are reporteD

  • OUTCOME #5: Improved perceived intelligibility = 0.98; 0.95
  • OUTCOME #6: Improved perceived pitch variability = 0.94; 0.96
  • OUTCOME #7: Improved perceived loudness = 0.90; 0.94
  • OUTCOME #8: Improved perceived vocal roughness = 0.92; 0.98
  • OUTCOME #9: Improved perceived articulatory precision = 0.80; 0.95

 

Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No

 

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

 

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

 

 

TREATMENT AND COMPARISON TREATMENT GROUP ANALYSES

 

ACOUSTIC MEASURES:

  • OUTCOME #1: Increased loudness in dB of a sustained phonations

significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results but not for the different treatment groups

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Increased loudness in dB of a read passage

significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results but not for the different treatment groups

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Increased loudness in dB of a monologue (this was considered the primary outcome)

– using noninferiority analysis : it was determined that online treatment was NOT inferior to FTF treatment

significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results but not for the different treatment groups

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Increased maximum fundamental frequency (F0) range in Hz

– no significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results or for the different treatment groups

 

 

PERCEPTUAL MEASURES:

  • OUTCOME #5: Improved perceived intelligibility

– no significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results nor for the different treatment groups

 

  • OUTCOME #6: Improved perceived pitch variability

– no significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results nor for the different treatment groups

 

  • OUTCOME #7: Improved perceived loudness

significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results but not for the different treatment groups

 

  • OUTCOME #8: Improved perceived vocal roughness

     – no significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results nor for the different treatment groups

 

  • OUTCOME #9: Improved perceived articulatory precision

– no significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results nor for the different treatment groups

 

  • OUTCOME #10: Improved rating of communicative partner regarding ease of understanding

significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results but not for the different treatment groups

 

  • OUTCOME #11: Improved rating of communicative partner regarding the need to ask P for repetitions

significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results but not for the different treatment groups

 

  • OUTCOME #12: Improved rating of communicative partner regarding initiating conversation with familiar partners

– no significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results or for the different treatment groups

 

  • OUTCOME #13: Improved rating of communicative partner regarding initiation conversation with unfamiliar partners

– no significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results nor for the different treatment groups

 

  • OUTCOME #14: Improved overall rating of communicative partner

significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results but not for the different treatment groups

 

 

QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURES

– for 2 of the Quality of Life Measure (listed below)

  • OUTCOME #16: P’s rating on the DIP of his/her acceptance of dysarthria
  • OUTCOME #19: P’s overall rating on the DIP

significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results but not for the different treatment groups

 

for most the Quality of Life Measures (listed below)   – no significant differences were noted for pre and post intervention results nor for the different treatment groups

  • OUTCOME #15: P’s rating on the Dysarthria Impact Profile (DIP) of the effect of dysarthria on him/her as a person
  • OUTCOME #17: P’s rating on the DIP of how others react to dysarthria
  • OUTCOME #18: P’s rating on the DIP of how dysarthria affects others’ communication with him/her
  • OUTCOME #20: P’s rating on the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39) of overall communication
  • OUTCOME #21: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 of activities of daily living
  • OUTCOME #22: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 of cognition
  • OUTCOME #23: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 of emotion
  • OUTCOME #24: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 of social support
  • OUTCOME #25: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 of stigma
  • OUTCOME #26: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 of bodily discomfort
  • OUTCOME #27: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 of mobility
  • OUTCOME #28: P’s rating on the PDQ-39 summary

 

 

– What statistical tests were used to determine significance?

  • ANOVA:
  • Friedman
  • Kruskal-Wallis
  • Analysis of Noninferiority
  • Chi Square

 

– Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No, but some were reportedly calculated in the statistical analyses.

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significance? NA

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? Yes

 

  • Several of the measures could be considered generalization data because they are not taught in LVST. Measures which generalized included

– Ease of understanding

– Repetition requests

– Overall rating by communicative partner

– P’s acceptance of his/her dysarthria

– Overall DIP score

 

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.

 

  • This was a prospective, randomized group study with controls.
  • The investigators use noninferiority methodology to determine if the targeted intervention (Online LVST) was statistically worse than the established (FTF LVST.)
  • There were 3 groups:

– 2 groups of Ps from the Metro area who were randomly assigned to either FTF or Online interventions

– 1 group of Ps from Rural areas

  • All Ps were tested before and after intervention on a variety measures. The different types of measures included

– Acoustic measures

– Perceptual measures

– Quality of Life measures

 

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: A-

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To determine if outcomes from Online administration of LVST are equivalent to FTF versions.

 

POPULATION: Parkinson’s Disease; Adults

 

MODALITY TARGETED: production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: loudness, pitch variation

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: loudness

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: intelligibility, vocal roughness, articulatory precision

OTHER TARGETS: Quality of life indicators

 

DOSAGE: 1 hour a day, 4 days a week, 4 weeks, for 1 month

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • The major components of the procedures will be discussed in 3 sections:

– LVST summary

– Online procedures

– FTF procedures

 

LVST SUMMARY

 

  • Purpose of LVST: to increase loudness and phonatory effort

 

  • Structure of Sessions:

– Repetitive Drills

  • Sustained Phonation
  • Pitch Range
  • Maximum loudness in functional speech

 

– Functional Speech Activities

 

– Assignment of Homework

 

 

ONLINE PROCEDURES

 

  • C administered the intervention in the home. P was linked to the C using videoconferencing.

 

  • Before intervention, the investigator taught P to use the videoconferencing equipment.

 

 

FTF PROCEDURES

 

  • C administered the intervention in a clinic room at the research institution

 


Cannito et al. (2012)

December 30, 2016

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

LVST = Lee Silverman Voice Treatment

m = male

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

RTM = regression to the mean

SLP = speech–language pathologist

 

 

SOURCE: Cannito, M. P., Suiter, D. M., Beverly, D., Chorna, L., Wolf, T., & Pfeiffer, R. M. (2012). Sentence intelligibility before and after treatment in speakers with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Voice, 26, 214-219.

 

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: August 24, 2016

 

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

 

TAKE AWAY: This single group pre-post test intervention experiment yielded results supporting the effectiveness of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LVST) in improving intelligibility of patients (Ps) with Parkinson’s disease. Overall, intelligibility significantly improved following LVST and analyses of effectiveness for individuals revealed that 6 of the 8 Ps improved significantly. The investigators described characteristics of the 2 remaining Ps to identify possible reasons for their failure to progress using LSVT.

 

 

  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 = 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 analyzers? Yes

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 

– How many Ps were involved in the study?

 

  • total # of Ps: 8
  • # of groups: 1
  • names of group and the # of participants in each group: Patients (Ps) with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease = 8 Ps

 

– CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS

  • medications: all Ps maintained their medication usage during the investigation
  • diagnosis of hypokinetic dysarthria: by a certified speech-language pathologist (SLP)
  • on-going speech therapy: None of Ps received additional speech therapy during the investigation
  • previous therapy: None of the Ps had previously received Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LVST)

 

– DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

  • age:   52 to 81 years (mean = 66.3 years)
  • gender: 5m; 3f
  • medication: Varied among 7 of the Ps; 1P did not take medication
  • severity of hypokinetic dysarthria: Severe (1), Marked (2), Moderate (3), Mild (2)
  • years post onset: 2 to 27 years
  • Bilateral Deep Brain Stimulation: 1P
  • Bilateral pallidotomy: 1P
  • Hearing aids: 3Ps
  • Ambulation:

ambulatory (5Ps)

     – used walkers (2Ps);

     – used wheelchair (1P)

 

–   Were the groups similar before intervention began? NA

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes

  • disorder type: all Ps were diagnosed with hypokinetic dysarthria, 7 Ps exhibited intelligibility problems
  • functional level: severity of the dysarthria varied: Severe (1), Marked (2), Moderate (3), Mild (2)

 

  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, there was only one group.

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Increased intensity (in dB) level of multiple productions of “ah.”
  • OUTCOME #2: Improved intelligibility (interpretation/transcription ) of read sentences

 

  • Outcome 2 was subjective.

 

  • Outcome 1 was objective.

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

  • Interobserver for analyzers? Yes

 

OUTCOME #2: Improved intelligibility (interpretation/transcription) of read sentences–

  • pretreatment interlistener reliability = 0.994
  • posttreatment interlistener reliability = 0.922

 

 

 

  • Intraobserver for analyzers?   Yes

 

– OUTCOME #2: Improved intelligibility (transcription) of read sentences–

  • intralistener reliability = 0.840
  • intraobserver reliability of the scoring of the transcriptions = 0.998

 

  • Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No, but the LVST was administered by an ASHA and LVST certified SLP.
  • If yes, describe

 

 

  1. What were the results?

 

PRE AND POST TREATMENT

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Increased intensity (in dB) level of multiple productions of “ah.”

– Overall, the post treatment intensity was significantly louder than the pre treatment intensity.

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Improved intelligibility (interpretation) of read sentences

– Overall post treatment intelligibility (85.82%) was significantly higher than pretreatment intelligibility (81.11%)

     – There was a significant difference among Ps. [NOTE: This did not remain significant following adjustment for regression to the mean (RTM).]

– The following interactions were significant:

  • treatment x P — suggests that Ps responded differently to treatment
  • days x P — some speakers responded differently on the days of data collection. This suggests either there was learning, RTM during the pre or post testing, or the measure is unstable for some Ps. (NOTE: There were 3 days of data collection for both pre and post testing and this did not remain significant following adjustment for RTM.)

     – RTM was detected among the pre and post scores.

     – Individual performances also were analyzed.

  • 6 Ps significantly increased intelligibility scores from pre to post treatment.
  • 1 P did not improve intelligibility significantly but increased intensity significantly. This P had been judged pretreatment to have adequate intelligibility with mild dysarthria.
  • 1 P decreased intelligibility from pre to post treatment.

 

  • What statistical tests were used to determine significance? t-tests (including nonparametric), ANOVA, Rocconi and Ethington RTM

 

  • Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significance

 

  • Standardized Mean Difference (adjusted for RTM): d = 0.719 (large effect)

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.
  • The investigators recruited 8 Ps with hypokinetic dysarthria associated with Parkinson’s disease.
  • An ASHA and LVST certified SLP administered LVST intervention of the Ps.
  • Each P participated in 4 individual sessions of LVST for 4 weeks.
  • Ps were tested on 3 consecutive days before (pretreatment) and after (post treatment):

– Read aloud test sentences (multiple listeners transcribed the sentences and then the sentences were scored for accuracy by different judges.)

– Sustained vocalizations of “ah” (measured in dB.)

  • The investigators presented clear descriptions of blinded listener and judge procedures and reliability measures.

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: B-

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of LVST in improving the intelligibility of speech of Ps with Parkinson’s disease

 

POPULATION: Parkinson’s disease; Adults

 

MODALITY TARGETED: Production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: loudness

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: loudness

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: intelligibility

 

DOSAGE: 4 days a week for 4 weeks

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP certified by ASHA and LVST

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

LVST

 

  • Procedures are only briefly described:

– This intensive behavioral treatment was administered individually 4 times a week for 4 weeks.

– It is based in motor learning theory and encourages Ps to “think loud” while maintaining healthy vocal production strategies.

 

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

 


Simmons et al. (2016)

December 28, 2016

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

G = grade level

m = male

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

Ss = students who were enrolled in speech-language therapy

SLPs = speech–language pathologists

 

 

SOURCE:  Simmons, E. S., Paul, R., & Shic, F. (2016.) A mobile application to treat prosodic deficits in autism spectrum disorder and other communication impairments. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 320-327.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: December 21, 2016

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C (The highest possible overall quality grade for this investigation was C+, Prospective Single Group with Pre and Post Testing)

 

TAKE AWAY: This preliminary investigation explores whether a software program (SpeechPrompts) has potential for treating prosodic problems in children and adolescents. Basic issues (e.g., student engagement, use pattern, perceive improvement, ease of use) about the intervention were investigated and it was determined that speech-language pathologists (SLPs) found SpeechPrompts enjoyable and easy to use in a school setting and they perceived that it resulted in perceived improvements in the Ss’ ability to produce stress, loudness, and intonation, but not speaking rate. These improvements were reported despite a low dose of the intervention over an 8 week period.

 

  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 (Ps)? No

                                                                    

  • from clinicians? No

                                                                    

  • from analyzers? No

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 

–           How many Ps were involved in the study?

 

  • total # of Ps: 40 students (Ss); 10 speech language pathologists (SLPs) [The 2 major questions involved different sets of participants: students who were enrolled in speech-language therapy; SLPs]
  • # of groups: 3 groups:

∞ treatment group (consisting of participants with a range of diagnosis, although most had the diagnosis of ASD);

∞ a subset of the treatment group with the diagnosis of ASD who the investigators had permission to link their diagnosis with their performance on the investigation task

∞ SLPs

  • List names of groups and the # of participants in each group:

     ∞ SLPs (speech-language pathologists) = 10

     ∞ Ss (students receiving treatment) = 40

  • Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Subset = 12 (for this group of participants, the investigators were able to link their data and their diagnoses)

 

– List the P characteristics that are controlled (i.e., inclusion/exclusion criteria) or described. Provide data for each characteristic.

 

SLPs

 

CONTROLLED:

  • Licensure: All SLPs were licensed by the State of Connecticut
  • Certification: All SLPs were certified by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
  • caseload: All SLPs had students on their caseload with prosodic deficits.

 

DESCRIBED

  • caseload: (NOTE: The total is more than 10 because some SLPs worked in more than 1 setting)

– Preschool = 3

     – Elementary School = 8

     – Middle School = 4

     – High School = 2

  • years in current position:

– 0 to 5 years: 2

     – 6 – 10 years: 4

     – 11-15 years: 2

     – 16-20 years: 0

     – 21 or more years : 2

  • experience with iPads:

– minimal: 2

     – some experience: 2

     – significant experience: 60

 

Ss

CONTROLLED

  • expressive language:

All Ss spoke in full sentences.

     – All Ss exhibited prosodic problems

  • enrollment in speech-language therapy

– All Ss were enrolled in speech-language therapy as part of special education

 

DESCRIBED:

  • age: 5 years to 19 years (mean = 9.63)
  • gender: 31m, 9f
  • educational level of students (Ss):

– Elementary (PreK to Grade 4, G4) = 22

     – Middle School (G5 to G8) = 13

     – High School (G9 to G12) = 5

  • diagnosis:

– Autism Spectrum Disorder = 67.5% (27 Ss)

     – Speech and language impairment = 17.5% (7 Ss)

     – Intellectual disability = 7.5% (3 Ss)

     – Multiple disabilities = 2.5% (1 S)

     – Traumatic brain injury = 2.5% (1 S)

     – Other health problems = 2.5% (1 S)

 

ASD Subset

(investigators had permission to link diagnosis and task performance)

CONTROLLED

  • expressive language:

All Ss spoke in full sentences.

     – All Ss exhibited prosodic problems

  • enrollment in speech-language therapy

– All Ss were enrolled in speech-language therapy as part of special education

  • diagnosis: All ASD Subset Ps were diagnosed with ASD and the investigators were able to link their data with them

 

DESCRIBED:

  • age: 6 to 12 years; mean = 8.25
  • gender: 11m; 1f

 

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

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? No

 

  • disorder type: (only prosodic disorders described; some of the Ss had problems in multiple domains)

– Rate/Rhythm = 27

– Stress = 29

– Volume = 28

 

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?

                                                                                                             

  • Did the group maintain at least 80% of it original members? Yes, but 20% of the Ss were removed from data analysis because of absenteeism, SLP errors, or technical difficulties.

                                                               

  • Were data from outliers removed from the study? No

 

 

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

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

                                                                                                             

– OUTCOMES

 

PROSODIC PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES (3 point scale; 0 = typical prosody; 1 = mildly atypical prosody, 2 = clearly atypical prosody; p 323; lower mean score signifies improvement)

 

  • OUTCOME #1: SLP Ranking of the quality of speaking rate in a 5 minute speech sample
  • OUTCOME #2: SLP Ranking of the quality of lexical stress in a 5 minute speech sample
  • OUTCOME #3: SLP Ranking of the quality of sentence stress in a 5 minute speech sample
  • OUTCOME #4: SLP Ranking of the quality of intensity in a 5 minute speech sample
  • OUTCOME #5: SLP Ranking of global intonation in a 5 speech minute sample

 

SOFTWARE USE OUTCOMES

  • OUTCOME #6: Number of times the SLP used the software
  • OUTCOME #7: Length of treatment sessions

 

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES (ranked on a 5 point scale 1 = strong agreement/engagement, 5 = strong disagreement/no engagement)

 

  • OUTCOME #8: SLP’s ranking of student’s enjoyment
  • OUTCOME #9: SLP’s ranking of student’s attention maintenance
  • OUTCOME #10: SLP’s ranking of student’s consistency of responses
  • OUTCOME #11: SLP’s ranking of the student’s lack maladaptive behavior during treatment

 

SLP OUTCOMES

  • OUTCOME #12: SLP ranking of whether the software was enjoyable
  • OUTCOME #13: SLP ranking of ease of use of the software
  • OUTCOME #14: SLP ranking of function of the software
  • OUTCOME #15: SLP ranking of positive changes

 

All outcome measures that were subjective.

 

– None of the outcome measures were objective.

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

– Interobserver for analyzers? Yes, for some of the Prosodic Performance Outcomes:

 

  • OUTCOMES #1 through #4 (SLP Ranking of the quality of speaking rate, lexical stress, sentence stress, and in intensity in a 5 minute sample)—Cohen’s Kappa coefficient = 0.68.

 

  • Intraobserver for analyzers? No

 

  • Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No. Although no data were provided, SLPs were involved in a 20 minutes training session in which they were instructed about the treatment program (SpeechPrompts.)

 

 

  1. What were the results of the inferential, correlational, and descriptive analyses ?

 

— Summary Of Important Results

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

 

PRE AND POST TREATMENT ONLY ANALYSES:

descriptive data, correlational data, inferential data

 

 

PROSODIC PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES (3 point scale; 0 = typical prosody; 1 = mildly atypical prosody, 2 = clearly atypical prosody; p 323; lower mean score signifies improvement)

 

  • OUTCOME #1: (SLP Ranking of the quality of speaking rate in a 5 minute sample)

     – All Ss: no significant difference between pre- and post- intervention rankings

     – ASD subgroup: no significant difference between pre- and post- intervention rankings

 

  • OUTCOME #2: (SLP Ranking of the quality of lexical stress in a 5-minute sample)

All Ss: significantly lower post intervention scores

     – ASD subgroup: no significant difference between pre- and post- intervention rankings

 

  • OUTCOME #3: (SLP Ranking of the quality of sentence stress in a 5-minute sample)

All Ss: significantly lower post intervention scores

ASD subgroup: significantly lower post intervention scores

 

  • OUTCOME #4: (SLP Ranking of the quality of intensity in a 5 minute sample)

     – All Ss: significantly lower post intervention scores

ASD subgroup: significantly lower post intervention scores

 

  • OUTCOME #5: (SLP Ranking of global intonation in a 5-minute sample)

     – All Ss: significantly lower post intervention scores; no significant correlation between global intonation and the number of treatment minutes

ASD subgroup: significantly lower post intervention scores

 

SOFTWARE USE OUTCOMES

 

  • OUTCOME #6: (Number of times the SLP used the software)

     – All Ss: range of use 1 to 12 sessions; mean = 4.7 sessions

     – ASD subgroup: range of use 2 to 10 session; mean = 5.83 sessions

 

  • OUTCOME #7: (Length of treatment sessions)

   – All Ss: range of length sessions 5 to 90 minutes; mean = 21.25 minutes; VoiceMatch was used 52.9% of the time, VoiceChart was used 47.1% of the time; no significant correlation between the number of minutes of treatment received by the S and the length of time his/her SLP had been employed at the facility

     – ASD subgroup: range of length of session 10 to 30 minutes; mean 25.99 minutes

 

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES (ranked on a 5 point scale

1 = strong agreement/engagement, 5 = strong disagreement/no engagement)

 

  • OUTCOME #8: (SLP’s ranking of student’s enjoyment)

     – All Ss: ratings were low and stable for 1st and last sessions– 92.5% of SLPs ranked this as ≤3; mean 1.66

     – ASD subgroup: ratings were low and stable for 1st and last sessions

 

  • OUTCOME #9: (SLP’s ranking of student’s attention maintenance)

– All Ss: ratings were stable for 1st and last sessions; 87.5% of SLPs ranked this as ≤3; mean 1.74

     – ASD subgroup: ratings were low and stable for 1st and last sessions

 

  • OUTCOME #10: (SLP’s ranking of student’s consistency of responses maintenance)

     – All Ss: ratings were stable for 1st and last sessions; 87.5% of SLPs ranked this as ≤3; mean 1.78

     – ASD subgroup: ratings were low and stable for 1st and last sessions

  • OUTCOME #11: (SLP’s ranking of the student’s lack maladaptive behavior during treatment maintenance)

     – All Ss: ratings were stable for 1st and last sessions 85% of SLPs ranked this as ≤3; mean 1.79

     – ASD subgroup: ratings were low and stable for 1st session and decreased for the final session.

 

SLP OUTCOMES

 

  • OUTCOME #12: (SLP ranking of whether the software was enjoyable)–≤80% of SLPs reported the software was enjoyable

 

  • OUTCOME #13: (SLP ranking of ease of use of the software) —≤80% of SLPs reported the software was easy to use

 

  • OUTCOME #14: (SLP ranking of function of the software)–≤80% of SLPs reported the software was functional

 

  • OUTCOME #15: (SLP ranking of positive changes0–≤80% of SLPs reported they observed positive changes in the Ss.

 

– What was the statistical test used to determine significance? Place xxx after any statistical test that was used to determine significance. t-test

 

– Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significance

 

–  The EBP measure provided by the investigators was Standardized Mean Difference.

 

– Results of EBP testing and the interpretation:

 

  • OUTCOME #2: (SLP Ranking of the quality of lexical stress in a 5 minute sample)

All Ss: lower post intervention scores; d = 0.48 (small effect)

 

  • OUTCOME #3: (SLP Ranking of the quality of sentence stress in a 5 minute sample)

All Ss: lower post intervention scores; d = 0.77 (moderate effect)

ASD subgroup: lower post intervention scores; d = 0.80 (large effect)

 

  • OUTCOME #4: (SLP Ranking of the quality of intensity in a 5 minute sample)

     – All Ss: lower post intervention scores; d = 0.77 (moderate effect)

ASD subgroup: lower post intervention scores; d = 0.90 (large effect)

 

  • OUTCOME #5: (SLP Ranking of global intonation in a 5 minute sample)

     – All Ss: lower post intervention scores; d = 0.71 (moderate effect)

ASD subgroup: lower post intervention scores; d = 0.81 (large effect)

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? Not clear

 

 

  1. A brief description of the experimental of the investigation:

 

  • This was a preliminary investigation to determine the potential of the software (SpeechPrompts) for treating prosody impairment. The investigators analyzed data from 2 groups of participants: SLPs (N = 10) and students (S) who were enrolled in speech-language therapy and had been identified as having prosodic problems.

 

  • Most (27), but not all, of Ss (N = 40) had been diagnosed with ASD. Accordingly, the investigators identified and analyzed separately data from a subgroup of Ss of with the diagnosis of ASD.

 

  • The outcomes associated with the SLPs involved

– their ranking their own perceptions of S engagement, attention, improvement , and behavior.

– their ranking their own perceptions regarding the function, ease of use, enjoyment, and student improvement associated with SpeechPrompts

– measures of number of uses and length of time of use of SpeechPrompts collected by the software.

 

  • S outcomes were derived from SLP rankings of perceptions of the acceptability of certain aspects of Ss’ prosody.

 

  • The investigators briefly trained the SLPs to use SpeechPrompts and requested that they use it at least one time a week over an 8 week period. (NOTE: Outcome data indicated that SLPs the average use was between 4 and 6 times over the 8 weeks.)

 

  • For the most part, the data were analyzed descriptively although paired t-tests and standardized mean difference were calculated for one set of analyses (i.e., perceived S performance outcomes.)

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: C

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate whether the mobile application SpeechPrompts has potential for treating prosodic impairments in children and adolescents.

 

POPULATION: ASD, Speech and Language Impairment; Children, Adolescents

 

MODALITY TARGETED: production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: speaking rate, stress (lexical, sentence), intensity, intonation

 

DOSAGE: 1 time a week (this was requested but SLPs average use was 4-6 times in 8 weeks)

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • The investigators used SpeechPrompts which was delivered via iPads.

 

  • SpeechPrompts provides visual representations of acoustic measures of prosody. Two features of SpeechPrompts were used in this investigation:

– VoiceMatch: provides visual representation of short segments of speech as a waveform for 2 speakers, here the Clinician (C) and the S.

– When using VoiceMatch, C modeled a sentence and then S attempted to replicate the rate and stress patterns of the C.

– VoiceChart: was used to provide feedback to the S regarding loudness level.

 

 


Lenden & Flipsen (2007)

August 26, 2015

NATURE OF PROSODIC DISORDERS

ANALYSIS FORM

 

Key:

 

CA = chronological age

CI = Cochlear Implant

HA = Hearing Age

HI = hearing impaired

NA = not applicable

P = participant

PIA = Post-Implantation Age

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

PVSP = Prosody-Voice Screening Profile

 

SOURCE: Lenden, J. M., & Flipsen Jr., P. (2007). Prosody and voice characteristics of children with cochlear implants. Journal of Communication Disorders, 40, 66-81.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: August 24, 2015

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C+ (The highest grade for this type of design is C+.)

 

POPULATION: Cochlear Implants, Hearing Impairment; Children

 

PURPOSE: To identify aspects of prosody and voice that are problematic for children with cochlear implants (CI) and developmental trends relevant to prosody and voice.

 

INSIGHTS ABOUT PROSODY:

  • In this longitudinal investigation, the children with CI did not display problems with phrasing and pitch noted in children with hearing impairment (HI). Children with CIs and problems with Phrasing and Pitch might warrant special attention in therapy.
  • Resonance and stress continued to be problematic for most children with CI and did not improve with age. Accordingly, they may be aspects of voice/prosody that clinicians focus attention on in intervention.
  • The investigators noted that the number of participants (Ps) was small and that further research is needed.
  • The investigators recommended that the Prosody-Voice Screening Profile (PVSP) be considered in long-term monitoring of the prosody and voice of children with HI.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified? Longitudinal Research
  1. Group membership determination:
  • If there were groups of participants were members of groups matched? Not applicable (NA.) There was only one group.
  1. Was participants’ communication status concealed?
  • from participants? No

                                                                    

  • from assessment administrators? No

                                                                    

  • from data analyzers? Yes, raters were presented with samples in random order to avoid bias (relative to change over time.)

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the participants adequately described? Yes

How many participants were involved in the study? 6

  • total # of participants: 6
  • was group membership maintained throughout the experiment? Yes
  • # of groups: 1
  • # of participants in the group: 6

 

– The following variables were controlled:

  • hearing status: Prelingually deaf (mean age of identification = 8 months; range 0 to 15 months)
  • time since CI: at least 18 months
  • language modality: spoken language only as primary mode of communication
  • receptive language: Receptive Vocabulary is within 2 standard deviations of the mean for P’s chronological age (CA); Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III—mean standard score 82.3 months; range 72 months to 99 months

 

– The following variables were controlled described:

  • age at beginning of investigation: mean 5 years; range 3 years, 9 months to 6 years, 2 months
  • gender: 1m; 5f
  • cognitive skills: no known disability
  • mean time (hearing aid use + CI) amplified at the beginning of the investigation: mean 4 years, 4 months; range 2 years, 10 months to 5 years, 3 months
  • age of implantation: mean 28 months; range 20 months to 3 years
  • cause of hearing impairment (HI): unknown (5); partial agenesis of the cochlea (1)
  • physical skills: no known disability
  • emotional status: no known disability
  • implant type: Clarion (2); Nucleus 24 (2); Nucleus 22 (1)
  • intervention: all received prior intervention; oral mode was the focus of the interventions; interventions continued for all participants (Ps) throughout the investigation
  • educational level of clients: all in regular classrooms

 

– Were the communication problems adequately described? No. The investigators were vague about the general level of expressive and receptive language of the Ps but the Ps were capable of some conversational speech.  

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

– Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes. All the Ps all were prelingually deaf.

                                                               

– Experimental Conditions? No

 

– Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? Yes– Ratings of conversational samples on the Prosody-Voice Screening Profile (PVSP).

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? NA

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

– The dependent measures were

  • Dependent Measure #1: Ratings on the Phrasing section of the PVSP
  • Dependent Measure #2: Ratings on the Rate section of the PVSP
  • Dependent Measure #3: Ratings on the Stress section of the PVSP
  • Dependent Measure #4: Ratings on the Loudness section of the PVSP
  • Dependent Measure #5: Ratings on the Pitch section of the PVSP
  • Dependent Measure #6: Ratings on the Laryngeal Quality section of the PVSP
  • Dependent Measure #7: Ratings on the Resonance Quality section of the PVSP
  • Dependent Measure #8: Relationship between measures of the PVSP and 3 age variables: Chronological Ages (CA), Hearing Age (HA), and Post-Implantation Age (PIA)
  • Dependent Measure #9: Changes with age on ratings on the PVSP

All of the dependent measures were subjective.

None of the dependent/ outcome measures were objective.

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

Interobserver for analyzers? No

 

– Intraobserver for analyzer?   Yes

  • Dependent Measure #1: Ratings on the Phrasing section of the PVSP = 100%
  • Dependent Measure #2: Ratings on the Rate section of the PVSP = 92%
  • Dependent Measure #3: Ratings on the Stress section of the PVSP = 83%
  • Dependent Measure #4: Ratings on the Loudness section of the PVSP = 95%
  • Dependent Measure #5: Ratings on the Pitch section of the PVSP = 94%
  • Dependent Measure #6: Ratings on the Laryngeal Quality section of the PVSP = 92%
  • Dependent Measure #7: Ratings on the Resonance Quality section of the PVSP = 85%
  • Overall PVSP score: 92%

Treatment/Procedural fidelity for investigators? No

 

  1. Description of design:
  • This longitudinal investigation involved 6 children with CIs.
  • Spontaneous samples of conversational speech were elicited every 3 months for time ranges varying from 12 to 21 months.
  • The prosody and voice characteristics of the Ps’ speech was determined from the samples that were analyzed using the PVSP.
  • The results were presented primarily using descriptive and correlational statistics as well as descriptions of developmental trends.

 

  1. What were the results of the inferential statistical testing? The only inferential testing mentioned in the manuscript was when correlations were reported for correlations. Those results will be presented in the correlational statistical testing section of this review.

 

 

  1. What were the results of the correlational statistical testing?

 

  • The relationships between measures of the PVSP and 3 age variables (CA, HA, PIA) were explored in 2 ways: (1) by correlating the combined PVSP and age scores of all 6 Ps and (2) ) by correlating the combined PVSP and age scores of only 5 Ps. (One set of P data were omitted because of the possibility of the child being a high performing outlier.)
  • The significant correlations ( p ≤ 0.05) were

–Ratings on the Stress section of the PVSP

  • stress ratings and HA for the 5 member set of Ps: r = 0.354
  • stress ratings and PIA for the 5 member set of Ps: r = 0.341

 

Rating of the Laryngeal Quality section of the PVSP

  • laryngeal quality ratings and CA for all 5 and 6 member sets: for 5 member set r = 0.554 and for 6 member set r = 0.421
  • laryngeal quality ratings and HA for all 5 and 6 member sets: :   for 5 member set r = 0.562 and for 6 member set r = 0.528
  • laryngeal quality ratings and PIA for all 5 and 6 member sets: :   for 5 member set r = 0.571 and for 6 member set r = 0.382

Rating of the Resonance Quality section of the PVSP

  • resonance quality and PIA: for the 5 member set r= 0.335
  • The investigators interpreted the correlations to indicate that at least for Stress, Laryngeal Quality, and Resonance Quality performance tended to improve with age.
  • What was the statistical test used to determine correlation? Not provided

 

  1. What were the results of the descriptive analysis
  • The investigators provided pooled data representing correct scores on the PVSP.
  • In line with the PVSP protocol, they also provided data describing the number of samples (remember each P is represented by multiple samples) in which P’s performance was classified as passed, borderline, or failed.

Dependent Measure #1: Ratings on the Phrasing section of the PVSP: 97% appropriate; 36 Ps passed; 4 borderline; 0 failed

 

Dependent Measure #2: Ratings on the Rate section of the PVSP: 88% appropriate; 22 Ps passed; 13borderline; 5 failed

Dependent Measure #3: Ratings on the Stress section of the PVSP: 48% appropriate; 2 Ps passed; 5 borderline; 33 failed

Dependent Measure #4: Ratings on the Loudness section of the PVSP: 92% appropriate; 32 Ps passed; 2 borderline; 6 failed

Dependent Measure #5: Ratings on the Pitch section of the PVSP: 98% appropriate; 38 Ps passed; 2 borderline; 0 failed

Dependent Measure #6: Ratings on the Laryngeal Quality section of the PVSP: 87% appropriate; 24 Ps passed; 7 borderline; 9 failed

Dependent Measure #7: Ratings on the Resonance Quality section of the PVSP: 10% appropriate; 0 Ps passed; 1 borderline; 39 failed

  • The investigators also described the changes in performance of individuals over time.

Dependent Measure #9: Changes with age on ratings on the PVSP

–   All Ps performed appropriately for the Phrasing and Pitch Sections of the PVSP.

– 4 of the 6 Ps did not improve on the Stress Section of the PVSP with performance remaining unacceptable throughout the investigation. However, 2 of the Ps appeared to improve.

– 5 of the 6 Ps did not evidence problems Loudness and their performance level remained stable. The remaining P did have a reduced score and did improve. The improvement seemed to be more related to the comfort level of the P and it was suspected that the initial poor score was not a problem.

–3 of the 6 Ps produced stable and relatively appropriate Laryngeal Quality during the investigation. One P was unstable at the beginning of the investigation and the other 2 Ps showed a tendency to improve

– 4 of the 6 Ps produced stable but inappropriate Resonance Quality throughout the investigation. One P showed improvement during the investigation. The remaining P started to improve and then performance regressed.


De Letter et al. (2007)

May 25, 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

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

PD = Parkinson’s disease

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

 

 

SOURCE: De Letter, M., Santens, P., Estercam, I., Van Maele, G., De Bodt, M., Boon, P., & Van Borsel, J. (2007). Levodopa induced modifications of prosody and comprehensibility in advanced Parkinson’s disease as perceived by professional listeners. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 21, 783-791.

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: May 22, 2015

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

 

TAKE AWAY: This was not an intervention study; rather, it is classified as a clinically related investigation. Speakers of Dutch from Belgium with Parkinson’s disease (PD) were measured off (Pre-test) and on (Post Test) the medication Levodopa. Participants (Ps) produced significantly better pitch, loudness, and comprehensibility while using Levodopa. There was not a significant change in speaking rate on and off Levodopa conditions.

 

  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:
  • Were participants 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? Yes ß

                                                                    

 

  1. Was the group adequately described? Yes

How many participants were involved in the study?

  • total # of participant: 10
  • # of groups: 1
  • # of participants in each group: 10 participants (Ps) in the one group
  • List names of group: Ps with Parkinson’s disease (PD) were evaluated without (pretesting) and with (post testing) Levodopa.

 

The following variables were described:

  • age: 63 -80 years; mean 68 years
  • gender: 5m; 5f
  • cognitive skills: A psychiatrist administered a variety of tests and evaluated all Ps’ cognitive skills; none of the Ps were judged to be impaired.
  • therapy: None of the Ps were enrolled in speech therapy at the time of the investigation. No one was involved with deep brain stimulation and/or lesioning.
  • co-morbidity: No comorbidity was identified using neuroimaging and clinical judgment
  • medication: All Ps had been prescribed Levodopa previous to the investigation. Most of the Ps also were prescribed other medication(s) but none of the medication interfered with muscle movement.
  • diagnosis: advanced PD

 

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

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? No

  • disorder type: hypokinetic dysarthria

 

 

  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, there was only one group.

                                                                                                             

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful?

– The outcomes (dependent variables) were

  • OUTCOME #1: Improved ratings of pitch on a 10 point scale from a read passage
  • OUTCOME #2: Improved ratings of loudness on a 10 point scale from a read passage
  • OUTCOME #3: Improved ratings of speaking rate on a 10 point scale from a read passage
  • OUTCOME #4: Improved ratings of comprehensibility on a 10 point scale from a read passage

All the outcome measures are subjective,

– None ofthe outcome measures are objective. None

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

– Interobserver for analyzers? Yes. Overall Interobserver reliability for all Ps and all outcomes was 0.78.

 

Intraobserver for analyzers?

 

–  Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No

 

 

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

PRE (without medications) VS POST (with Levadopa) TREATMENT:

  • OUTCOME #1: Improved ratings of pitch on a 10 point scale from a read passage: With Levodopa was significantly better (p < 0.01) than without Levodopa.
  • OUTCOME #2: Improved ratings of loudness on a 10 point scale from a read passage: With Levodopa was significantly better ( p < 0.01) than without Levodopa.
  • OUTCOME #3: Improved ratings of speaking rate on a 10 point scale from a read narrative No significant differences
  • OUTCOME #4: Improved ratings of comprehensibility on a 10 point scale from a read narrative With Levodopa was significantly better ( p = 0.01) than without Levodopa.

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

 

– Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

           

  1. What is the clinical significance? Not provided

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

           

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: C

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of the medication Levodopa on the perception of pitch, loudness, rate, and comprehensibility of read passages of Ps with PD.

POPULATION: PD; adults

 

MODALITY TARGETED: production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: pitch, loudness, rate

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: comprehensibility

 

DOSAGE: Single dosage of Levodopa.

 

ADMINISTRATOR: medical professional

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

  • In the pre condition, Ps had been off their medication for 12 hours. They reviewed a 182 syllable passage in Dutch prior to reading it aloud for audiorecording.
  • After the audiorecording, Ps were administered their regular dosage of Levodopa.
  • The Ps then waited one hour and re-read the same 182 syllable passage aloud for audiorecording.
  • Four speech-language pathologists (SLPs) listened to the audiorecodings. The audiorecordings for each of the Ps were randomized with respect to whether the sample was of the speaker with or without the Levodopa.
  • The SLPs rated each audiorecording for the following characteristics on a 10 point scale: pitch, loudness, rate, and comprehensibility.

Ramig et al. (1994)

December 11, 2014

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

fo = fundamental frequency

LSVT = Lee Silverman Voice Treatment

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

PD = Parkinson’s disease

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

 

 

SOURCE:  Ramig, L. O., Bonitati, C. M., Lemke, J. H., & Horii, Y. (1994). Voice treatment for patients with Parkinson disease: Development of an approach and preliminary efficacy data. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 2, 191-209.

 

REVIEWER(S):  pmh

 

DATE: December 4, 2014

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C- (The highest possible grade was C due to the design of the investigation.)

 

TAKE AWAY: This is one of the earlier investigations documenting the effectiveness of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT). The description of the intervention and the rationale for treatment procedures is more thorough than most descriptions of LSVT reviewed in this blog. The investigators presented evidence that significant differences occurred in speech measures of individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD) immediately following LSVT:

– maximum duration of sustained vowel phonation

– fundamental frequency (f0) variability/range

– speech-language pathologist (SLP) rating of loudness, voice monotony, and intelligibility

– self rating of increase in loudness

– spousal rating of intelligibility.

In addition, the investigators statistically analyzed follow-up data 6 and 12 months after the initial 4-week training course. They determined progress was maintained with and without additional intervention.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

  1. What was the type of evidence? Prospective, Single Group with Pre- and Post-Testing for the first phase of the study, and then 2 group (1 small subgroup did receive follow-up intervention, 1 group did not)

 

  1. Group composition
  2. If there were groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? No
  3. If there were groups and participants were not randomly assigned to groups, were members of groups carefully matched? No
  4. If the answer to 2a and 2b is ‘no’ or ‘unclear,’ describe assignment strategy:
  • Assignment was based on the life style of the participants (Ps). Those who lived far away did not receive follow-up intervention during Phase 2 of the intervention.
  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?
  2. from participants? No
  3. from clinicians? No
  4. from analyzers? No

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes
  2. How many participants were involved in the study?
  • total # of participant: 40
  • # of groups: 1 during Phase 1; 2 during Phase 2
  • # of participants in each group:

     – Phase 1, N = 40;

– Phase 2, N for Group 1 (received follow up intervention) = 13 or 8 (depending on length of follow up interventions); N for Group 2 (did not receive follow-up intervention) = 9 or 5 (depending on timing of follow assessments)

  • List names of groups:

     – Group 1 –received follow up intervention

– Group 2 — did not receive follow-up intervention

 

  1. The following variables were described
  • age: 53 to 86 years
  • gender: 30m, 10f
  • medications: 39/40 took anti-Parkinson medications; 8 Ps (20%) also took medication for other problems
  • residence: all residents of US.
  • diagnoses: all diagnoses of idiopathic Parkinson disease (PD); Stages of PD ranged from Stage I to IV.

 

  1. Were the groups similar before intervention began? Yes, the investigators statistically analyzed age and stage of PD and determined that there was no significant difference across sex of Ps.
  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes
  • disorder types: common pretreatment symptoms

– reduced loudness (70%)

– imprecise articulation (58%)

– harsh and/or hoarse voice quality (35%)

– breathy voice quality (25%)

– bowed vocal folds (88%)

 

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?
  2. Did each of the groups maintain at least 80% of their original members? Yes
  3. Were data from outliers removed from the study? No

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? No. Comparison of treatment groups was not possible for several outcomes.
  2. Was there a no intervention group? Yes
  3. Was there a foil intervention group? No
  4. Was there a comparison group? No
  5. Was the time involved in the foil/comparison and the target groups constant? Not Applicable

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  2. The outcomes were
  • OUTCOME #1:   Improved maximum vowel duration
  • OUTCOME #2:   Improved mean maximum vowel duration
  • OUTCOME #3:   Improved daily mean maximum vowel duration
  • OUTCOME #4:   Improved mean maximum fo range
  • OUTCOME #5:   Improved maximum fo range
  • OUTCOME #6:   Improved daily mean maximum fo range
  • OUTCOME #7:   Improved forced vital capacity
  • OUTCOME #8:   Improved slow vital capacity
  • OUTCOME #9: Improved perceived loudness by SLP
  • OUTCOME #10: Improved perceived monotonous voice by SLP
  • OUTCOME #11: Improved perceived intelligibility by SLP
  • OUTCOME #12: Improved perceived loudness by spouse
  • OUTCOME #13: Improved perceived monotonous voice by spouse
  • OUTCOME #14: Improved perceived intelligibility by spouse
  • OUTCOME #15: Improved self-perception of loudness by P
  • OUTCOME #16: Improved self-perception of monotonous voice by P
  • OUTCOME #17: Improved self-perception intelligibility by P
  1. The outcome measures that are subjective re
  • OUTCOME #9: Improved perceived loudness by SLP
  • OUTCOME #10: Improved perceived monotonous voice by SLP
  • OUTCOME #11: Improved perceived intelligibility by SLP
  • OUTCOME #12: Improved perceived loudness by spouse
  • OUTCOME #13: Improved perceived monotonous voice by spouse
  • OUTCOME #14: Improved perceived intelligibility by spouse
  • OUTCOME #15: Improved self-perception of loudness by P
  • OUTCOME #16: Improved self-perception of monotonous voice by P
  • OUTCOME #17: Improved self-perception intelligibility by P
  1. The outcome measures that are objective are
  • OUTCOME #1:   Improved maximum vowel duration
  • OUTCOME #2:   Improved mean maximum vowel duration
  • OUTCOME #3:   Improved daily mean maximum vowel duration
  • OUTCOME #4:   Improved mean maximum fo range
  • OUTCOME #5:   Improved maximum fo range
  • OUTCOME #6:   Improved daily mean maximum fo range
  • OUTCOME #7:   Improved forced vital capacity
  • OUTCOME #8:   Improved slow vital capacity

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?
  2. Interobserver for analyzers? Yes:
  3. maximum duration of sustained vowel phonation (intraclass correlation = 0.99)
  4. maximum fo range (intraclass correlation = 0.94)
  5. fo analysis (intraclass correlation = 0.998)

 

  1. Intraobserver for analyzers? Yes:
  2. ratings of loudness by 2 SLPs (interclass correlation = 0.92)
  3. ratings of intelligibility by 2 SLPs (interclass correlation = 0.97)

 

  1. Intrasubject reliability? Yes:
  2. fo (interclass correlation = 0.99)
  3. semitone standard deviation (interclass correlation = 0.90)

 

  1. Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No, but only one SLP administered all sessions.

 

  1. What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing?
  • All Ps were assessed prior to the beginning of therapy.
  • There were 3 sets of post data:

– post = data collected immediately following the termination of a 4 week course of therapy (N= 40)

– fu6 = follow-up data collected 6 months after the termination of the original 4 week course of therapy; Group 1 = Ps who continued treatment, Group 2 = Ps who did not continue treatment

– fu12 = follow-up data collected 12 months after the termination of the original 4 week course of therapy; Group 1 = Ps who continued treatment, Group 2 = Ps who did not continue treatment

  • The number in each of the subgroupings varied relative to type and timing of post measures. The numbers will be noted below.

PRE VERSUS POST MEASURES

  • Some Outcomes (#3, #6, #9 through #17), which are listed below as a reminder to the reader, were only compared on pre and post measures. Not all the outcomes involved the same number of Ps; therefore, the N for each comparison is listed after each outcome. If there was a significant difference between the pre and post test, an asterisk follows the number of Ps in parentheses.
  • OUTCOME #3: Improved daily mean maximum vowel duration (N = 28)*
  • OUTCOME #6: Improved daily mean maximum fo range (N = 28)*
  • OUTCOME #9: Improved perceived loudness by SLP (N = 9)*
  • OUTCOME #10: Improved perceived monotonous voice by SLP (N = 9)*
  • OUTCOME #11: Improved perceived intelligibility by SLP (N = 9)*
  • OUTCOME #12: Improved perceived loudness by spouse (N = 14)
  • OUTCOME #13: Improved perceived monotonous voice by spouse (N = 14)
  • OUTCOME #14: Improved perceived intelligibility by spouse (N = 14)
  • OUTCOME #15: Improved self-perception of loudness by P (N = 27)*
  • OUTCOME #16: Improved self-perception of monotonous voice by P (N = 27)
  • OUTCOME #17: Improved self-perception intelligibility by P (N =27)*
  • Outcomes #1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 (listed below as a reminder to the reader) were first compared on pre and post measures for the entire group. Due to technical/scheduling problems, not all the outcomes involved the same number of Ps. Therefore, the N for each comparison is listed after each outcome. If there was a significant difference between the pre and post test, an asterisk follows the number of Ps in parentheses.

– OUTCOME #1:   Improved maximum vowel duration (N = 40)*

– OUTCOME #2:   Improved mean maximum vowel duration (N = 40)*

– OUTCOME #4:   Improved mean maximum fo range (N = 37)*

– OUTCOME #5:   Improved maximum fo range (N = 37)*

– OUTCOME #7:   Improved forced vital capacity (N = 38)

– OUTCOME #8:   Improved slow vital capacity (N = 38)

PRE VERSUS POST, FU6, AND FU12 DATA

  • The investigators explored maintenance issues by administering follow-up tests 6 and 12 months after the initial 4-week course of therapy. See #11 for further discussion.
  1. What was the statistical test used to determine significance? ANOVA

 

  1. Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

                                   

  1. What is the clinical significance? NA

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? Yes
  • Outcomes #1, 2, 4, and 5 (listed below as a reminder to the reader) were compared on pre and follow-up measures:

– post and 6 month follow-up (fu6) or

– post and fu6 and 12 month follow up (fu12.)

  • Some Ps agreed to 6 or 12 months of extended intervention, some did not but agreed to follow-up testing at 6 months or 6 and 12 months.
  • Due to scheduling problems, not all the comparisons involved the same number of Ps. Therefore, the N for each comparison is listed after each outcome.
  • OUTCOMES #1 and #2: Improved maximum vowel duration and Improved mean maximum vowel duration

– N for group that received 6 months of additional intervention = 13

– N for group that did not receive 6 months of additional intervention but agreed to additional testing at 6 months = 11

– N for group that received 12 months of additional intervention and agreed to follow up testing at 6 and 12 months = 7

– N for group that did not receive additional intervention but agreed to additional testing at 6 and 12 months = 8

– Summary of findings for these outcomes:

  1. There was no significant difference between those who received additional intervention and those who did not.
  2. Both extra intervention and no extra intervention treatment groups improved from the initial post test to the follow-ups.
  • OUTCOMES #4 and #5: Improved mean maximum fo range and Improved maximum fo range

– N for group that received 6 months of additional intervention = 13

– N for group that did not receive 6 months of additional intervention but agreed to additional testing at 6 months = 11

– N for group that received 12 months of additional intervention and agreed to follow up testing at 6 and 12 months = 7

– N for group that did not receive additional intervention but agreed to additional testing at 6 and 12 months = 8

– Summary of findings for these outcomes:

  1. There was no significant difference between those who received additional intervention and those who did not.
  2. Neither extra intervention nor no extra intervention treatment groups improved noticeably from the initial post test to the follow-ups.

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: C-

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of a treatment intervention (LSVT) for improving the speech of individuals with Parkinson disease.

POPULATION: Parkinson’s Disease; Adult

 

MODALITY TARGETED: Expression

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: duration, pitch variability, intonation, loudness

 

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

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: respiration/vital capacity (this did not improve), intelligibility

DOSAGE: 50 to 60 minute sessions, 4 times a week, for a month (initial intervention)

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP (the same SLP administered all the sessions_

 

STIMULI: auditory

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

  • This is an intensive intervention. (See dosage.)
  • Sessions usually include:
  1. Maximum phonation drills. The clinician (C) encourages the P to expend maximum phonatory effort by increasing loudness, duration, and pitch range of targets.
  2. When C judges that the P is producing targets with sufficiently loud voice, the C switches the target to functional speech used in daily living.
  3. C focuses on facilitating P’s continued maximum loudness and effort throughout the session.

 


Dworkin (1991)

November 30, 2014

CRITIQUE OF UNSUPPORTED PROCEDURAL DESCRIPTIONS

 

Note:

  • The summaries for the procedures begin about 10% of the way down this page.
  • The summaries are brief. Readers who cannot access the original book and would like more thorough procedural descriptions should contact the reviewer at patricia.hargrove@mnsu.edu

 

Key:

bpm = beats per minute

C = clinician

P = patient or participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

Source: Dworkin, J. P. (1991). Motor speech disorders: A treatment guide. St. Louis, MO: Mosby. (Chapter 7: The Treatment of Prosody, pp. 303 – 343)

 

Reviewer(s): pmh

 

Date: November 18, 2014

 

Overall Assigned Grade (because there are no 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: Dworkin provides explicit instructions concerning establishing baseline, administering procedures, recording data, and advancing/discontinuing for each exercise. The exercises are logically ordered and linguistic complexity (from single vowels to spontaneous conversation) increases as the patient (P) moves through the treatment hierarchy. Dworkin describes treatments for the following aspects of prosody: pitch, loudness, rate of speech, intonation, and stress.

 

  1. Was there a review of the literature supporting components of the intervention? No, not applicable.

 

 

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

 

 

  1. Was the intervention based on clinically sound clinical procedures? Yes
  1. Did the author(s) provide a rationale for components of the intervention? No

 

  1. Description of outcome measures:

The following are general outcomes associated with Dworkin’s treatment hierarchy. Each of these outcomes have multiple “exercises” to achieve the overall outcome.

  • Outcome #1: Improved pitch level and variability
  • Outcome #2: Improved pitch level and variability
  • Outcome #3: Increased speaking rate
  • Outcome #4: Decreased speaking rate
  • Outcome #5: Appropriate use of speaking rate variations
  • Outcome #6: Improved intonation
  • Outcome #7: Improved use of stress

 

  1. Was generalization addressed? Yes. Several of the exercises contained “steps” focusing on transferring skills to everyday conversation.

 

 

  1. Was maintenance addressed? No

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTIONS

 

 

For each intervention detailed in the chapter, only brief summaries of the procedures are provided. For more information, access the chapter. Readers who cannot access the original book and would like more thorough procedural descriptions of procedures should contact the reviewer at patricia.hargrove@mnsu.edu

Description of Intervention #1—Improved pitch level and variability

 

POPULATION: motor speech disorders

 

TARGETS: pitch level, pitch variability

 

TECHNIQUES: collection of baseline data, modeling, reviewing, discussion of objectives, recording data, use of visual/graphic cues, oral reading (reading aloud), conversation

 

STIMULI: auditory, visual, gestural/motor

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • There are 6 exercises for this outcome. Dworkin’s labels (p. 341) for the 6 exercises are
  1. Discrimination and listening training (p. 306)
  2. Low versus high vocalizations with vowel pairs (p. 308)
  3. High versus low vocalizations with vowel pairs (p. 309)
  4. Singing the scale (p. 310)
  5. Variations during reading (p. 310)
  6. Practice pitch control in conversation (p. 311)
  • The exercises tend to follow a common format:

– Exercises begin with the collection of baseline data. Dworkin clearly describes procedures for collecting baseline data for each of the exercises and for deciding whether a response is correct or incorrect. In addition, he provides a form for recording data.

– Depending on the exercise, clinicians (Cs) may draw the baseline from a sample task from the procedures, ask the patient (P) to describe pictures or narrate a story, or engage the P in conversation.

– Dworkin provides guides regarding whether or not to proceed through the exercise or to advance to another exercise based.

– Although the content changes based on the exercise, Dworkin recommends the use of certain common procedures:

  • describing/discussing terminology
  • modeling of targets by C
  • cueing pitch changes with manual gestures such as stairstep hand gestures
  • audio recording of P responses and replaying the recordings for the P and C to review and discuss
  • preparing written passages with or without (depending on the step and exercise) symbols signifying when/where P should change pitch level. The symbols may involve arrows, color coding, or writing select words above or below the line.
  • gradual increasing of complexity and/or difficulty (e.g., for the discrimination exercise #1, the pairs of vowels that are compared become closer in pitch as the exercise progresses)

– Dworkin describes procedures collecting data during the exercise, the number of trials that should be administered, and the requirements for progressing to the next exercise or terminating treatment for the exercise.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Logical

 

CONTRAINDICATIONS FOR USE OF THE INTERVENTION:

  • Dworkin notes that Cs should monitor the voice quality of Ps to prevent inappropriate voice quality or negative changes in other aspects of prosody/voice.

Description of Intervention #2— Improved loudness level and variability

 

POPULATION: motor speech disorders

 

TARGETS: loudness level, loudness variability

TECHNIQUES: collection of baseline data, modeling, reviewing, discussion of objectives, recording data, use of visual/graphic cues, oral reading (reading aloud), conversation

STIMULI: auditory, visual, kinesthetic

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • There are 9 exercises for this outcome. Dworkin’s labels (p. 341) for the 9 exercises are
  1. Discrimination and listening training (p. 312)
  2. Soft versus loud vocalizations with vowel pairs (p. 312)
  3. Loud vocalizations with vowel pairs (p. 313)
  4. Prolongation of /m/ with a ½ inch straw using the See-Scape Device (p. 313)
  5. Prolongation of /m/ with a ¾ inch straw using the See-Scape Device (p. 314)
  6. Prolongation of /m/ with a 1 inch straw using the See-Scape Device (p. 314)
  7. Prolongation of /m/ with a 1½ inch straw using the See-Scape Device (p. 314)
  8. Loudness variation during sounds, words, and sentences using a V-U meter (p. 314)
  9. Practice in conversation with a V-U meter (p. 315)
  • The exercises tend to follow a common format:

– Exercises begin with the collection of baseline data. Dworkin clearly describes procedures for collecting baseline data for each of the exercises and for deciding whether a response is correct or incorrect. In addition, he provides a form for recording data.

– Depending on the exercise, clinicians (Cs) may base the baseline on a sample task from the procedures which follow, ask the patient (P) to describe pictures or narrate a story, or engage the P in conversation.

– Dworkin provides guides regarding whether or not to proceed through the exercise or to advance to another exercise

– Although the content changes based on the outcome, Dworkin recommends the use of certain common procedures:

  • describing/discussing terminology and the physiological basis of loudness,
  • modeling of targets by C
  • using the See-Scape Device which was available at the time from Pro-Ed and straws of varying lengths to provide feedback to Ps regarding the effort needed to achieve specified loudness levels
  • using a V-U meter to provide feedback regarding loudness levels
  • recording P responses and replaying the recordings for the P and C to review and discuss
  • preparing written passages for P to read aloud
  • gradual increasing of complexity and/or difficulty of target resp (e.g., for the exercise #9, the targets progress from vowels to short sentences)

– Dworkin describes procedures for collecting data during the exercise, the number of trials that should be administered, and the requirements for progressing to the next exercise or terminating treatment for the exercise.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Logical

CONTRAINDICATIONS FOR USE OF THE INTERVENTION: Ps who have not profited from the previous treatment of articulation, phonation, resonation, and/or respiration are at risk for failure in loudness exercises

Description of Intervention #3— Increased speaking rate

 

POPULATION: motor speech disorders

 

TARGETS: rate of speech

TECHNIQUES: collection of baseline data, modeling, reviewing, discussion of objectives, recording data, metronome, oral reading (reading aloud), conversation

STIMULI: auditory

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • There are 6 exercises for this outcome. Dworkin’s labels (p. 341) for the 6 exercises are
  1. Discrimination and listening training (p. 317)
  2. Recitation of the alphabet to 150 bpm of the metronome (p. 318)
  3. Counting repeatedly 1-10 to 150 bpm of the metronome (p. 320)
  4. Producing familiar phrases, sentences, and passages to 150 bpm of the metronome (p. 321)
  5. Producing unfamiliar phrases, sentences, and passage without the aid of the metronome (p. 322)
  6. Practice increased rate in conversation (p. 323)
  • The exercises tend to follow a common format:

– Exercises begin with the collection of baseline data. Dworkin clearly describes procedures for collecting baseline data for each of the exercises and for deciding whether a response is correct or incorrect. In addition, he provides a form for recording data.

– Dworkin provides rate norms and procedures for calculating rate and converting rates to percentiles to allow for clearer data analysis. In addition, he describes a 7-point scale representing the quality of rate variability within a passage.

– Depending on the exercise, Cs may base the baseline on a sample task from the procedures which follow, ask the P to describe pictures or narrate a story, or engage the P in conversation.

– Dworkin provides guides regarding whether or not to proceed through the exercise or to advance to another exercise based.

– Although the content changes based on the outcome, Dworkin recommends the use of certain common procedures:

  • describing/discussing terminology and the interrelationships between speaking rate and intelligibility, phonation, respiration, and resonance.
  • discussing the following objective with P: to increase rate of speech to improve intelligibility and reduce the effort needed by the listener to interpret speech.
  • modeling of targets by C
  • recording P responses and replaying the recordings for the P and C to review and discuss
  • presenting written passages which P will read aloud at the designated rate of speech

– Dworkin describes procedures collecting data during the exercise, the number of trials that should be administered, and the requirements for progressing to the next exercise or terminating treatment for the exercise.

 

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Logical

Description of Intervention #4— Decreased speaking rate

 

POPULATION: motor speech disorders

 

TARGETS: rate of speech

TECHNIQUES: collection of baseline data, modeling, reviewing, discussion of objectives, recording data, use of metronome, visual/graphic cues, oral reading (reading aloud), conversation

STIMULI: auditory, visual, gesture/motor

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • There are 6 exercises for this outcome. The numbers start with #7 here because I am using Dworkin’s numbering system to assist readers in finding the exercise should they consult the source. (Note that Dworkin does not list 7a and 7b separately, I have added the letters for clarity, I hope.) Dworkin’s labels (p. 341) for the 6 exercises are

7a. Discrimination and listening training (p. 323 and 317.)

7b. Recitation of the alphabet to 100 bpm of the metronome (p. 324)

  1. Counting repeatedly 1-10 using 100 bpm from the metronome (p. 324)
  2. Producing familiar phrases, sentences, and passages to 100 bpm of the metronome (p. 324)
  3. Producing unfamiliar phrases, sentences, and passage without the aid of the metronome supplemented by pause and duration markers (p. 326)
  4. Practice decreased rate in conversation (p. 326)
  • The exercises tend to follow a common format:

– Exercises begin with the collection of baseline data. Dworkin clearly describes procedures for collecting baseline data for each of the exercises and for deciding whether a response is correct or incorrect. In addition, he provides a form for recording data.

– Dworkin provides rate norms and procedures for calculating rate and converting rates to percentiles to allow for clearer data analysis. In addition, he describes a 7-point scale representing the quality of rate variability within a passage.

– Depending on the exercise, Cs may base the baseline on a sample task from the procedures which follow, ask P to describe pictures/narrate a story, or engage the P in conversation.

– Dworkin provides guides regarding whether or not to proceed through the exercise or to advance to another exercise based.

– Although the content changes based on the outcome, Dworkin recommends the use of certain common procedures:

  • describing/discussing terminology and the interrelationships between speaking rate and intelligibility, phonation, respiration, and resonance.
  • discussing the following objective with P: to decrease rate of speech to improve articulatory precision and intelligibility and reduce the effort needed by the listener to interpret speech.
  • explaining to P that his/her optimal rate is likely to be slower than the norm.
  • modeling of targets by C
  • providing metronome as a support in achieving a target rate
  • recording P responses and replaying the recordings for the P and C to review and discuss
  • presenting written passages which P will read aloud (with or without visual gues/graphics) at the designated rate of speech
  • providing addition cues to facilitate a reduced rate of speech should other strategies fail to be effective
  1. Modifying an index card with slits so that moving the opening over a sentence allows only one or two words to be in view at a time.
  2. Tapping a finger or foot in time with the targeted production of words
  3. Using other pacing devices such as pacing board, a pegboard, or pieces of Velco attached to the P’s thumb and the index finger. P can tap the Velcroed fingers together thereby slowing the targeted rate of speech.
  • gradual increasing of linguistic complexity and/or difficulty.

– Dworkin describes procedures collecting data during the exercise, the number of trials that should be administered, and the requirements for progressing to the next exercise or terminating treatment for the exercise.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Logical

Description of Intervention #5– Appropriate use of speaking rate variations

 

POPULATION: motor speech disorders

 

TARGETS: variability of speaking rate

TECHNIQUES: collection of baseline data, modeling, reviewing, discussion of objectives, recording data, visual/graphic cues, oral reading (reading aloud), conversation

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • There are 2 exercises for this outcome. The numbers start with #12 here because I am using Dworkin’s numbering system to assist readers in finding the exercise should they consult the source. Dworkin’s labels (p. 341) for the 2 exercises are
  1. Familiar reading material with different speech limit symbols
  2. Practice rate modulation in conversation
  • The exercises tend to follow a common format:

– Exercises begin with the collection of baseline data. Dworkin clearly describes procedures for collecting baseline data for each of the exercises and for deciding whether a response is correct or incorrect. In addition, he provides a form for recording data.

– Dworkin provides rate norms and procedures for calculating rate and converting rates to percentiles to allow for clearer data analysis. In addition, he describes a 7-point scale representing the quality of rate variability within a passage.

– Cs may base the baseline on a reading aloud task or conversational samples.

– Dworkin provides guides regarding whether or not to proceed through the exercise or to advance to another exercise based.

– Dworkin recommends discussing with the P the objective of transferring the ability to vary rate in conversation appropriately

– Dworkin recommends the use of certain common procedures:

  • describing/discussing the scoring methods with the P
  • modeling of targets by C
  • recording P responses and replaying the recordings for the P and C to review and discuss
  • presenting written passages which P will read aloud (with or without visual cues/graphics) at the designated rate of speech. The reading materials should be familiar to the P (e.g., short stories, familiar quotations, passages from familiar religious writings, if appropriate.)

– Dworkin describes procedures collecting data during the exercise, the number of trials that should be administered, and the requirements for progressing to the next exercise or terminating treatment for the exercise.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Logical

Description of Intervention #6— Improved intonation

 

POPULATION: motor speech disorders

 

TARGETS: intonation

TECHNIQUES: reviewing, discussion of objectives/prosodic patterns, recording of P responses, visual/graphic cues, oral reading (reading aloud), negative practice

STIMULI: auditory, visual/graphics

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • There are 5 exercises for this outcome. Dworkin’s labels (p. 341) for the 5 exercises are
  1. Practice statements with pitch markers (p. 329).
  2. Practice simple questions with pitch markers (p. 330).
  3. Practice complex questions with pitch markers (p. 331).
  4. Practice questions calling for repetition with pitch markers (p. 333).
  5. Practice phrases with pitch markers (p. 333).
  • The exercises tend to follow a common format:

– Dworkin uses 3 different pitch levels in this intervention: low, modal, and high.

– Dworkin notes that Ps with motor speech disorders often use inappropriate pitch levels at the end of phrases. Therefore, objectives from this intervention focus on phrase ending but changes within the phrase are not excluded from treatment.

– C explains to P that speakers

  • mark the most important word in a phrase with the highest pitch
  • mark the end of declarative sentences with a low pitch
  • mark the end of simple yes/no questions with rising glide
  • mark the end of questions that request information (other than yes/no) from the listener with rise on the most important word and then a drop for the end of the sentence. Dworkin calls them “complex sentences; ” they tend to begin with Wh words.
  • mark questions sentences that function to request the repetition of previously provided information or to request a confirmation (e.g., “When do you plan to graduate?”) with high pitch levels at the beginning and end of the sentence.

– C discusses the ramifications of failing to use the above conventions:

  • listener confusion with the intent of the speaker
  • the listener having difficulty tracking upcoming information

– C presents written sentences. Depending on the exercise, the type of sentence varies:

  1. Simple and complex declarative sentences will have visual cues regarding the pitch level. Dworkin recommends using numbers and line graphics to communicate targets. For example:

3                                ______

|           |

2   The dinner   was |   very | tasty.

|

1                                             |______

  1. Simple questions will be prepared in a manner similar to “A” but there will be a gliding rise on the last word/syllable. Dworkin notes that in some cases the rise should be even higher than level 3 in “A.”
  1. Complex questions also are prepared in a manner similar to “A” but the graphics differ. In this case, the sentence begins with a Wh word, the most important word is stressed with a pitch rise, and then the last word has pitch fall.

3                     ______

|         |

2   What was |   very | tasty?

|

1                                 |______

  1. Repetition or confirmation questions may have a rising or high pitch at the beginning and end of the sentence and a fall in the middle.

3   _____                   ______

|                   |

2   What | was very | tasty?

|                   |

1             |__________|

– The sentences that C prepares can have the same wording but different emphasized words to highlight the differing potential interpretations.

– The final exercise involves P reading aloud paragraphs that C has printed with graphics signaling pitch level of each word/syllable.

– P reads aloud targeted sentences.

– C audio records the readings and after each sentence discusses the productions with P.

– C may introduce negative practice with the complex sentences to illustrate the different reactions listeners may have to prosodic patterns for simple and complex questions.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Logical

 

CONTRAINDICATIONS FOR USE OF THE INTERVENTION: Ps who struggle with pitch and/or loudness interventions are at risk for failure in intonation intervention.

Description of Intervention #7— Improved use of stress

 

POPULATION: motor speech disorders

 

TARGETS: stress-sentence, stress-emphatic, stress- lexical

TECHNIQUES: collection of baseline data, modeling, reviewing, discussion of objectives, recording data, visual/graphic cues, oral reading (reading aloud), conversation, contrastive stress drills, negative practice, discrimination

STIMULI: auditory, visual/graphic

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • There are 6 exercises for this outcome. Dworkin’s labels (p. 341) for the 6 exercises are
  1. Practice phrases with stress and phrase markers (p. 335)
  2. Practice general sentences with primary and secondary stress and pause markers (p. 336)
  3. Practice sentence embellishment with same markers (p. 337)
  4. Practice stress control in conversation (p. 337)
  5. Supplements for vocal expressiveness and meaning alterations (p. 338)
  6. Contrastive stress drills (p. 339)
  • The exercises tend to follow a common format:

– Most of the exercises begin with the collection of baseline data; the exceptions are exercises 5 and 6. Dworkin clearly describes procedures for collecting baseline data from spontaneous conversation and/or read sentences using a 7-point scale or correct/incorrect judgments. Also, he provides a form for recording data.

– Dworkin provides guides regarding whether or not to proceed through the exercise or to advance to another exercise based.

– Although the content changes based on the outcome, Dworkin recommends the use of certain common procedures:

  • describing/discussing terminology as well as the objectives
  • modeling of correct and, at times, incorrect targets by C
  • P’s discriminating of correct and incorrect models by C
  • C introducing og contrastive stress drills in which P answers a series of questions from C using the same sentence. Each question requires that P stress a different word in order to be considered “appropriate.”
  • cueing appropriate/targeted lexical stress (e.g., ‘pep per versus pep ‘per) and phrasal/sentence stress (Sue and ‘John versus ‘Sue and John) by providing P with index cards with sentences/phrases marked for some of all of the following depending on the exercise: primary stress, secondary stress, pauses
  • depending on the exercise, C gradually increase increasing of complexity of the content (e.g., for exercise #1, the content involves single words and for exercise #4 the content involves conversation.)
  • P reading of individual aloud sentences
  • P reading aloud minimal pair sentences in which the sentences differ in stress level, stress location, and pausing.
  • negative practice by P
  • recording P responses and replaying the recordings for P and C to review and discuss P’s responses
  • if P produces an incorrect response, he/she should attempt it again. Only a total of 3 attempts is recommended.
  • during the contrastive stress drills, some Ps may benefit from tapping each word or syllable with a finger, hand, or foot. The most important word should receive emphasis prosodically and with tapping.

– Dworkin describes procedures collecting data during the exercise, the number of trials that should be administered, and the requirements for progressing to the next exercise or terminating treatment for the exercise.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Logical

CONTRAINDICATIONS FOR USE OF THE INTERVENTION: Success with previous interventions should be the basis of this intervention. Poor outcomes in the previous interventions are predictive of poor outcomes for stress intervention.