(Fairbanks, 1960; Intensity Variability)

November 24, 2020

CRITIQUE OF UNSUPPORTED PROCEDURAL DESCRIPTIONS

(also known as Expert Opinion)

NOTE:  To view the summary of the intervention, scroll about one-half of the way down this post. 

KEY

C =  clinician

NA = not applicable

P =  patient or participant

pmh =  Patricia Hargrove, blog developer 

SLP = speech-language pathologist

Source:  Fairbanks, G. (1960, Ch. 12, Intensity Variability) Voice and articulation drillbook.  New York: Harper & Row.  (pp. 141-143)

Reviewer(s):  pmh

Date:  November 24, 2020

Overall Assigned Grade (because there are no supporting data, there is not a grade)  

Level of Evidence:  F = Expert Opinion, no supporting evidence for the effectiveness of the intervention although the author may provide secondary evidence supporting components of the intervention.

Take Away: This chapter of Fairbanks (1960) is concerned with the production of Intensity or Loudness. Fairbanks notes that loudness level and loudness variability (loudness range) comprise intensity. This review, however, is only concerned with intensity variability. 

1.  Was there a review of the literature supporting components of the intervention?  No 

2.  Were the specific procedures/components of the intervention tied to the reviewed literature?  Not Applicable (NA)

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

4.  Did the author provide a rationale for components of the intervention?  Variable

5.  Description of outcome measures:

–  Are outcome measures suggested? Yes

•  Outcome #1:  Pairing loudness level with stressed syllables in multisyllabic words

•  Outcome #2:  Modifying loudness of words in phrases to signal different intents 

•  Outcome #3:  Reading aloud 2 short sentences with the first produced with less intensity than the second

•  Outcome #4:  Reading aloud sentences within paragraphs using the following. Pattern: Louder at the beginning and gradually reducing loudness until the end of the sentence is softer.

6.  Was generalization addressed?  No

7.  Was maintenance addressed?  No

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

PURPOSE:  To produce speech using appropriate 

POPULATION:  Adults

MODALITY TARGETED:  production

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED:  loudness/intensity variability

ASPECTS OF PROSODY USED TO TREAT THE TARGET:  loudness, rate, stress, pitch, concordance

DOSAGE:  NA   

ADMINISTRATOR:  The book is written so that a lay person could use it as a self-help book. Historically, I know of many speech-language pathologists who have used the techniques and the materials in their therapy sessions.   

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

1. The clinician (C) presents a list of multisyllable words (p. 141) to the participant (P) and 

     – directs the P to underline the stressed syllable and

     – say each word with exaggerated intensity on the stressed syllable.

     – The goal is to produce a contrast without underarticulating the unstressed syllable.

2. C presents a list of 2-word phrases (p. 141) containing a single syllable word plus a multisyllable word to the participant (P) and 

     – directs the P to underline the stressed syllable in the multisyllabic word,

     – say each word in the phrase with exaggerated intensity on the stressed syllable but maintaining accurate articulation of the unstressed words/syllable.

     – P then produces the phrase with appropriate stressing and ensuring that the first word blends with the second word.

3. C presents common 2-word phrases (p. 142) that can be used as commands. Each command should be

     – repeated 2 times with 

     – the second production being produced with increased intensity.

4. C presents P with a list of 2-sentence pairs (p. 142) to be read aloud. 

     – C directs P to read the sentence pairs using increased intensity for the second sentence while varying pitch and rate as appropriate.

     – P then reads the sentence pairs with the increased intensity on the second sentence.

     – P and C discuss the different meanings associated with the variations in the readings.

5. C explains to P the common pattern used in speech in which intensity is louder at the beginning of sentences than at the end. C then provides P with a paragraph (pp. 143-143) which P reads aloud producing each sentence using an exaggerated version of the common pattern.

6. P reads aloud the paragraph from the previous step using a different pattern, In this case, P tries to main the initial intensity level throughout each sentence without producing a monotonous.

7. C provides a new paragraph (p. 143) to P. P reviews the paragraph before reading it aloud and develops a plan for appropriately varying intensity as well as rate and pitch.

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


Holbrook & Israelsen, 2020

August 28, 2020

SECONDARY REVIEW CRITIQUE

KEY:

ASD = autism spectrum disorders

C = clinician

f =  female

m =  male

NA = not applicable

P = patient or participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

SR = Systematic Review

Source: Holbrook, S., & Israelson, M. (2020). Speech prosody interventions for persons with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-19-00127

Reviewer(s): pmh

Date: August 27, 2020

Overall Assigned Grade: The highest grade reflecting overall quality of the evidence presented in this investigation is B due to the design of the investigation—Systematic Review with broad criteria. The Overall Assigned Grade does not reflect a judgment of the effectiveness of the treatments described in the investigation; rather, it represents the quality of the evidence provided by the investigators.

Level of Evidence:  B

Take Away: The results of this investigation provide evidence that prosody of speakers with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) may be treated successfully using selected interventions.

What type of secondary review?  Narrative Systematic Review

  1. Were the results valid? Yes
  • Was the review based on a clinically sound clinical question? Yes
  • Did the reviewers clearly describe reasonable criteria for inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review (i.e., sources)? Yes
  • The authors of the secondary research noted that they reviewed the following resources:

     – hand searches

     – internet based databases

     – references from identified literature

  • Did the sources involve only English language publications? Yes
  • Did the sources include unpublished studies? Yes
  • Was the time frame for the publication of the sources sufficient? Yes
  • Did the authors of the secondary research identify the level of evidence of the sources? Yes
  • Did the authors of the secondary research describe procedures used to evaluate the validity of each of the sources? Yes
  • Was there evidence that a specific, predetermined strategy was used to evaluate the sources?
  • Did the authors of the secondary research or review teams rate the sources independently? Yes
  • Were interrater reliability data provided? Yes _

– Interrater reliability for inclusion of studies = 92.6%

– Interrater reliability for all coding except effect size and calculation = 93.3%

– Interrater reliability for effect size and calculation = 94.6%

– Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

  • Were assessments of sources sufficiently reliable? Yes
  • Was the information provided sufficient for the reader to undertake a replication? Yes
  • Did the sources that were evaluated involve a sufficient number of participants? Yes
  • Were there a sufficient number of sources? Yes

 

  1. Description of outcome measures: (this is a list of the ‘prosody traits’ in one or more of the sources)
  • Outcome #1: Improved overall prosody
  • Outcome #2: Improved intensity
  • Outcome #3: Improved pitch
  • Outcome #4: Improved pauses
  • Outcome #5: Improved rate
  • Outcome #6: Improved contrastive stress
  • Outcome #7: Improved stress
  • Outcome #8: Improved affective intonation

 

  1. Description of results:
  • What measures were used to represent the magnitude of the treatment/effect size?

     – Cohen’s d

     – Hedge’s g

     – Tau U

  • Summary of overall findings of the secondary research: The investigators identified 13 articles that provided adequate (2) or weak (11) evidence of improved prosody in speakers with ASD.
  • Were the results precise? Unclear/Variable
  • If confidence intervals were provided in the sources, did the reviewers consider whether evaluations would have varied if the “true” value of metrics were at the upper or lower boundary of the confidence interval? NA
  • Were the results of individual studies clearly displayed/presented? Yes
  • For the most part, were the results similar from source to source? Yes
  • Were the results in the same direction? No
  • Did a forest plot indicate homogeneity? NA
  • Was heterogeneity of results explored? No
  • Were the findings reasonable in view of the current literature? Yes
  • Were negative outcomes noted? Yes

                                                                                                                   

  1. Were maintenance data reported? Yes

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? Yes

 

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


Fairbanks (1960; Ch.10; Rate)

July 30, 2019

 

 CRITIQUE OF UNSUPPORTED PROCEDURAL DESCRIPTIONS

(also known as Expert Opinion)

NOTE:  Scroll about two-thirds of the way down the page to read a summary of the intervention.

KEY

C =  clinician

NA = not applicable

P =  patient or participant

pmh =  Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

WPM =  words per minute 

Source:   Fairbanks, G. (1960. Ch. 10, Rate)  Voice and articulation drillbook.  New York: Harper & Row.  (pp. 113-118)

Reviewer(s):  pmh

Date: July 24, 2019

Overall Assigned Grade (because there are no supporting data, the highest grade will be F)  The Assigned Overall Grade reflects the quality of the evidence supporting the intervention and does not represent a judgment regarding the quality of the intervention.

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: This chapter of Fairbanks (1960) is concerned with the production of Timing (Tempo). Although Fairbanks notes that rate, rhythm, phrasing, and duration comprise timing, he only focuses on Rate and Rhythm in Chapter 10. This review is concerned  only with Rate Intervention. Fairbanks also reminds readers that prosodic features overlap with one another.   

  1. Was there a review of the literature supporting components of the intervention?  No

  

  1. Were the specific procedures/components of the intervention tied to the reviewed literature?  Not Applicable (NA)

  

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

 

  1. Did the author provide a rationale for components of the intervention? Variable

 

  1. Description of outcome measures:
  • Are outcome measures suggested? Yes

 Outcome #1: Improved words per minute (WPM)

     – Outcome #2: Modification of duration of words (articulation time)

     – Outcome #3: Production of rate appropriate to the communicative context

 

  1. Was generalization addressed? No

 

  1. Was maintenance addressed?

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To improve speaking rate

POPULATION:  Adults

MODALITY TARGETED: Production

 ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED:  Rate, duration of words, timing (tempo) use of rate appropriate to the communicative context

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: Pragmatics (appropriateness to context)

ADMINISTRATOR:  The book is written so that a lay person could use it as a self-help book. Historically, I know of many speech-language pathologists who have used the techniques and the materials in their therapy sessions.    

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

  • Chapter 10 begins with a description of strategies for measuring rate including a data-based rating scale. Fairbanks also differentiated articulation time and pause time in the measurement of time.

TREATMENT PROCEDURES

  • The Participant/Patient (P) reads aloud a 1000 work passage with every 165 section of words marked off. The reading of the passage at 165 wpm is a typical rate for speakers of English and should take about 6 minutes.

–  As P reads aloud the passage, the clinician (C) signals the time at one minute intervals to provide guidance to P.  (P should try to keep the speaking rate at 165 wpm.)

  • Fairbanks notes that speaking can be modified by increasing or decreasing articulation time (word duration) or pause time. Because modifying articulation time is more difficult than modifying pause time, Fairbanks recommends focusing first on articulation time.
  • The C provides a wordlist from Fairbanks (p. 116) and directs P to

    –  Read the words on the list with very short durations.

–  Read the words on the list with average durations.

–  Read the words on the list with long durations.

–  Read each word with a very short duration, an average duration, and then a long duration before proceeding to the next word on the list.

–  Complete the above task with letters of the alphabet.

–  Complete the above task with numbers 1 through 25.

  • CONTEXTUAL VARIATION:

–  P reads a factual passage of 75-100 words for a context described by C that would be appropriate for the production of slow speaking rate (e.g., P is talking to a huge audience or to an audience that is outside). P and/or C calculate P’s speaking rate.

–  P reads a factual passage of 75-100 words for a context described by C that would be appropriate for the production of faster speaking rate (e.g., P is talking to a group of 3 to 5 people within a few feet). P and/or C calculate P’s speaking rate.

–  P reads a factual passage of 75-100 words for a context described by C that would be appropriate for the production of slow speaking rate (e.g., P trying to explain a complicated, novel concept). P and/or C calculate P’s speaking rate.

–  P reads a factual passage of 75-100 words for a context described by C that would be appropriate for the production of a faster speaking rate (e.g., P is talking to a small group of peers and reviewing a concept that is known to the listeners). P and/or C calculate P’s speaking rate.

– C and P compare and contrast C’s production of rate in the different contexts.

–  C provides P with 2 passages:

∞  One passage would likely to be read fast by good readers.

∞  One passage would likely to be read slowly by good readers.

–  C reads both of the above passages aloud with special emphasis on speaking rate.  C and P calculate the rates and discuss C’s performance.

–  The P uses the above procedures while reading poetry instead of a factual passage.

  • EMOTIONAL STATE

–  Fairbanks (1960, p. 117) provided a passage (“There is no other answer. You’ve asked me that question a thousand times and my reply has always been the same. It will always be the same.”)  to be read with each of the emotional states listed below. The times listed in parentheses are norms provided by Fairbanks.

∞ Contempt (12-14 seconds)

∞ Grief (12- 14 seconds)

∞ Anger (6- 8 seconds)

∞ Fear (6 –  8 seconds)

∞ Indifference (6 – 8 seconds)

∞ Amusement

∞ Astonishment

∞ Doubt

∞ Elation

∞ Embarrassment

∞ Jealousy

∞ Love

– NOTE:  P is encouraged to use other aspects of prosody as well as rate when producing the passage with the different emotions.

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


Clark (2016)

January 30, 2019

 

 CRITIQUE OF UNSUPPORTED PROCEDURAL DESCRIPTIONS

KEY

C =  clinician

FtM =  Female to Male

MtF =  Male to Female

NA = not applicable

P =  patient or participant

pmh =  Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

TG =  transgender

Source: Clark, C. J. (2016.) Voice and communication therapy for the transgender or transsexual client: Service delivery and treatment options. Graduate Independent Studies- Communication Sciences and Disorders.  Paper 2.  h8p://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/giscsd/2

Reviewer(s):  pmh

 

Date:  January 25, 2019

 

Overall Assigned Grade:__not graded due to lack of supportingdata

 

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/interpretations. [

 

Take Away:  [This graduate paper contains 2 pamphlets:  one for transgender  (TG) consumers who are seeking speech/voice therapy and one for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) wishing to work with TG individuals. Both pamphlets provide background information and definitions of important terms. For the TG consumer, the author also highlights issues such as finding an SLP, what expect when visiting the SLP, common assessment and treatment practices, as well as common concerns. While the SLP pamphlet also contains information about assessment and treatment it is geared to the professional. The SLP pamphlet also alterts SLPs to social-cultural issues to help clinicians work more efficiently and sensitively with their clients. The pamphlets were concerned with several aspects of communication. This review only focuses on outcomes related to prosody.

 

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

 

  • Thetype of review was Narrative Review which is traditional review of the literature in which an author surveys a topic but does not provide evidence of a priori criteria for literature selection and analysis.

 

 

  1. Were the specific procedures/components of the intervention tied to the reviewed literature? Yes, for a good part of the intervention.
  2. Was the intervention based on clinically sound clinical procedures? Yes

 

 

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

 

 

  1. Description of outcome measures:

 

–  Are outcome measures implied?  Yes

 

–  The following prosodic outcomes were derived from the pamphlets as examples of suitable prosodic outcomes for Female to Male (FtM ) Clients:

 

PITCH OUTCOMES

  • Outcome #1: Improve overall vocal health such as reducing vocal tension to minimize damage from previous “self therapy”

 

  • Outcome #2: Lower speaking fundamental frequency (i.e., pitch) safely to the typical male range 100-150 Hz. (This may even be needed after hormone therapy.)

 

  • Outcome #3: To facilitate lower pitch, increase the use of abdominal/diaphragmatic breathing

 

  • Outcome #4: Increase speaking rate

 

  • Outcome #5: Increase vocal intensity/loudness

 

  • Outcome #6: Decrease the duration of select sounds

 

–  The following prosodic outcomes were derived from the pamphlets as examples of suitable prosodic outcomes for Male to Female (MtF) Clients:

 

  • Outcome #7: Increase speaking fundamental frequency (i.e., pitch.)

 

  • Outcome #8: To facilitate increasing pitch, decrease muscle tension

 

  • Outcome #9: Decrease vocal intensity/loudness

 

  • Outcome #10: Decrease speaking rate

 

  • Outcome #11: Increase the duration of vowels.

 

  • Outcome #12: Increase articulatory precision/overarticulation (concordance)

 

 

  1. Was generalization addressed? Yes.  The author suggested that several of the outcomes be observed in conversational speech.

 

 

  1. Was maintenance addressed? No

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To present pamphlets for potential transgender clients and clinicians working with transgender clients describing concerns, assessment, and treatment of  speech/communication skills.

 

POPULATION: Transgender adults

 

MODALITY TARGETED:  Production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED:  pitch, loudness, rate, pause, duration, concordance

 

DOSAGE: Not provided

 

ADMINISTRATOR:  SLP

 

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • The author described strategies for treating several of the outcome. The recommendations are listed with the targeted outcome.

 

∞ For FtM Clients:

 

  • Outcome #1: Improve overall vocal health such as reducing vocal tension to minimize damage from previous “self therapy”

 

  • Outcome #2: Lower speaking fundamental frequency (i.e., pitch) safely to the typical male range 100-150 Hz. (This may even be needed after hormone therapy.)

– Use vocal exercises to lower pitch

 

  • Outcome #3: To facilitate lower pitch, increase the use of abdominal/diaphragmatic breathing

– The author warned that overuse of easy onsets may increase the perception of feminine speech patterns.

 

  • Outcome #4: Increase speaking rate

– Target oral reading

– Decrease pausing during conversation

 

  • Outcome #5: Increase vocal intensity/loudness

– Target oral reading

 

  • Outcome #6: Decrease the duration of select sounds

     –  No specific recommendations provided.

 

∞  For MtF Clients:

 

  • Outcome #7: Increase speaking fundamental frequency (i.e., pitch.)

– The clinician should identify a safe speaking fundamental frequency that does not tax the client’s physiology

 

  • Outcome #8: To facilitate increasing pitch, decrease muscle tension

– Use tactile and visual cues, relaxation exercises, yawn-sigh techniques,

– Encourage softer, breather phonation

–  Move from isolated sounds, to sentences, to conversation

 

  • Outcome #9: Decrease vocal intensity/loudness

– Clinician explains the difference between the client’s current level and the targeted level.

– Target self-awareness

 

  • Outcome #10: Decrease speaking rate

– Clinician explains the difference between the client’s current level and the targeted level.

– Target self-awareness

 

  • Outcome #11: Increase the duration of vowels.

     –  No specific recommendations provided.

 

  • Outcome #12: Increase articulatory precision/overarticulation (concordance)

–  Replace hard glottal attacks with easy onsets

–  Increase articulatory precision using light contacts and delicate contacts wit articulatory.

–  Move from isolated sounds, to words, to phrases, to sentences, to conversation.


Hutchinson (2015)

October 17, 2018

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Single Case Design

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

Key:

ASD =  Autism Spectrum Disorders

C =  Clinician

EBP =  evidence-based practice

F0=  Fundamental frequency (F0)

HFA =  High Functioning Autism

NA =  not applicable

P =  Patient or Participant

pmh =  Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

PVSP =  Prosody Voice Screening Profile (PVSP)

SLP =  speech–language pathologist

WNL =  within normal limits

 

SOURCE:  Hutchison, A. K. (2015).  Aprosodia therapy: The impact on affective prosody in a child with High Functioning Autism. Thesis from the Arkansas State University  December 2015.  ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2015.Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/2cfdd684ebaf87963fb69a1012b3e7ac/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

 

REVIEWER(S):  pmh

 

DATE:  October 9, 2018

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE: D (The highest Assigned Overall Grade is based on the design of the investigation. In this case, the design was a Single Case investigation with the highest possible grade being D+.  The Assigned Overall Grade in not a judgment about the quality of the intervention; it is an evaluation of the quality of the evidence supporting the intervention.)

 

TAKE AWAY:  This single case investigation provides support for the use of an imitative approach to improve the expressive affective prosody of a 14-year-old male who had been diagnosed with High Functioning Autism.  Outcomes associated with the participant’s (P’s) production of fundamental frequency (f0) did not change significantly. Outcomes associated with P’s production of duration and intensity changed significantly for the signaling of Anger and Sadness but not Happiness. Subjective Outcomes associated with the production of Phrasing, Rate, and Stress significantly improved.

 

 

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

 

 

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

Level =  D     

 

 

  1. Was phase of treatment concealed?
  • from participants? No
  • from clinicians?No
  • from data analyzers?No

 

 

  1. Was the participant (P) adequately described? Yes

–  How many Ps were involved in the study? 1

 

 CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS

  • age:between the ages of 8 years and 15 years
  • language:verbal and nonverbal skills within normal limits (WNL)
  • cognitive skills:WNL
  • diagnosis:Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) but not Asperger syndrome:
  • physical or sensory impairment:none
  • prosody:disturbance noted

 

–  DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

  • age:14 years
  • gender:male
  • cognitive skills:WNL
  • language skills:WNL
  • hearing acuity:WNL
  • oral-peripheral skills:WNL

 

– Were the communication problems adequately described?  Yes

  • Disorder type:ASD, High Functioning Autism (HFA)
  • Other aspects of communication that were described:

–  stereotypical behaviors

–  communication problems

–  social interaction problems

–  prosodic problems:

  • phrasing (slight)
  • rate (slight)
  • stress

–  prosodic strengths

  • pitch
  • loudness
  • voice

 

 

  1. Was membership in treatment maintained throughout the study?Yes, there was only one P.
  • Were any data removed from the study? No

 

 

  1. Did the design include appropriate controls? No, this was a case study
  • Were preintervention data collected on all behaviors?Yes
  • Did preintervention data include untrained stimuli?Yes
  • Did preintervention data include trained stimuli?Yes
  • Was the data collection continuous? No
  • Were different treatment counterbalanced or randomized? Not Applicable (NA), there was only one treatment.

 

 

  1. Were the outcome measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

ACOUSTIC MEASURES

  • OUTCOME #1:Fundamental frequency (F0) of imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #2:F0of imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #3: F0of imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Duration of imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #5: Duration of imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #6: Duration of imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention

 

  • OUTCOME #7: Duration of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #8: Duration of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #9:Duration of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention

 

  • OUTCOME #10: Duration of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #11: Duration of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #12:Duration of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention

 

  • OUTCOME #13: Intensity of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #14: Intensity of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #15:Intensity of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention

 

  • OUTCOME #16:Intensity of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #17: Intensity of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #198: Intensity of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention

 

PERCEPTUAL MEASURES

  • OUTCOME #19: Changes in the judgment of Phrasing of 25 spontaneous utterances on the Prosody Voice Screening Profile (PVSP) from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #20:Changes in the judgment of Rate of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #21:Changes in the judgment of Stress of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #22:Changes in the judgment of Quality of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention – 100% at preintervention
  • OUTCOME #23: Changes in the judgment of Pitch of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention– 100% at preintervention
  • OUTCOME #24:Changes in the judgment of Loudness of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention– 100% at preintervention

 

 

–  The subjective outcomes are

  • OUTCOME #19: Changes in the judgment of Phrasing of 25 spontaneous utterances on the Prosody Voice Screening Profile (PVSP) from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #20:Changes in the judgment of Rate of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #21:Changes in the judgment of Stress of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #22:Changes in the judgment of Quality of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention – 100% at preintervention
  • OUTCOME #23: Changes in the judgment of Pitch of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention– 100% at preintervention
  • OUTCOME #24:Changes in the judgment of Loudness of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention– 100% at preintervention

 

–  The objective outcomes are

  • OUTCOME #1:Fundamental frequency (F0) of imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #2:F0of imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #3: Fundamental frequency (F0) of imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Duration of imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #5: Duration of imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #6: Duration of imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention

 

  • OUTCOME #7: Duration of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #8: Duration of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #9:Duration of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention

 

  • OUTCOME #10: Duration of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #11: Duration of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #12:Duration of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention

 

  • OUTCOME #13: Intensity of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #14: Intensity of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #15:Intensity of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention

 

  • OUTCOME #16:Intensity of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #17: Intensity of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention
  • OUTCOME #18: Intensity of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention

 

–  Reliability Data:

  • The investigator provided some intraobserver (but not interobserver) reliability data. The metric involved remeasuring 10% of the samples for fo. duration, and stress. The investigator then noted the difference in the original and the reliability measurements

∞  F0differed by 0.97 Hz (Outcomes 1 to 3)

∞  Duration of full sentences differed by 20 ms (Outcomes 4-6)

∞  Duration of unstressed syllables differed by 4.96 ms (Outcomes 7-9)

∞  Duration of stressed syllables differed by 2.67 ms  (Outcomes 10-12)

∞  Intensity of unstressed syllables differed by 0.02 volts (Outcomes 13-15)

∞  Intensity of stressed syllables differed by 0.013 volts (Outcomes 16-18)

 

 

  1. Results:

–  Did the target behavior(s) improve when treated? Yes, for the most part, although the fooutcomes did not improve significantly.

 

ACOUSTIC MEASURES

  • OUTCOME #1:Fundamental frequency (F0) of imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post interventionNo significant difference; ineffective
  • OUTCOME #2:F0of imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention- No significant difference; ineffective
  • OUTCOME #3: Fundamental frequency (F0) of imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention– No significant difference; ineffective

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Duration of imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention – Significant Difference;  moderate improvement
  • OUTCOME #5: Duration of imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention – Significant Difference;  moderate improvement
  • OUTCOME #6: duration of imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention – Significant Difference;  moderate improvement

 

  • OUTCOME #7: Duration of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention – No significant difference; ineffective
  • OUTCOME #8: Duration of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention – No significant difference; ineffective
  • OUTCOME #9:Duration of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention – Significant Difference;  moderate

 

  • OUTCOME #10: Duration of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention – No significant difference; ineffective
  • OUTCOME #11:Duration of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention – Significant Difference;  moderate improvement
  • OUTCOME #12:Duration of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention – Significant Difference;  moderate improvement

 

  • OUTCOME #13: Intensity of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention – No significant difference; ineffective
  • OUTCOME #14: Intensity of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention –  Significant Difference;  strong improvement
  • OUTCOME #15:Intensity of unstressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention –  Significant Difference; strong improvement

 

  • OUTCOME #16:Intensity of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Happiness changes from preintervention to post intervention – No significant difference; ineffective
  • OUTCOME #17: Intensity of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Anger changes from preintervention to post intervention – Significant Difference;  strong improvement
  • OUTCOME #18: Intensity of stressed syllables in imitative sentences representing the emotion Sadness changes from preintervention to post intervention – Significant Difference;  strong improvement

 

PERCEPTUAL MEASURES

  • OUTCOME #19: Changes in the judgment of Phrasing of 25 spontaneous utterances on the Prosody Voice Screening Profile (PVSP) from preintervention to post intervention—preintervention = 12% correct , post intervention = 100% correct; strong improvement
  • OUTCOME #20: Changes in the judgment of Rate of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention —preintervention = 16% correct , post intervention = 84% correct; moderate improvement  
  • OUTCOME #21:Changes in the judgment of Stress of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention —preintervention = 56% correct, 84% post intervention =  84% correct; moderate improvement  
  • OUTCOME #22:Changes in the judgment of Quality of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention – 100% at preintervention; not considered a treatment outcome
  • OUTCOME #23: Changes in the judgment of Pitch of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention– 100% at preintervention; not considered a treatment outcome
  • OUTCOME #24:Changes in the judgment of Loudness of 25 spontaneous utterances on the PVSP from preintervention to post intervention– 100% at preintervention; not considered a treatment outcome

 

 

  1. Description of baseline:
  • Were preintervention data provided?Yes. But the  preintervention data for all outcomes  were generated with only one data point.

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significance? NA

 

 

  1. Was information about treatment fidelity adequate? NA

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported?No

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported?Yes
  • Performance on the PVSP (see item 8b- Perceptual Measures) could be considered generalization data because the PVSP was derived from spontaneous samples and spontaneous speech was not the focus of the intervention.
  • Changes in the 3 PVSP outcomes that were used in the pre- and post- intervention comparisons ranged from moderate to strong improvement. (NOTE: The three other PVSP outcomes were not included in the pre-and post- intervention comparisons because preintervention performance was 100% correct. )

 

 

  1. Brief description of the design:
  • A single P, who was diagnosed as having High Functioning Autism, was administered 10 weeks of therapy.
  • Prior to (preintervention) and after (post intervention), the investigator collected the same measurements from the P.
  • For the most part, the investigator compared the measures using the parametric statistic the paired sample t-test.

 

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE OF THE QUALITY OF SUPPORT FOR THE INTERVENTION:  D-

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE:  To improve the production of affective prosody.

 

POPULATION:   ASD (HFA); children

 

MODALITY TARGETED:  production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED:  affect, stress, intensity, fo, duration/rate, phrasing

 

DOSAGE:   1 hour sessions; 1 time a week; 10 weeks

 

ADMINISTRATOR:  Graduate Student in SLP

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

  • The intervention (The Imitative Approach) contained 6 steps in which the clinician (C) initially provided maximal cues and gradually faded the cues.
  • Three consecutive correct responses were required to move from one step to the next.

 

STEP 1:

  • C identifies target affect (happy, sad, angry, or neutral) and the P’s task.
  • C directs P to listen and she models a written sentence using the target emotion.
  • C and P repeat the target sentence with the targeted emotion together (in unison.),

 

STEP 2:

  • C models the target written sentence with the appropriate prosody and facial expression.
  • C directs P to produce the modeled sentence and affect.
  • Correct response = correct sentence and prosody (appropriate facial expression is not required).

 

STEP 3:

  • C models the target written sentence with the appropriate prosody.C covers his/her face thus obstructing the P’s view of her facial expression.

 

STEP 4:

  • C presents a sentence with a neutral prosody and directs the P to imitate the sentence with a targeted prosody (i.e., happy, sad, or angry).

 

STEP 5:

  • C asks a question designed to elicit the target written sentence with a specific affect.
  • For example, to elicit a happy(or sad or angry) affect for the target written sentence “The fair starts tomorrow,“ C asks “Why are you so happy (or sad or angry?”)

 

STEP 6:

  • Using the same target written sentence, the C directs a role playing task in which the P shares a targeted affective/ emotional state with a family member.

 

 

 


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.

 

 


Martens et al. (2015)

November 30, 2015

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Treatment Groups

 

 

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

 

Key:

C = Clinician

EBP = evidence-based practice

f = female

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

Fo-max median= median maximum fundamental frequency

m = male

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech–language pathologist

SPRINT therapy = speech rate and intonation therapy

 

 

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

 

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: November 23, 2015

 

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

 

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

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

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

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

 

                                                                                                           

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

 

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

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 

How many Ps were involved in the study?

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

 

The P characteristics that were controlled included

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

 

The P characteristics that were described included

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

 

Were the groups similar before intervention began? NA

                                                         

–  Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes

  • disorder type: hypokinetic dysarthria
  • functional level:

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

– sentence intelligibility ranged from 64% to 90%

 

 

  1. Was membership in groups maintained throughout the study?

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

Were data from outliers removed from the study? No

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? NA

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

–   The outcomes (dependent variables) were

 

PERCEPTUAL MEAURES:

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

 

AUTOMATED MEASURES:

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

 

ACOUSTIC MEASURES:

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

 

– The outcome measures that are subjective are

 

PERCEPTUAL MEAURES:

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

 

 

– The objective outcome measures are

 

AUTOMATED MEASURES:

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

 

ACOUSTIC MEASURES:

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

 

                                         

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

– Interobserver for analyzers? Yes

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

– Pre-treatment Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.831

– Post-treatment Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.933

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

– Intraobserver for analyzers? Yes

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

– Pre-treatment Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.935

– Post-treatment Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.799

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

– Pre-treatment Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.998

– Post-treatment Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.997

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

– Treatment fidelity for clinicians? Yes

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

 

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT RESULTS

 

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

 

PRE AND POST TREATMENT ONLY ANALYSES

(only the Outcomes that achieved significance are listed)

 

PERCEPTUAL MEASURES:

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

 

AUTOMATED MEASURES:

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

 

ACOUSTIC MEASURES:

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

 

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

 

– Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significance

– What measure was used? Nonparametric Effect Size

 

– Results of EBP testing and the interpretation:

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

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

If yes, summarize findings:

 

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

 

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

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: C+

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

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

 

POPULATION: Parkinson’s disease, hypokinetic dysarthria

 

MODALITY TARGETED: expression

 

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

 

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

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: intelligibility

 

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

 

ADMINISTRATOR: master’s students in speech-language pathology

 

STIMULI: auditory, rhythmic gestures (hand tapping)

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

  • Cs followed a protocol that specified

– intervention dosage

– content

– hierarchy of intervention steps

– feedback strategies

 

  • Major focus:

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

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

 

  • Rate reduction procedures:

– C instructed P to reduce rate by half.

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

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

 

  • Final syllable contrasts for statements versus questions:

– C directed P to

– produce questions with a rising terminal contour

– produce statements with a falling terminal contour

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

 

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

 

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

 

  • SPRINT therapy also involves massed practice.

 

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

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.

Yorkston et al. (1990)

January 4, 2015

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Comparison Learning Research

 

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

KEY:

C = clinician(s)

P = participant(s)

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

wpm = words per minute

 

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

 REVIEWER(S): pmh

DATE: January 3, 2015

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

                                                                                                           

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

                                                                    

    3.  Were experimental conditions concealed?

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

                                                                   

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 How many participants were involved in the study?

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

  The following variables were described or controlled:

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

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

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

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

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

     – TS group – no reported speech disorder

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

– H group – all hypokinetic

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

Subject (Classification) Groups?

– A group

– H group

– TS group                                                               

Experimental Conditions?

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

– Additive Metered (AM

– Additive Rhythmic (AR)

– Cued Metered (CM)

– Cued Rhythmic (CR)

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes

  

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes                                                                                                      

The dependent measures

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

The dependent measures that are subjective are

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

The dependent/ outcome measures that are objective are

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

                                       

  1. Were reliability measures provided? Yes, some.

Interobserver for analyzers? Yes

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

– Overall average range = 8.9%

– Average range for consonants = 9.6%

– Average range for vowels = 17.9%

 

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

 

Intraobserver for analyzers?   Yes

  • Measure #4: Speech naturalness:

– A group = 88%

– H group = 91%

– I group = 89%

 

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

  

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

– Additive Metered (AM)

– Additive Rhythmic (AR)

– Cued Metered (CM)

– Cued Rhythmic (CR)

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

  • Measure #3: Phoneme intelligibility

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

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

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

  • Measure #4: Speech naturalness

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: ___C-__

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES

 

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

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

 

MODALITY TARGETED: expression

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: rate

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: rate, rhythm

 

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

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

 

GENERAL PROCEDURE:

 

  • There were 4 rate control strategies:

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

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

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

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

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

Ziegler et al. (2010)

July 7, 2014

SECONDARY REVIEW CRITIQUE
Notes:
1. To view description of procedures, scroll about two-thirds of the way down on the page.
2. Key: C = Clinician; P = Participant or Patient; pmh = Patricia Hargrove

Source: Ziegler, W., Aichert. I., & Staiger, A. (2010). Syllable- and rhythm-based approaches in the treatment of apraxia of speech. Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders, 20, 59-66. doi:10.1044/nnsld20.3.59

Reviewer(s): pmh

Date: July 6, 2014

Overall Assigned Grade: D- d

Level of Evidence: D

Take Away: Evidence from learning studies and intervention studies concerned with procedures for improving the speech sound production of speakers with apraxia (AOS) are reviewed. Only the procedure concerned with using prosody (naturalistic rhythmic cueing) is described in this critique. Speech sounds, rate, and fluency improved following the intervention.
What type of secondary review? Narrative Review

1. Were the results valid? Yes

a. Was the review based on a clinically sound clinical question? Yes
b. Did the reviewers clearly describe reasonable criteria for inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review (i.e., sources)? Yes
c. Authors noted that they reviewed the following resources: The authors did not describe the search strategy.
d. Did the sources involve only English language publications? No
e. Did the sources include unpublished studies? Yes
f. Was the time frame for the publication of the sources sufficient? Yes
g. Did the reviewers identify the level of evidence of the sources? No
h. Did the reviewers describe procedures used to evaluate the validity of each of the sources? No
i. Was there evidence that a specific, predetermined strategy was used to evaluate the sources? No
j. Did the reviewers or review teams rate the sources independently? No
k. Were interrater reliability data provided? No
l. If the reviewers provided interrater reliability data, list them: NA
m. If there were no interrater reliability data, was an alternate means to insure reliability described? Not Applicable
n. Were assessments of sources sufficiently reliable? Not Applicable
o. Was the information provided sufficient for the reader to undertake a replication? No
p. Did the sources that were evaluated involve a sufficient number of participants? Variable
q. Were there a sufficient number of sources? No

2. Description of outcome measures:
• Outcomes Associated with Procedure #1—Metrical Pacing Therapy (MPT; Brendel & Ziegler, 2008): segmental errors, rate, and fluency (p.64)

3. Description of results:
a. What evidence-based practice (EBP) measures were used to represent the magnitude of the treatment/effect size? NA

b. Summary of the overall findings of the secondary review:
• Rhythm intervention for AOS can improve not only rate and fluency but also speech sounds.
• Specifically,
— for speech sound errors–MPT improved significantly but not significantly better than the control (traditional treatment) group,
— for rate—MPT significantly improved and was significantly better than the control group
— for fluency— MPT significantly improved and was significantly better than the control group

c. Were the results precise? No
d. If confidence intervals were provided in the sources, did the reviewers consider whether evaluations would have varied if the “true” value of metrics were at the upper or lower boundary of the confidence interval? Not Applicable
e. Were the results of individual studies clearly displayed/presented? Yes
f. For the most part, were the results similar from source to source? Not Applicable, only one study reviewed.
g. Were the results in the same direction? Not Applicable, only one study reviewed.
h. Did a forest plot indicate homogeneity? Not Applicable
i. Was heterogeneity of results explored? Not Applicable, only one study reviewed.
j. Were the findings reasonable in view of the current literature? Yes
k. Were negative outcomes noted? No

4. Were maintenance data reported? No. However, the authors of the review noted that the investigators in the reviewed source explored maintenance.

5. Were generalization data reported? No

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

Population: Apraxia of Speech; Adults

Prosodic Targets: rate, fluency

Nonprosodic Targets: speech sound errors

Aspects of Prosody Used in Treatment of Nonprosodic Targets: rhythm, rate

Description of Metrical Pacing Therapy (MPT; Brendel & Ziegler, 2008)
• Using earphones C presented rhythmic sequences representing typical speaking rhythms (i.e., templates).
• P listened to the rhythms using earphones.
• P then produced target words or phrases (depending on the functional level of the P) in unison with the rhythms from the earphones.
• P received visual feedback with an visual acoustical representation of the acoustics of both the template and P’s production.
• C modified the targets based on each P’s skills with respect to rate as well as the length and complexity.

Evidence Supporting MPT Procedure
— for speech sound errors–MPT improved significantly but not significantly better than the control (traditional treatment) group,
— for rate—MPT significantly improved and was significantly better than the control group
— for fluency— MPT significantly improved and was significantly better than the control group

Evidence Contraindicating MPT: none