Park et al. (2016)

January 26, 2017

 

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Treatment Group

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

Key:

ASSIDS = Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech (ASSIDS)

C = Clinician

CER = communication efficiency ratio

DIP = Dysarthria Impact Profile

EBP = evidence-based practice

f = female

m = male

KP feedback = Knowledge of Production (KP) feedback

KR feedback = Feedback Knowledge of Results (KR) feedback

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

WPM = words per minute

 

 

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

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: January 14, 2017

 

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

 

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

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

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

                                                                                                          

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

Level = C+

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

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

 

 

  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?

                                                                                                           

  • from participants? No

                                                                    

  • from clinician? No

                                                                    

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

                                                                    

 

  1. Was the group adequately described? Yes

 

– How many Ps were involved in the study?

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

 

– CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS

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

 

– DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

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

     – divided attention

     – memory

     – verbal fluency

     – visual memory

     – visuo-spatial memory

     – processing speed

     – complex planning and problem solving

     – planning

     – verbal concepts

     – mental control

     – recall

     – attention

     – organization

  • diagnosis: persistent nonprogressive dysarthria
  • neurological condition:

– Traumatic Brain Injury = 6

     – Stroke = 2

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

 

Were the communication problems adequately described?

 

  • disorder type: nonprogressive dysarthria; types of dysarthria

– flaccid- ataxic (2)

– ataxic (3)

– spastic-ataxic (1)

– hypokinetic (1)

– spastic (1)

  • functional level: mild to severe

 

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?

                                                                                                             

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

                                                               

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

     – P5 had only 1 pretreatment sample

     – P2 had only 1 posttreatment sample

     – P4 had only 1 follow up sample

 

 

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

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

– OUTCOMES

 

PERCEPTUAL MEASURES

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

 

ALL the outcome measures were subjective.

 

NONE of the outcome measures were objective.

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

– Interobserver for analyzers? Yes

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Intraobserver for analyzers?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

– Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No

 

 

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

 

— What level of significance was required to claim significance?

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

∞ for word intelligibility — gains ≥ 3.2%

∞ for sentence intelligibility – gains ≥ 8.6%

 

PRE AND POST TREATMENT ANALYSES

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

— Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

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

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? Yes

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

If yes, summarize findings

 

 

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

– treatment can be completed within the targeted time frame

– the intensive treatment schedule is appropriate for the Ps

– there is some evidence of improved intelligibility among the Ps

– if there is a need to modify Clear Speech procedures

 

  • Eight speakers diagnosed with nonprogressive dysarthria served as Ps.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: C

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

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

 

POPULATION: dysarthria (nonprogressive); Adults

 

MODALITY TARGETED: production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: rate of speech

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP (the lead author administered all therapy)

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

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

 

PREPRACTICE PHASE (1 session)

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

– could follow the Clear Speech treatment protocol

– understood what clear speech sounded like

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

 

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

– P identified the clearest speech,

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

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

 

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

– modeling

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

 

 

INTENSIVE PRACTICE PHASE (16 sessions)

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

 

 

Brief Prepractice Component of the Intensive Practice Phase

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Intensive Practice Component of the Intensive Phase

 

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

 

– Structured Speech Drill

 

  • Using a constant set of sentences, C imitated

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

– 10 sentences requesting service 5 times using clear speech.

 

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

 

– Functional Speech Tasks

 

  • The functional tasks included

– reading aloud,

– describing pictures, and

– conversing with others.

 

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

 

  • The targeted stimuli changed for each session.

 

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

 

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

– recording P’s production,

– playing back the productions to P at intermittent intervals,

– and directing P to rate his/her clarity

 

  • C provided KR feedback to the P.

 

Homework

 

  • C assigned 15 minutes of daily homework.

 

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

– functional phrases,

– requests for service,

– functional speech task stimuli, as well as

– using their skill in daily living activities.

 

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

 

Advertisements

O’Halpin (2001)

November 8, 2014

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS for

Single Subject Designs

 

Note: The summary of the intervention procedure(s) can be viewed by scrolling about two-thirds of the way down on this page.

 

Key:

C = Clinician

EBP = evidence-based practice

Fo = fundamental frequency

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

SVO = Subject + Verb + Object

 

SOURCE:  O’Halpin, R. (2001). Intonation issues in the speech of hearing impaired children: Analysis, transcription, and remediation. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 15, 529-550.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: November 1, 2014

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE:    (The highest possible grade, based on the design of the study, was D+.)

 

TAKE AWAY: The author described the assessment, the prosodic characteristics, and interventions for children with hearing impairment. Only the intervention, which is supported by some very brief case studies, is described in this review. Overall, the case information provides initial support for an adaptation of King and Parker’s (1980) intervention program using visual feedback. The production of SVO sentences of an 8-year-old with impaired hearing more closely resembled a typical peer with respect to pitch patterns associated with contrastive stress.

 

  1. What was the focus of the research? Clinical Research

                                                                                                           

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  2. What type of single subject design was used? Case Studies: Description with Pre and Post Test Results
  3. What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence?

Level = D+                                                      

                                                                                                           

  1. Was phase of treatment concealed?
  2. from participants? No
  3. from clinicians? No
  4. from data analyzers? No

 

  1. Were the participants adequately described? No _x__, but this was only a small part of a larger article.

 

  1. How many participants were involved in the study? 3

 

  1. The following characteristics were described:
  • age: 8 years
  • expressive language: could produce Subject + Verb + Object (SVO) sentences
  • receptive language: could understand SVO sentences
  • hearing: all profoundly hearing impaired; average pure-tone hearing levels ranges from 96 dB to 104 dB

                                                 

  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? No
  • The disorder type was profound hearing Impairment
  • List other aspects of communication that were described:

– all wore binaural hearing aids

– all had previous speech therapy on a regular basis that did not include visual representation of speech

                                                                                                                       

  1. Was membership in treatment maintained throughout the study? Yes
  2. If there was more than one participant, did at least 80% of the participants remain in the study? Yes
  3. Were any data removed from the study? No

 

  1. Did the design include appropriate controls? No, these were case studies.
  2. Were baseline/preintervention data collected on all behaviors? Yes
  3. Did probes/intervention data include untrained data? No. No intervention data were provided. Post intervention data were provided only for one participant (P).
  4. Did probes/intervention data include trained data? No. No intervention data was provided. Post intervention data was provided only for one P.
  5. Was the data collection continuous? No
  6. Were different treatment counterbalanced or randomized? Not Applicable

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  2. The outcome measure was

OUTCOME #1: To improve intonational markings of contrastive stress such as declination and down-stepping using acoustic measurement

  1. The outcome was not subjective.
  2. The outcome was objective.
  3. No reliability data were provided.

 

  1. Results:
  2. Did the target behavior improve when it was treated? Yes
  3. b.   The overall quality of improvement was moderate: With some exceptions, the pitch movement more closely resembled that of an age-match typical hearing peer.   (See figures 3 and 5.)

NOTE: Reminder, the OUTCOME was to improve intonational markings of contrastive stress such as declination and down-stepping using acoustic and perceptual measurement/

  1. Description of baseline:
  2. Were baseline data provided? No

                                               

 

  1. What was the magnitude of the treatment effect? NA

 

 

  1. Was information about treatment fidelity adequate? No

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

 

OVERALL RATING OF THE QUALITY OF SUPPORT FOR THE INTERVENTION: D-

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of visual displays in improving outcomes in the intonation of children with hearing impairment.

POPULATION: Hearing Impairment; Children

 

MODALITY TARGETED: Production and Compehension

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: Intonation, stress- contrastive

DOSAGE: not provided

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • This intervention is based on the work of King and Parker (1980)* with the added component of providing visual representation of pitch (fundamental frequency, Fo), loudness (intensity), and time (duration).
  • This is a structured program in which the linguistic complexity of the target utterances increases gradually from monosyllable words to short phrases.
  • Prior to the initiation of this intervention, Ps should be able to produce consistently SVO sentences in spontaneous speech.
  • There are 2 parts to the intervention: Elicited tasks (Part I) and Naturalistic tasks (Part II)

PART I—Elicited Tasks

  • Within each step, the feedback (visual displays and observation of lip movement) is increasingly delayed. The purpose of this delay is to encourage self-monitoring and to decrease dependence on visual feedback.

Step 1: C explains the visual displays to P and defines the vocabulary that will be used in the intervention.

Step 2a: C teaches P to identify the acoustic characteristics of voice quality of speakers with typical hearing. Feedback is provided with visual displays as well as the observation of lip patterns.

Step 2b: C elicits prolonged, steady phonations with good voice quality from P. Feedback is provided with visual displays as well as the observation of lip patterns.

Step 3: C teaches P to identify rise and falls in pitch during the production of monosyllable words. Feedback is provided with visual displays as well as the observation of lip patterns.

Step 4a: P produces monosyllables with a falling or rising pitch pattern. Feedback is provided with visual displays as well as the observation of lip patterns.

Step 4b: P produces 2 and 3 syllable words with a falling or rising pitch pattern. Feedback is provided with visual displays as well as the observation of lip patterns.

Step 5a: C teaches P to identify the most important word in a short phrase by noting changes in pitch. Feedback is provided with visual displays as well as the observation of lip patterns.

Step 5b: C elicits contrastive stress patterns from P. Feedback is provided with visual displays as well as the observation of lip patterns.

  • Elicitations here consist of questions directed to the Ps that require stress on one of the content words in an SVO sentence. For example, for the sentence “The boy is eating the apple.” Questions might include:

– Who is eating the apple? (stressed word = boy)

– What is the boy doing with the apple? (stressed word = eating)

– What is the boy eating? (stressed word = apple)

Step 6: C elicits the targeted intonation patterns in structured therapy activities.

PART II—NATURALISTIC TASKS

  • P practices skills learned in Part 1. C elicits spontaneous speech in games, picture description tasks, and narrative tasks.

* King, A., & Parker, A. (1980). The relevance of prosodic features to speech work with hearing-impaired children. In F. M. Jones (Ed.), Language disability in children: Assessment and Rehabilitation. Lancaster, UK: MTP Press.


Seybold (1971)

October 6, 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

NA = not applicable

MT = music therapist/therapy

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

ST = speech therapy

 

SOURCE: Seybold, C. D. (1971). The value and use of music activities in the treatment of speech delayed children. Journal of Music Therapy, 8, 102-110.

 

REVIEWER(S):  pmh

 

DATE: October 5, 2014

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: D (Due to the design of the investigation, the highest possible overall quality grade for this investigation was C-.)

 

TAKE AWAY: Although there were problems with the data, some of which was not the investigator’s fault (see the review), both groups [traditional speech therapy (ST) and music therapy (MT)] performed similarly. Additionally, the investigator provides a clear description of music activities designed to facilitate spontaneous communication in preschoolers diagnosed as speech delayed.

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  2. What was the type of evidence? Prospective Randomized Group Design with Post-testing
  3. What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Level = C. We do not have a listing for this design because it is unusual. (The investigator lost the pretests due to thief.)

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:
  2. If there were groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? Yes
  1. Was administration of intervention status concealed?

                                                                                                           

  1. from participants? No
  2. from clinicians? No
  3. from analyzers? No

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? No
  2. How many participants were involved in the study?
  • total # of participant: 8
  • # of groups: 2
  • # of participants in each group: 4, 4
  • List names of groups: Music Therapy (MT) group (n =4); ; Speech Therapy (ST) group (n = 4)

 

  1. The following variables were described
  • age: mean age MT group = 5-2; mean age ST group = 5-1
  • gender: all make
  • educational level of clients: all preschoolers

 

  1. Were the groups similar before intervention began? Unclear

                                                         

  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? No _x__    
  • disorder type: all participants (P) were diagnosed as speech delayed but this was not defined
  • other:

     – all Ps were currently in therapy at a Midwest US university clinic

– all Ps were considered to have functional (i.e., nonorganic) impairments

 

  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

 

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

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Unclear
  2. List outcome:
  • OUTCOME #1: Performance on the Houston Test of Language Development
  1. The outcome measures is subjective:

 

  1. The outcome measures is not objective?

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?
  2. Interobserver for analyzers? No
  3. Intraobserver for analyzers?   No
  4. Treatment fidelity for clinicians? No

 

  1. What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing?
  2. TREATMENT VERSUS COMPARISON GROUP
  • OUTCOME #1: Performance on the Houston Test of Language Development
  • significance level = 0.10
  • MT improved more than the ST group
  1. What statistical test was used to determine significance? Mann-Whitney U

 

  1. Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

                                   

  1. What is the clinical significance? NA

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:  D

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of music activities in improving the expressive language of preschool children diagnosed as speech delayed

POPULATION: Speech Delay; Children (preschool)

 

MODALITY TARGETED: expression

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED (do not list the specific dependent variables here):

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: rhythm, intonation, stress (music activities)

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: performance on a standardized test of language development

DOSAGE: individual sessions, 50 minute sessions, 2 times a week, 8 weeks

 

ADMINISTRATOR: male music therapist MT for MT group; female speech-language pathologist (SLP) for ST group.

 

STIMULI: auditory, visual, gestural/motoric

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

  • There were 2 interventions: MT and ST. The MT intervention involved administering the same procedures to all the MT Ps. The ST intervention involved the administration of different procedures for the ST Ps. The procedures listed in the ST section are the one that are common to all ST Ps.

MT INTERVENTION

  • Each activity began with a music activity. When the P produced the musical target, the clinician (C) presented a nonmusical activity.
  • The following schedule represents a typical session:
  1. C and P sang a “Good Morning” song (tune = “Happy Birthday.”)
  1. C and P sang “The Alphabet” song accompanied by musical instruments (e.g., piano, autoharp). Following a musical response, C encouraged P to talk about letters of the alphabet while playing with lettered blocks or while copying letters on the chalkboard.
  1. C and P sang “Old MacDonald” or the “Farmer in the Dell.” Then P played with toy animals, colored pictures of animals, or looked at pictures of animals while C stimulated conversation.
  1. C and P engaged in a game entitled the “Bumblebee” while playing kazoos or similar instruments. When P created a buzzing sound with the kazoo and then touched one of C’s body parts with the kazoo, C named the body part. C and P then reversed roles. C and P also sang and acted out “If You are Happy and You Know It, Clap Your Hands”
  1. C and P sang the song the “Wheels on the Bus Go Round and Round” to teach a variety of concepts (e.g., “open” and “close”, colors, “in” and “out”). Once P completed the singing and acting out of the song with C, she/he was encouraged say and act out the action words.
  1. C and P sang narrative songs such as “Little Rabbit Foo Foo” or “Down by the Station” to introduce imagination, language concepts, and singular/plural distinctions. C played sound effects and encouraged P to play “tone clusters” and glissandos.
  1. C and P sang narrative songs such as “Little Rabbit Foo Foo” or “Down by the Station” to teach numbers. Following the song, C introduced activities that encouraged play and spontaneous language.
  1. C allowed P 5 to 10 minutes per session to play with an instrument and musical activity (marching, jumping, singing, etc.) of choice.
  1. C and P sang a “Goodbye” song (tune = “Frere Jacques.”)

ST INTERVENTION

  1. C modeled sentences based on P’s functional level of communication for P to imitate. Then P was required to use the target sentence in a noncompetitive, nonturn taking (e.g., “Cootie”) activity in order to obtain an item.
  1. C and P participated in a competitive, turn taking activity in which turns were earned by making requests with a targeted language structure.
  1. C asked P to identify colors, clothing, and body parts during games.
  1. C introduced action pictures representing letters of the alphabet (e.g., a boy blowing bubbles represented “buh”.) C said “buh” and P (or perhaps C, it is not clear) produced a corresponding word and progressed to producing the word in a phrase/sentence.
  1. C stimulated spontaneous speech during games. The targets could be producing speech about colors, body parts, “basic language concepts” or encouraging the use of the imagination.

Robin et al. (1991)

September 30, 2014

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS for

Single Subject Designs

 

Note: The summary of the intervention procedure(s) can be viewed by scrolling about two-thirds of the way down on this page.

 

KEY:

C = clinician

Fo = fundamental frequency

NA = not applicable

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

P = participant or patient

 

SOURCE: Robin, D. A., Klouda, G. V., & Hug, L. N. (1991). Neurogenic disorders of prosody. In D. Vogel & M. P. Cannito (Eds.), Treating disordered speech motor control: For clinicians by clinicians (pp. 241-271). Austin, TX: ProEd.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: September 28, 2014

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE:  D- (Based on the design, the highest possible grade was D+.)

 

TAKE AWAY: This 1991 publication reviews the literature pertaining to neurogenic disorders of prosody, assessment of prosody, and treatment prosodic disorders. The focus of this review will be treatment issues. The other aspects of the chapter will be reviewed at later dates. The authors provide treatment recommendations for receptive and expressive goals associated with linguistic and affective prosody. The recommendations are accompanied by 3 illustrative case studies in which real and/or potential treatment plans are presented.

 

  1. What was the focus of the research? Clinical Research

                                                                                                           

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  2. What type of single subject design was used? Case Studies – Program Description(s) with Case Illustration(s)
  3. What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence?

Level = D+                                                      

                                                                                                           

  1. Was phase of treatment concealed?
  2. from participants? No
  3. from clinicians? No
  4. from data analyzers? No

 

  1. Were the participants adequately described? Yes
  2. How many participants were involved in the study? 3

 

  1. The following characteristics/variables were described:
  • age: 39- 63
  • gender: 1m, 2f
  • neurological symptoms:

Participant (P) #1 (P1) = left hemisphere hemiparesis, left homonomous

               hemianopsis, left side neglect

     – P2 = initially mute but speaking by 4 weeks

     – P3 = left hemisphere stroke from frontal lobe to basal ganglia

  • site of lesion: right hemisphere (P1); corpus callosum (P2); left hemisphere (P3)

                                                 

  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? No, the authors mainly described prosodic characteristics
  • The disorder types were prosodic problems—aprosodia (P1, P2); dysprosodic (P3)
  • Aspects of communication that were described:

– production of prosody: flat affect (P1, P2), trouble with rhythm (P3)

– comprehension of prosody: intact (P1, P2); impaired (P3)

                                                                                                                       

  1. Was membership in treatment maintained throughout the study? Not applicable __x___
  2. If there was more than one participant, did at least 80% of the participants remain in the study? Not applicable
  3. Were any data removed from the study? No

 

 

  1. Did the design include appropriate controls? No, these were case
  2. Were baseline/preintervention data collected on all behaviors? Not applicable, not all Ps were treated and it was not clear when prosodic treatment started.
  3. Did probes/intervention data include untrained data? No
  4. Did probes/intervention data include trained data? Yes
  5. Was the data collection continuous? No
  6. Were different treatment counterbalanced or randomized? Not Applicable

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  2. The outcomes were

OUTCOME #1: to comprehend linguistic prosody

OUTCOME #2: to comprehend affective prosody

OUTCOME #3: to produce appropriate fundamental frequency (Fo) for select emotional states

OUTCOME #4: to differentiate productions of questions and statements using Fo patterns

OUTCOME #5: to differentiate production of different stress (initial, final, neutral) using Fo patterns

OUTCOME #6: to improve rhythmic qualities of prosody

  1. The outcomes that were subjective:

OUTCOME #1: to comprehend linguistic prosody

OUTCOME #2: to comprehend affective prosody

 

  1. The outcomes that were objective:

OUTCOME #3: to produce appropriate fundamental frequency (Fo) for select emotional states

OUTCOME #4: to differentiate productions of questions and statements using Fo patterns

OUTCOME #5: to differentiate production of different stress (initial, final, neutral) using Fo patterns

OUTCOME #6: to improve rhythmic qualities of prosody

                                                                                       

  1. None of the outcome measures were associated with reliability measures.

 

  1. Results:
  2. Did the target behavior improve when it was treated? NA
  3. b. No data are provided for P1 and P2 because treatment was not initiated. Rather, the investigators provided recommendations for treatment based on data collected 3 weeks, 3 months, and/or 1 year post onset.

OUTCOME #1: to comprehend linguistic prosody—No data are provided for this outcome. However, comprehension outcomes are recommended prior to initiation of production outcomes, if necessary. P3 was reported to have comprehension of prosody problems. It is assumed that she achieved competency because the authors reported that they targeted production outcomes.

 

OUTCOME #2: to comprehend affective prosody—No data are provided for this outcome. However, comprehension outcomes are recommended prior to initiation of production outcomes, if necessary. P3 was reported to have comprehension of prosody problems. It is assumed that she achieved competency because the authors reported that they targeted production outcomes.

 

OUTCOME #3: to produce appropriate fundamental frequency (Fo) for select emotional states—The investigators did not select this outcome for P3 because it was relatively intact.

 

OUTCOME #4: to differentiate productions of questions and statements using Fo patterns

—The investigators did not select this outcome for P3 because it was relatively intact.

OUTCOME #5: to differentiate production of different stress patterns (initial, final, neutral) using Fo patterns—The investigators did not select this outcome for P3.

OUTCOME #6: to improve rhythmic qualities of prosody—The investigators indicated that rhythm (including word length and pause length) was planned to be a focus of treatment.

 

  1. Description of baseline:
  2. Were baseline data provided? No

 

 

  1. What was the magnitude of the treatment effect? NA

 

  1. Was information about treatment fidelity adequate? Not Provided

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

 

OVERALL RATING OF THE QUALITY OF SUPPORT FOR THE INTERVENTION: D-

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations for the treatment of prosodic problems associated with neurogenic conditions

POPULATION: Neurogenic condition (Right hemisphere damage, Left hemisphere damage, damage of corpus callosum); Adults

 

MODALITY TARGETED: comprehension, production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: affective prosody, stress, terminal contour, rhythm, pause, duration

 

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

The authors recommend that intervention for neurogenic prosodic impairment include

  1. Counseling—Ps and family members should be counseled that communicative partners may not be able to rely on aspects of prosody (e.g., intonation, stress, loudness, duration) to convey linguistic or affective meaning.
  1. Intervention of Prosodic Perception
  • Prior to treating the production of prosody, clinicians (Cs) should ensure that P’s perception is intact. (Another part of the paper deals with assessment.)
  • When focusing on perception, Cs should begin treatment using pairs of examples that are maximally different (e.g., happy versus sad affect).
  • When treating affect, it is helpful to include pictures representing the emotional state and to have multiple speakers present each affect.
  • Cs should also consider using visual representations (e.g., a Visi-Pitch) of the acoustic changes associated with the targets.
  • Cs should be familiar with the literature pertaining to the linguistic representation of linguistic and affective prosody to guide intervention.
  • It is possible to focus intervention on a specific element of prosody if

– the P exhibits only problems with a single aspect of prosody (e.g., perceiving intonation changes) or

– the P has such difficulty differentiating a prosody element. If so attending to compensatory elements is in order.

  1. Intervention of Prosodic Production
  • Intervention should begin with highly contrastive examples of the targeted prosodic element.
  • C should initially pair visual and auditory stimuli and then gradually fade the visual stimuli.
  • C should encourage self-monitoring skills.
  • C should construct sentence stimuli based on the needs and skills of the specific P.
  • The order of treatment tasks is

– C models a targeted prosodic element accompanied by visual cues.

– C and P produce the target together.

– C asks questions and P should answer using the targeted prosodic element.

– C and P carry on a conversation to generalize the skills.

  • C provides contrastive stress drills as homework.
  • C monitors P’s progress throughout treatment.

Ramig et al. (2001b)

September 5, 2014

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Treatment Groups

 

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

 

Key:

C = Clinician

EBP = evidence-based practice

f = female

LSVT = Lee Silverman Voice Treatment

m = male

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

PD = Parkinson’s disease

pmh = Patricia Hargrove (blog developer)

RET = respiratory therapy

UPDRS = Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale

SLP = speech–language pathologist

SPL = sound pressure level, a measure of loudness

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

 

 

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

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: September 5, 2014

 

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

 

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

 

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

                                                                                                           

 

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

 

 

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

                                                                    

 

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

                                                                                

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

 

The following characteristics were described:

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

 

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

                                                         

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

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?

                                                                                                             

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

 

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

 

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

 

  1. None of the outcome measures are subjective.

                                         

 

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

 

  1. Intraobserver for analyzers? No

 

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

 

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

 

TREATMENT GROUP VERSUS COMPARISON TREATMENT GROUP

 

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

 

 

PRE VS POST TREATMENT (only significant changes are noted)

 

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

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to post

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

 

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

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to post

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

–RET: significant improvement from pre to post

 

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

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to post

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

 

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

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to post

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

–RET: significant improvement from pre to post

 

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

–LSVT: significant improvement from pre to post

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

 

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

 

  1. Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

                                               

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

 

 

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

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: B+

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of LSVT

 

POPULATION: Parkinson’s disease

 

MODALITY TARGETED: production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: loudness, intonation

 

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

 

OTHER TARGETS:

 

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

 

ADMINISTRATOR: 2 SLPs

 

STIMULI: auditory stimuli, visual feedback

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

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

– focused on high and maximum effort

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

– assigned daily homework

 

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

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

 

RET

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

 

 


Helfrich-Miller (1984)

August 24, 2014

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS for

Single Subject Designs

 

Note: The summary of the intervention procedure(s) can be viewed by scrolling about two-thirds of the way down on this page.

 

KEY:

C = clinician

CAS = Childhood Apraxia of Speech

P = participant or patient

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

MIT = Melodic Intonation Therapy

NA = not applicable

SLP = speech-language pathologist

 

SOURCE: Helfrich-Miller, K. R. (1984). Melodic Intonation Therapy with developmentally apraxic children. Seminars in Speech and Language, 5, 119-126.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: August 23, 2014

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE: D- (Because the evidence involved summaries of 2 case studies and 1 single subject experimental design, the highest possible grade was D+.)

 

TAKE AWAY: To support this program description of an adaptation of Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT) to Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS) the investigator included 3 brief summaries of previously presented cases. The cases indicate that MIT results in change in articulation measures and one measure of duration and, to a lesser degree, listener perception.

                                                                                                           

 

  1. What was the focus of the research? Clinical Research

                                                                                                           

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  2. What type of single subject design was used? Case Studie – Program Description with Case Illustrations: summaries of previously reported investigations— 2 of the investigations were case studies; 1 was a single-subject experimental design (time series withdrawal)
  3. What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence?

Level = D+                                                      

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Was phase of treatment concealed?
  2. from participants? No
  3. from clinicians? No
  4. from data analyzers? No

 

 

  1. Were the participants adequately described? No
  2. How many participants were involved in the study? 3
  3. The following characteristics/variables were described:
  • age: 10 years old (1); not provided (2)
  • gender: m (all 3)
  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? No
  • The disorder type was CAS.
  • Other aspects of communication were noy described.

                                                                                                                       

  1. Was membership in treatment maintained throughout the study? Yes
  2. If there was more than one participant, did at least 80% of the participants remain in the study? Yes
  3. Were any data removed from the study? No

 

 

  1. Did the design include appropriate controls? Varied. The case studies did not have adequate controls but the single subject experimental design may have. (Controls were not clearly described.)
  2. Were preintervention data collected on all behaviors? Varied. The summary of the case studies provided this information but the summary of the single subject experimental design did not.
  3. Did probes/intervention data include untrained data? Unclear
  4. Did probes/intervention data include trained data? Unclear
  5. Was the data collection continuous? No
  6. Were different treatment counterbalanced or randomized? Not Applicable

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  2. The outcomes were

OUTCOME #1: number of articulation errors (case studies)

OUTCOME #2: percentage of articulation errors (case studies)

OUTCOME #3: vowel duration (single subject experimental design)

OUTCOME #4: percentage duration of the final contour compared to the whole utterance (single subject experimental design)

OUTCOME #5: listener judgment (single subject experimental design)

 

  1. The following outcomes are subjective:

OUTCOME #1: number of articulation errors (case studies)

OUTCOME #2: percentage of articulation errors (case studies)

OUTCOME #5: listener judgment (single subject experimental design)

                                                                                                             

  1. The following outcomes are objective:

OUTCOME #3: vowel duration (single subject experimental design)

OUTCOME #4: percentage duration of the final contour compared to the whole utterance (single subject experimental design)

                                                                                                             

  1. None of the outcome measures are associated with reliability data.

 

 

  1. Results:
  2. Did the target behavior improve when it was treated? Inconsistent
  3. b. The overall quality of improvement was

OUTCOME #1: number of articulation errors (case studies)– moderate

OUTCOME #2: percentage of articulation errors (case studies)– moderate

OUTCOME #3: vowel duration (single subject experimental design)- – unclear but there was a significant difference in pre and post testing

OUTCOME #4: percentage duration of the final contour compared to the whole utterance (single subject experimental design)– ineffective

OUTCOME #5: listener judgment (single subject experimental design)—The investigator noted a trend toward improvement but did not note whether or not the change was significant.

 

 

  1. Description of baseline: Were baseline data provided? No

 

 

  1. What was the magnitude of the treatment effect? NA

 

 

  1. Was information about treatment fidelity adequate? Not Provided

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? Yes. The outcomes associated with the case studies measured maintenance. The investigator measured the Outcomes #1 (number of articulation errors) and #2 (percentage of articulation errors) 6 months after the termination of therapy. The results indicated that gains were maintained for both outcomes.

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? Yes. Since none of the outcomes were direct targets of intervention, all of them could be considered generalization. Accordingly, the findings were

OUTCOME #1: number of articulation errors (case studies)—moderate improvement

OUTCOME #2: percentage of articulation errors (case studies)—moderate improvement

OUTCOME #3: vowel duration (single subject experimental design)- – Results were unclear but there was a significant difference in pre and post testing

OUTCOME #4: percentage duration of the final contour compared to the whole utterance (single subject experimental design)– ineffective

OUTCOME #5: listener judgment (single subject experimental design)—The investigator noted a trend toward improvement but did not note whether or not the change was significant. There was no description of the magnitude of the change.

 

 

OVERALL RATING OF THE QUALITY OF SUPPORT FOR THE INTERVENTION: D-

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To describe an adaptation of MIT for children with CAS

 

POPULATION: Childhood Apraxia of Speech; Child

 

MODALITY TARGETED: expression

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY TREATED: duration

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: tempo (rate, duration), rhythm, stress, intonation

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: articulation

 

OTHER TARGETS: listener perception

 

DOSAGE: The investigator reported that average course of treatment using MIT for CAS involves 10-12 months of therapy meeting 3 times a week.

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

STIMULI: auditory, visual/gestural

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • MIT focuses on 4 aspects of prosody:
  1. stylized intonation (melodic line)
  2. lengthened tempo (reduced rate)
  3. exaggerated rhythm
  4. exaggerated stress

 

  • It is best to avoid modeling patterns that are similar to known songs.

 

  • Each session includes 10 to 20 target utterances and no 2 consecutive sessions contain the same target utterances.

 

  • C selects a sentence and then moves it through each step associated with the current level of treatment. When P successfully produces the sentence at all the steps of the current level, C switches to the next sentence beginning at Step 1 of that level.

 

  • To move out of a level, P must achieve 90% correct responses in 10 consecutive sessions. Tables 3, 4, and 5 provide criteria for correct response in the different Levels of Instruction.

 

  • There are 3 Levels of Instruction.

 

  • As Ps progress within and through the levels

– utterances increase in complexity

– the phonemic structure of words increases.

– C reduces cueing

– C increases the naturalness of intonation in models and targets.

 

  • Tables 1 and 2 contain criteria and examples for the formulation of target utterances.

 

  • The purpose of MIT is to sequence words and phrases.

 

  • Unlike the original MIT, this adaptation pairs productions with signs (instead of tapping).

 

  • Tables 3, 4, and 5 as well as the accompanying prose in the article, provide detailed descriptions of the program. The following is a summary of those descriptions:

 

LEVEL 1

 

  • If P fails any step with a targeted utterance, that target is terminated and C selects a new utterance.

 

Step 1.   C models and signs the intoned target utterance 2 times and does not require C to imitate.

 

Step 2. C and P produce the targeted intoned utterance and the sign in unison.

 

Step 3. C continues with the targeted intoned utterance but fades the unison cues.

 

Step 4. C models the intoned target utterance and the sign. P imitates the intoned target utterance.

 

Step 5. C asks a question to elicit the intoned target utterance (e.g., “What did you say?”) P produces the intoned target utterance.

 

Step 6. C asks a question to elicit the last words of the intoned target utterance (e.g., if the intoned target utterance was “Buy the ball,” the question could be “What do you want to buy?”)

 

LEVEL 2:

 

Step 1. C models and signs the intoned target utterance 2 times and does not require C to imitate.

 

Step 2. C and P produce the targeted intoned utterance and the sign in unison.

 

Step 3. C continues with the targeted intoned utterance but adds a 6 second delay before P can intone the targeted utterance. If P has trouble with this step, C can use a “back-up” which involves returning to the previous step with the targeted intoned utterance.

 

Step 4. C asks a question to elicit the intoned target utterance (e.g., “What did you say?”) P produces the intoned target utterance.

 

Step 5. C asks a question to elicit the last words of the intoned target utterance (e.g., if the intoned target utterance was “Open the door”, the question could be “What should I open?”)

 

LEVEL 3:

 

Step 1. C models and signs the intoned target utterance, P intones and signs the utterance. If P fails, the “back-up” is unison intonation with C fading the cueing.

 

Step 2. C presents the target utterance using Sprechgesang (or speech song– an intoned production that is not singing) and signing. P is not required to respond.

 

Step 3. C and P, in unison, produce the targeted utterance using Sprechgesang and signing. If P fails, the back up is to repeat Step 2.

 

Step 4. C presents the targeted utterance with normal prosody and no signing. P imitates the targeted utterance with normal prosody.

 

Step 5. C asks a question to elicit the target utterance (e.g., “What did you say?”) P produces the target utterance after a 6 second delay.

 

Step 6. C asks a question to elicit the last words of the target utterance (e.g., if the target utterance was “I want more juice,” the question could be “What do you want?”)

 

 

 


McMicken et al (2011)

August 16, 2014

Single Subject Designs

 

Notes:

 

  1. The summary of the intervention procedure(s) can be viewed by scrolling about two-thirds of the way down on this page.

 

  1. Key:

C = clinician

GILCU = Gradual Increase of Length and Complexity of Utterances) from RFP

LSVT = Lee Silverman Voice Treatment

NA = not applicable

P = participant or patient

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

RFP = Ryan Fluency Program

WNL = within normal limits

 

SOURCE: McMicken, B. L., Ostergren, J. A., & Vento-Wilson, M. (2011). Therapeutic intervention in a case of ataxic dysarthria associated with a history of amateur boxing. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 33, 55-64. doi: 10.1177/1525740110397829

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: August 16, 2014

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE: D (The highest possible grade was D+ because this was a case study.)

 

TAKE AWAY: This case study describes an intervention combining Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT) and the Ryan Fluency Program (RFP) for the treatment of speech associated with ataxic dysarthria in a patient (P) with a history of boxing. The results suggest the combined intervention was moderately successful in improving perception of severity and intelligibility as well as diadokokenesis skills. However, the P’s self-perception of his communication skills decreased markedly

 

  1. What was the focus of the research? Clinical Research

                                                                                                           

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  2. What type of single subject design was used? Case Studies– Description with Pre and Post Test Results
  3. What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Level = D+

                                                                                                           

 

  1. Was phase of treatment concealed?
  2. from participants? No
  3. from clinicians? No
  4. from data analyzers? No

 

 

  1. Were the participants adequately described? Yes
  2. How many participants were involved in the study? 1

 

  1. The following characteristics were described:
  • age: 36 years
  • gender: m
  • cognitive skills: WNL

                                                                                                             

  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes
  • List the disorder type(s):
  • List other aspects of communication that were described:
  • oral mechanism:   WNL
  • motor speech skills: WNL
  • diadochokinesis (alternating motion rates): slow, irregular, uneven, frequent misarticulation (especially voicing and vowel distortion), irregular speed
  • vowel prolongation: WNL
  • intelligibility: 3.7 on a 7 point scale (7 was the best rating)
  • impairment severity: marked/severe
  • misarticulations: inconsistent
  • stress: excessive and equal
  • duration: prolongation of speech sounds

                                                                                                                       

  1. Was membership in treatment maintained throughout the study? Yes
  2. If there was more than one participant, did at least 80% of the participants remain in the study? Not applicable
  3. Were any data removed from the study? No

 

 

  1. Did the design include appropriate controls? No. This was a case study
  2. Were preintervention data collected on all behaviors? Yes, but these data were not easy to find.
  3. Did probes/intervention data include untrained data? NA
  4. Did probes/intervention data include trained data? NA
  5. Was the data collection continuous? NA
  6. Were different treatment counterbalanced or randomized? Not Applicable

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  2. The outcomes were

OUTCOME #1: To increase the duration of vowel prolongations

OUTCOME #2: To increase the number of repetitions per seconds in a diadokokinesis (alternating motion) task

OUTCOME #3: To improve (decrease) severity ratings

OUTCOME #4: To improve (increase) intelligibility ratings

OUTCOME #5: To improve P’s self perception of his communication skills

  1. The outcomes that were subjective are

OUTCOME #3: To improve (decrease) severity ratings

OUTCOME #4: To improve (increase) intelligibility ratings

OUTCOME #5: To improve P’s self perception of his communication skills

  1. The outcomes that were objective are

OUTCOME #1: To increase the duration of vowel prolongations

OUTCOME #2: To increase the number of repetitions per seconds in a diadokokinesis (alternating motion) task

                                                                                                             

  1. The outcome measures with reliability data are

OUTCOME #3: To improve (decrease) severity ratings

OUTCOME #4: To improve (increase) intelligibility ratings

  • Combined reliability across 3 judges for OUTCOMES #3 and #4 was at least 92%.

 

 

  1. Results:
  2. Did the target behavior improve when it was treated? Inconsistent
  3. b. The outcomes overall quality of improvement for each of the Outcomes was

OUTCOME #1: To increase the duration of vowel prolongations—limited improvement but pretreatment data were within normal limits

OUTCOME #2: To increase the number of repetitions per seconds in a diadokokinesis (alternating motion) task—moderate—the number of repetitions improve slightly but productions were more regular with fewer distortions and substitutions

OUTCOME #3: To improve (decrease) severity ratings—moderate improvement. The P progressed from marked to severe impairment (pretreatment) to mild to moderate (post treatment)

OUTCOME #4: To improve (increase) intelligibility ratings—moderate improvement. P progressed from an overall intelligibility rating of 3.7 (pretreatment) to 5.3 (posttreatment) on a 7-point scale.

OUTCOME #5: To improve P’s self perception of his communication skills—ineffective. P’s perception of his communication skills decreased following intervention.

  1. Description of baseline:
  2. Were baseline data provided? No, the investigators only provided pretreatment data.

 

 

  1. What was the magnitude of the treatment effect? NA

 

 

  1. Was information about treatment fidelity adequate? Not Provided

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No but the investigators did note there was a maintenance phrase of treatment.

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? Yes. None of the outcomes were direct targets of intervention. Therefore, all of them could be considered generalization data. See item #8 for these results.

 

 

OVERALL RATING OF THE QUALITY OF SUPPORT FOR THE INTERVENTION: ____D _____

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of treatment combining LSVT and RFP in improving the speech of a P with ataxic dysarthria associated with a history of boxing.

POPULATION: Ataxic Dysarthria; Adult

 

MODALITY TARGETED: expression

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: rate, loudness

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION/SPEECH TARGETED: vowel prolongation, diadokokinesis, intelligibility, severity of speech impairment

 

OTHER TARGETS: self-perception of communication skills

DOSAGE: 25 session, 2 times a week, for 50 minutes

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • The intervention combined LSVT with components (GILCU, Gradual Increase of Length and Complexity of Utterances) of RFP.

LSVT:

– C instructs P to think loud and/or focus on producing a loud voice.

– C provides feedback to P about the effectiveness of attempts to speak loudly.

– C uses the following forms of feedback/reinforcement

  1. Incorrect responses = “Stop, speak loudly and clearly.”
  2. Correct responses (i.e., a loud and clear production) = “Good.”

GILCU of RFP:

– C orders speech targets to increase length and complexity in 3 contexts

  1. conversation
  2. reading
  3. monologue

 

  • There were 3 phases of treatment: establishment, transfer, and maintenance:

ESTABLISHMENT

– C presents targets in a specified order:

  1. each level increases in length/complexity from the previous level.
  2. to progress through a level, P must produce 10 correct responses for each step within the level
  3. within each level (e.g., one-word utterances, two-word utterances, etc.), the steps involve
  4. reading
  5. conversation
  6. monologue
  7. After reaching criterion, C adds time to the task, gradually increasing the reading, conversation, and monologue from 30 seconds to 5 minutes.
  8. The investigators provided an appendix with detailed instruction for this phase.
  9. Throughout the Establishment phase, C provides feedback regarding loudness and sound production.

TRANSFER

  1. At the beginning of the transfer phase, C provides feedback regarding loudness and sound production.
  2. P presents a 10-minute impromptu presentation at lunchtime at the treatment facility.
  3. C initiates interactions with other communicative partners within the treatment facility or the community, instructing P to speak as long as possible to the communicative partners.
  4. C also works to change the context from the therapy room to locations in the community.

MAINTENANCE

  1. C no longer provides feedback to P regarding the correctness of productions. Rather, P self monitors and describes his own speech production.