Staples et al., 2009

January 17, 2019

 

EBP THERAPY ANALYSIS

Treatment Groups

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

 Key:

C = Clinician

CAS = Childhood Apraxia of Speech

EBP = evidence-based practice

Level II stimuli =  vowels that varied  and stable consonants (e.g., /pa pi pe pu/; derived from Table 3 of the manuscript, p.12.)

Level III (Treatment stimuli) =  plosives that varied and vowels that were stable (e.g., /pa bada ga/; see Table 3 of the manuscript, p. 12.)

Level III (with fricatives) =  fricatives that varied and vowels that were stable (e.g., /za va∫a sa/; derived from Table 3 of the manuscript, p. 12.)

Level IV = both consonants and vowels vary (e.g., /ba di pe gu/; derived from Table 3 of the manuscript, p.12.)

NA = not applicable

P = Patient or Participant

PCC = Percent Consonants Correct

PPT =  Percent Pause Time

PVC = Percent Vowels Correct

pmh =  Patricia  Hargrove, blog developer

Retention Phase 1 =  comparison of baseline to 1 week post treatment

Retention Phase 2 =  comparison of end of treatment to 1 week post treatment

Retention Phase 3 =  comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

Retention Phase 4 =  comparison of end of treatment to 6 months post treatment

Retention Phase 5 =  comparison of 1 week post treatment to 6 months post

treatment

SD = standard deviations

SLP = speech–language pathologist

SS = Standard Score

Treatment Phase =  comparison of baseline to the end of treatment

WNL = within normal limits

 

SOURCE:  Staples, T., McCabe, P., MacDonald, J., & Ballard. K. J. (2009). A polysyllabic non-word treatment for Childhood Apraxia of Speech incorporating key principles of motor learning. Unpublished manuscript.  For access to manuscript see Patricia McCabe’s publications on ResearchGate (rearchgate.net)

 

REVIEWER:   pmh

 

DATE: January 17, 2019

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY:  B- The highest possible grade associated with this design is B-. The grade should not be interpreted as a judgment about the quality or the effectiveness of the treatment, rather it reflects the quality of support for the intervention.

 

TAKE AWAY: This manuscript presents early research in the development of an approach to treating childhood apraxia of speech (CA). Although the results of the investigation presents minimal support for the intervention, the investigation is remarkable because it an initial part of the body of the literature supporting the invention. This body of literature can serve as a model for research on treatment effectiveness. The investigators measured treatment, maintenance, generalization, and control outcomes to assess the effectiveness of the intervention.

 

 

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

                                                                                                           

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

 

                                                                                                           

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

 

 

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

                                                                    

 

  1. Was the group adequately described? Yes

–  How many Ps were involved in the study?

  • total # of Ps:  8
  • # of groups:1

           

–  CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS:

  • first language of parent:at least 1 parent spoke English as a first language
  • language spoken at home:English
  • receptive language:no more than 2 standard deviations (SD) below the

       mean

  • hearing:within normal limits (WNL)
  • diagnosis:Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS)
  • other diagnoses that could account for CAS:none

 

–DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS:

  • age:at first assessment,  44 months to 82 months
  • gender: 7m, 1f
  • expressive language:standard score (SS), 70 to 100 (one P score was not calculated)
  • receptive language:standard score (SS), 83 to 115
  • percent consonants correct (PCC) in connected speech:53% to 86%(one P score was not calculated)
  • percent inconsistency:40% to 84%
  • Single word accuracy percentile:1 %ile to 38 %ile

                                                         

–  Were the communication problems adequately described?  Yes

  • disorder type: Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS)

 

 

  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

No  ___     Unclear  ____     NA _______

 

 

  1. Were the outcomes measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

  • OUTCOME #1:Percentage Consonants Correct (PCC) in Level III Treated Items(Treatment outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #2: PCC in polysyllabic words (Generalization outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #3: PCC in Level II items  (Generalization outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #4:PCC in connected speech   (Treatment outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #5: PCC in Level III Untreated Items  (Control Outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #6:PCC in Level IV items (Control Outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #7:Percentage Vowel Correct (PVC) in Level III Treated Items

 

  • OUTCOME #8: PVC in polysyllabic words  (Generalization Outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #9: PVC in Level II items

 

  • OUTCOME #10:PVC in connected speech Level III Untreated Items

 

  • OUTCOME #11: PVC  in Level IV items (Control Outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #12:Number ofStrings or words correct  in Level III Treated Items (Treatment Outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #13:Number ofStrings or words correct in polysyllabic words (Generalization Outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #14: Number ofStrings or words correct  in Level II Items (Generalization Outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #15:Number ofStrings or words correct  in Level III Untreated Items (Control Outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #16:Number ofStrings or words correct  in Level IV (Control Outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #17:Percentage of Pause Time (PPT) for Level III Treated Items (Treatment Outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #18:PPT for polysyllabic words (Generalization Outcome)

 

  • OUTCOME #19:Percentile rank on the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation with a comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #20:Polysyllables Test (Percentage) with a comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #21:Adult Apraxia Battery rating with a comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #22:Children’s Nonword Repetition Test with a comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #23:Core Language Score on CELF P2 (Standard Score, Ss) with a comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #24:PIPA Syllable Segmentation Subtest (SS) with a comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

 

–  All of the Outcomes except Outcomes 17 and 18are subjective.

 

 The following outcome measures are objective

  • OUTCOME #17:Percentage of Pause Time (PPT) for Level III Treated Items
  • OUTCOME #18:PPT for polysyllabic words

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

 Interobserver for analyzers?  Yes

  • single word phonetic transcription = 81.8%
  • connected speech = 81.8%

 

–  Intraobserver for analyzers?  Yes

  • single word phonetic transcription = 88.3%
  • connected speech = 89.7%

 

–  Treatment fidelity for clinicians?  Yes

  • Varied for all treatment session between 73% and 100%.

 

 

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

 

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

 

NOTE:   Each of the outcomes could be compared in several ways:

–  Treatment Phase =  comparison of baseline to the end of treatment

–   Retention Phase 1 =  comparison of baseline to 1 week post treatment

–   Retention Phase 2 =  comparison of end of treatment to 1 week post

treatment

–  Retention Phase 3 =  comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

–  Retention Phase 4 =  comparison of end of treatment to 6 months post

treatment

–  Retention Phase 5 =  comparison of 1 week post treatment to 6 months post

treatment

 

PRE AND POST TREATMENT ANALYSES

 

OVERVIEW

  • If one attends to only the measures that yielded significant differences from Baseline to the End of Treatment (i.e., the Treatment Phase) the results were not impressive.

 

  • However, some measures that did not show significant difference immediately after treatment, yielded significant differences from baseline to 6 months after treatment, suggesting a delayed effect. These measures were

– Strings Correct for Level II (Generalization Outcome; Outcome #14)

– Word Correct for Polysyllable Words (Generalization Outcome; Outcome

#13)

 

OUTCOMES

 

  • OUTCOME #1:Percentage Consonants Correct (PCC) in Level III Treated Items(Treatment outcome.)  None of the comparisons between the phases were significantly different.

 

  • OUTCOME #2: PCC in polysyllabic words (Generalization outcome.) The following comparisons were significantly difference:

–   Treatment Phase=  comparison of baseline to 1 week post treatment

–   Retention Phase 5 =  comparison of 1 week post treatment to 6 months post treatment  (in this case, the 6 month post PCC was lower than the 1 week post treatment score)

 

  • OUTCOME #3: PCC in Level II items  (Generalization outcome.)  The following comparisons were significantly difference:

–  Treatment Phase=  comparison of baseline to 1 week post treatment (in this case, the 6 week post PCC was lower than the 1 week post treatment score)

–  Retention Phase 5 =  comparison of 1 week post treatment to 6 months post treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #4:PCC in connected speech   (Treatment outcome) None of the comparisons between the phases were significantly different.

 

  • OUTCOME #5: PCC in Level III Untreated Items  (Control Outcome)

None of the comparisons between the phases were significantly different.

 

  • OUTCOME #6:PCC in Level IV items (Control Outcome.) The following comparisons were significantly difference:

–   Treatment Phase =  comparison of baseline to 1 week post treatment (in

this case, the 1 week post PCC was lower than the baseline PCC)

–   Retention Phase 1 =  comparison of baseline to 6 weeks post treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #7:Percentage Vowel Correct (PVC) in Level III Treated Items.  The following comparisons were significantly difference:

–  Treatment Phase =  comparison of baseline to the end of treatment

–  Retention Phase 4 =  comparison of end of treatment to 6 months post

treatment  (that is, PVC lower at end of the 6 months compared to the

PVC at the end of treatment, indicating lack of maintenance)

 

  • OUTCOME #8: PVC in polysyllabic words (Generalization Outcome.) The following comparisons were significantly difference:

None of the comparisons between the phases were significantly different.

 

  • OUTCOME #9: PVC in Level II items (Generalization Outcome.) The following comparisons were significantly difference:

–  Retention Phase 4 =  comparison of end of treatment to 6 months post

treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #10:PVC in connected speech Level III Untreated Items (Generalization Outcome.) The following comparisons were significantly difference:

–  Treatment Phase =  comparison of baseline to the end of treatment

– Retention Phase 4 =  comparison of end of treatment to 6 months post

treatment  (PVC lower at end of the 6 months compared to the PVC at

the end of treatment)

 

  • OUTCOME #11: PVC  in Level IV items (Control Outcome.) The following comparisons were significantly difference:

–  Treatment Phase =  comparison of baseline to the end of treatment

–   Retention Phase 1 =  comparison of baseline to 1 week post treatment

(PVC lower 1 week after treatment ended compared to the PVC at

baseline)

 

  • OUTCOME #12:Number ofStrings or words correct  in Level III Treated Items (Treatment Outcome)  None of the comparisons between the phases were significantly different.

 

  • OUTCOME #13:Number ofStrings or words correct in polysyllabic words (Generalization Outcome)

None of the comparisons between the phases were significantly different.

 

  • OUTCOME #14: Number ofStrings or words correct  in Level II Items (Generalization Outcome.) The following comparisons were significantly difference:

–  Retention Phase 3 =  comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #15:Number ofStrings or words correct  in Level III Untreated Items (Control Outcome.) None of the comparisons between the phases were significantly different.

 

  • OUTCOME #16:Number ofStrings or words correct  in Level IV (Control Outcome.) None of the comparisons between the phases were significantly different.

 

  • OUTCOME #17:Percentage of Pause Time (PPT) for Level III Treated Items (Treatment Outcome.)  The following comparisons were significantly difference:

–  Retention Phase 5 =  comparison of 1 week post treatment to 6 months post

treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #18:PPT for polysyllabic words (Generalization Outcome.) The following comparisons were significantly difference:

–  Retention Phase 3 =  comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

–  Retention Phase 5 =  comparison of 1 week post treatment to 6 months post

treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #19:Percentile rank on the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation with a comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

This comparison did not reach statistical significance.

 

  • OUTCOME #20:Polysyllables Test (Percentage) with a comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

This comparison did not reach statistical significance.

 

  • OUTCOME #21:Adult Apraxia Battery rating with a comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

This comparison was not analyzed statistically.

 

  • OUTCOME #22:Children’s Nonword Repetition Test with a comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

This comparison was not analyzed statistically; however, the level of severity decreased for 5 of the 7 remaining Ps.

 

  • OUTCOME #23:Core Language Score on CELF P2 (Standard Score, Ss) with a comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

This comparison did not reach statistical significance.

 

  • OUTCOME #24:PIPA Syllable Segmentation Subtest (SS) with a comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment. This measure was significantly different from baseline to 6 months post treatment.

 

–  What was the statistical test used to determine significance?  t-test

 

–  Were confidence interval (CI) provided?  No

 

 

  1. What is the clinical significanceNot provided.

 

 

  1. Were maintenance data reported? Yes.  The investigation provided several indicators of retention of progress. Maintenance was assessed several times:

– Baseline to 1 Week after treatment

– End of treatment to 1 week after treatment

– Baseline to 6 months after treatment

– End of treatment to 6 months after treatment

–  1 week to 6 months after treatment

Some measures yielded significant differences from baseline to 6 months after treatment, suggesting a delayed effect. These measures were

– Strings Correct for Level II (Generalization Outcome; Outcome #14)

– Word Correct for Polysyllable Words (Generalization Outcome; Outcome

#13)

 

  1. Were generalization data reported?Yes
  • Three of the outcomes were concerned with Generalization to untreated stimuli: Level II items, Polysyllabic Words, and Connected Speech for the measures of measures PCC, PVC, Words Correct. The results of these analyses yielded the following significant differences:

 

  • OUTCOME #2: PCC in polysyllabic words (Generalization outcome).

–   Treatment Phase=  comparison of baseline to 1 week post treatment

–   Retention Phase 5 =  comparison of 1 week post treatment to 6 months post treatment  (in this case, the 6 month post PCC was lower than the 1 week post treatment score)

 

  • OUTCOME #3: PCC in Level II items  (Generalization outcome)

–  Treatment Phase=  comparison of baseline to 1 week post treatment (in this case, the 6 week post PCC was lower than the 1 week post treatment score)

–  Retention Phase 5 =  comparison of 1 week post treatment to 6 months post treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #8: PVC in polysyllabic words  (Generalization Outcome)

None of the comparisons between the phases were significantly different.

 

  • OUTCOME #9: PVC in Level II items (Generalization Outcome)

–  Retention Phase 4 =  comparison of end of treatment to 6 months post

treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #10:PVC in connected speech Level III Untreated Items (Generalization Outcome)

–  Treatment Phase =  comparison of baseline to the end of treatment

–  Retention Phase 4 =  comparison of end of treatment to 6 months post

treatment (PVC lower at end of the 6 months compared to the PVC at

the end of treatment)

 

  • OUTCOME #13:Number ofStrings or words correct in polysyllabic words (Generalization Outcome)

None of the comparisons between the phases were significantly different.

 

  • OUTCOME #14: Number ofStrings or words correct  in Level II Items (Generalization Outcome)

–  Retention Phase 3 =  comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

 

  • OUTCOME #18:PPT for polysyllabic words (Generalization Outcome)

–  Retention Phase 3 =  comparison of baseline to 6 months post treatment

–  Retention Phase 5 =  comparison of 1 week post treatment to 6 months post

treatment

 

 

  1. Describe briefly the experimental design of the investigation.

 

  • The investigators explored the effectiveness of their intervention with 8 children (7 children completed the intervention.)

 

  • The children were assessed on the targeted measures at the following times:

–  before intervention (baseline)

–  at the end of the intervention

–  1 week post intervention

–  6 months post intervention

 

  • The investigators explored effectiveness by comparing child performance for the measures at the following times:

–  baseline to the end of the intervention

–  baseline to 1 week post intervention

–  end of the intervention to 1 week post intervention

–  baseline to 6 months post intervention

–  end of treatment to 6 months post intervention

–  1 week post intervention to 6 months post intervention

 

–  Overall, there were approximately 116 statistical comparisons, approximately 15%   of the comparisons were significantly different.

 

 

ASSIGNED OVERALL GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:  C+

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

PURPOSE: To explore the effectiveness of the application of elements of motor learning to the speech of children with CAS.

 

POPULATION:  Childhood Apraxia of Speech; Children

 

MODALITY TARGETED:  production

 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED:  pause

 

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION: stress, concordance

 

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED:  articulation, performance on formal tests, language measures, phonological awareness, syllable segmentation

 

DOSAGE:  10 one-hour individual sessions within 3 weeks

 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

 

Purpose

  • The purpose of this intervention was to improve transitions between syllables (concordance.)

 

Stimuli

  • The intervention stimuli were 4-syllable CV nonsense strings consisting of plosives that varied and vowels that were stable (e.g., /pa bada ga/; see Table 3, Level III [Treatment Level] of the manuscript p. 12.)

 

  • Generalization stimuli consisted of 10 polysyllabic real words and language samples collected during play.

 

Underlying Principles

  • The intervention was based on 3 underlying principles:

– Target complexity –  Targets were complex

– Practice –  Practice was intense (frequent and at a high level) with the targets presented in random order

– Feedback –  Feedback was random. Any feedback that was provided, occurred 3 seconds after the participant’s (P’s) response.

 

Treatment Task

  • P imitated the clinician (C’s) production of treatment level (Level III) strings of syllables.

 

Structure of Sessions

  • Pre-Practice Component –the administrator provided feedback at a high rate to the P for 10 minutes.
  • Practice Component—The P completed 100 trials involving the imitation of the C.Each trial involved a set of 10 4-syllable CV nonsense strings.; therefore, each P imitated 1000 targets during this component.

 

Follow up Sessions

  • The investigators offered “review” sessions 1 week and 6months after the ending of treatment to collect retention data.

_______________________________________________________________

 

 


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.

 

 

 


Stoeckel (2016)

August 14, 2018

CRITIQUE OF UNSUPPORTED PROCEDURAL DESCRIPTIONS

(also known as Expert Opinion)

NOTE:  Scroll ½ way down this post to access the summaries for the 5 activities.

KEY

C =  clinician

CAS = Childhood Apraxia of Speech

NA = not applicable

P =  patient or participant

pmh =  Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

Source:  Stoeckel, R. (2016.)  5 fun ways to mix prosody into CAS therapy.  Retrieved from http://www.medbridgeeducation.com/blog/2016/10/5-fun-ways-to-mix-prosody-into-cas-therapy/ 

Reviewer(s):  pmh

Date:  August 14, 2018

Overall Assigned Grade (because there are no supporting data, the highest grade will be F)

Level of Evidence:  F = Expert Opinion, no supporting evidence for the effectiveness of the intervention although the author may provide secondary evidence supporting components of the intervention. The Level of Evidence grade should not be construed as a judgment of the quality of the recommended activities. It is only concerned with the nature of the evidence supporting the author’s recommendation.

 

Take Away:  This blog post briefly describes activities that speech language pathologists (SLPs) can use to integrate prosody into interventions for children with Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS.) 

  1. Was there a review of the literature supporting components of the intervention?No, the author did not provide a review of the literature supporting the recommended activities but did provide a brief review of a rationale for integrating prosody activities into intervention for children with CAS.

 

  1. Were the specific procedures/components of the intervention tied to the reviewed literature? No, the author did not provide a review of the literature supporting the recommended activities but did provide a brief review of a rationale for integrating prosody into intervention for children with CAS.

 

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

 

  1. Did the author(s) provide a rationale for components of the intervention? No

 

  1. Description of outcome measures:

 

  • Are outcome measures suggested? No

 

  1. Was generalization addressed? No

 

  1. Was maintenance addressed? No

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

NOTE:  The author recommended 5 activities for integrating prosody into treatment of children with CAS. The 5 activities are

–  Songs and Fingerplays

–  Toys that Provide Auditory Feedback

–  Action Figures, Dolls, and Stuffed Animals

–  Board Games

–  Books

Songs and Fingerplays

POPULATION:  Childhood Apraxia of Speech; Children

MODALITY TARGETED: production 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED:  stress, music

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

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: production of word or phrase

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

  • The clinician (C) can focus on either one aspect of prosody or multiple aspects of prosody depending on the age of the child.
  • For example, C may encourage the participant (P) to use duration alone to mark stress or to use pitch, loudness, and duration.
  • This activity can also be used to focus on target words/phrases to be produced in the songs.

 

 Toys that Provide Auditory Feedback

POPULATION:  Childhood Apraxia of Speech; Children 

MODALITY TARGETED: production 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED:  loudness, music

ELEMENTS OF PROSODY USED AS INTERVENTION:  rhythm

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: production of syllables

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

  • Toys with embedded microphones can facilitate the production of different aspects of prosody.
  • The use of drums can encourage the production of loudness or of targeted syllables.

 

Action Figures, Dolls, and Stuffed Animals

POPULATION:  Childhood Apraxia of Speech; Children

MODALITY TARGETED: production 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED: pitch, loudness

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: voice quality; words/phrases

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

  • Role playing with action figures, dolls, and stuffed (plush) animals can focus on prosody by encouraging P to use different speaking styles for different characters and to signal different meanings.
  • C encourages target words/phrases production as part of the play.

 

Board Games

POPULATION:  Childhood Apraxia of Speech; Children 

MODALITY TARGETED: production

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED:  rate, contrastive stress

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: voice quality 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

  • Before taking a turn P imitates sentences/phrases modeled by C with

– different voice qualities or

– different rates

  • C asks P questions to elicit contrastive such as

– Is it YOUR turn or MY turn?  (p. 2)

– Does your character have BLUE eyes? (p. 2.)

Books

POPULATION:  Childhood Apraxia of Speech; Children 

MODALITY TARGETED: production 

ELEMENTS/FUNCTIONS OF PROSODY TARGETED:  affective prosody

OTHER ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION TARGETED: literacy 

MAJOR COMPONENTS:

EMERGING READERS:

  • When reading with the P, C has him/her complete a sentence that signals

– an emotion,

– emphasis,

–  a character voice (p. 2.)

 

READER:

  • C identifies passages that could benefit with modifications of prosody to enhance interest.
  • C provides reading material a little below P’s reading level when P is practicing prosodic modifications during reading aloud activities.

 

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

 


Mahoney (2015)

February 8, 2018

SECONDARY REVIEW CRITIQUE

NOTE: A summary of the reviewed prosody-based interventions can be viewed by scrolling about two-thirds of the way down this page.

KEY:

CAS = Childhood Apraxia of Speech

C = clinician

MIT = Melodic Intonation Therapy

NA = not applicable

P = patient or participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

SR = Systematic Review

VML = Verbal Motor Learning (VML)

 

 

Source: Mahoney. K. (2015). A narrative review of the intervention techniques for childhood apraxia of speech. Undergraduate Review, 11, 81-90. From the institutional repository of Bridgewater State University (Bridgewater, MA.) Retrieved from h7p://vc.bridgew.edu/undergrad_rev/vol11/iss1/15

 

Reviewer(s): pmh

 

Date: February 6, 2018

 

Overall Assigned Grade: C The highest possible Overall Assigned Grade is B which is based on the design of the investigation. The Overall Assigned Grade does not reflect a judgment regarding the quality of the intervention.

 

Level of Evidence: B (Systematic Review with Broad Criteria)

 

Take Away: Although the investigator reviewed 13 sources, only 5 involved prosody in the treatment protocols. These 5 will be the focus of this Secondary Review Critique. The results of the Systematic Review (SR) revealed that 3 of the 5 prosody based interventions resulted in significant improvement.

 

What type of secondary review? Narrative Systematic Review

 

 

  1. Were the results valid?

 

– Was the review based on a clinically sound clinical question? Yes

 

– Did the reviewer clearly describe reasonable criteria for inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review (i.e., sources)?       Yes

 

– The author of the secondary research noted that she reviewed the following resources: internet based databases and ASHA online journals

 

– Did the sources involve only English language publications? Yes

 

– Did the sources include unpublished studies? No

 

– Was the time frame for the publication of the sources sufficient? Yes

 

– Did the author 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

∞ The investigator included the following information in the review which was a replication of existing research (see p. 84)

  • reference for source
  • publication year
  • intervention description/categorization
  • number of participants (Ps)
  • age of Ps
  • description of service delivery strategy
  • duration of the intervention
  • Level of Evidence

 

– Was there evidence that a specific, predetermined strategy was used to evaluate the sources? Yes

 

– Did the authors of the secondary research or review teams rate the sources independently? Yes

 

– Were interrater reliability data provided? Yes

 

– Interrater reliability data: 100% interrater agreement for the judgment of Level of Evidence

 

– 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? No

 

– Were there a sufficient number of sources? No, but this is the current status of literature.

 

  1. Description of outcome measures:

 

— The 5 sources that were concerned used prosody within the treatment protocol and their associated outcomes were

 

  • Outcome for Ballard et al. (2010): average duration for the first 2 syllable of real words

 

  • Outcome for Lagasse (2012): the outcomes were unclear

 

  • Outcomes for Martikainen & Korpilahti (2011): percentage of correct vowels and percentage of correct consonants

 

  • Outcomes McCabe et al. (2014): percentage of correct vowels, percentage of correct consonants, and percentage of correct stress patterns

 

  • Outcomes for Vashdi (2013): word length, vocal intensity, frequency

 

 

  1. Description of results:

 

  • What measures were used to represent the magnitude of the treatment/effect size?  Some of the non-prosodic treatments provided EBP measures, but none of the prosodic treatments provided EBP measures.

 

  • Summary of the findings of the secondary research:

 

– The results of the reviewed sources for treatments involving prosody

 

  • Ballard et al. (2010)

     ∞ The durations of the first 2 syllables of real words were significantly more “normalized” for all 3 Ps. (The statistical test was the Kruskal-Wallis Test.)

 

  • Lagasse (2012)

∞ The outcomes were not provided but it was noted that p was greater than 0.05 for comparisons using the Wilcoxon test.

 

  • Martikainen & Korpilahti (2011)

     ∞ For the percentage of correct vowels, there was a significant improvement for Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT) training immediately following treatment.

     ∞   For the percentage of correct consonants, there was a significant improvement for Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT) training 6 weeks after the termination of treatment.

     ∞ Statistical analysis involved the application of Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Statistics for Repeated Measures.

 

  • McCabe et al. (2014)

Only raw data were provided by the authors of the source investigation, a summary of the data was not provided in the current SR.

 

  • Vashdi (2013)

Significant improvements were noted for word length (duration), intensity, and frequency. The statistical analysis involved the use of Paired t-tests.

 

  • 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, confidence intervals were not provided.

 

  • Were the results of individual studies clearly displayed/presented? Yes

 

  • For the most part, were the results similar from source to source? Yes, 4 of the 5 prosody related treatments claimed improvement.

 

  • Were the results in the same direction? Yes, for the most part. Four of the 5 prosody related treatments reported improvement.

 

  • 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? No

           

                                               

  1. Were maintenance data reported? Yes, for one investigation.
  • Martikainen & Korpilahti (2011) : For the percentage of correct consonants, there was a significant improvement for Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT) training 6 weeks after the termination of treatment.

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTIONS

 

NOTE: The treatment procedures, for the most part, were only named, and not described, in the Secondary Review

 

Ballard et al. (2010)

 

Population: CAS, Children, N = 3 (ages: 7;8 to 10;10)

 

Prosodic Targets: Duration

 

Description of Procedure/Source (Ballard et al., 2010)

  • Design: Single Subject Experimental Design: Multiple Baselines; Behaviors Across Ps (Level of Evidence IIb)
  • Administrator: Graduate Student in SLP, supervised
  • Dosage: individual sessions 50 minutes per session, 2 times a week for 8 weeks (16 sessions)
  • Procedures: enhanced intonation patterns

 

Evidence Supporting Procedure/Source (Ballard et al., 2010)

  • All Ps produced significantly more normalized durations for the first 2 syllables of real words.

 

==========

 

Lagasse (2012)

 

Population: CAS, Children, N = 2 (ages: 5, 6)

 

Prosodic Targets: Outcomes unclear

 

Nonprosodic Targets: Outcomes unclear

 

Aspects of Prosody Used in Treatment of Nonprosodic Targets: music (pitch/intonation, tempo, loudness)

 

Description of Procedure/Source Lagasse (2012)

 

  • Design: Single-Subject Design: AB (Level of Evidence: IIb)
  • Administrator: Music Therapist
  • Dosage: in the home, 40 minutes, 1 time a week, 4 weeks; Ps also received SLP services concurrently
  • Procedures: Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT)

 

Evidence Contraindicating Procedure/Source Lagasse (2012)

  • None of the comparisons achieved significance.

 

======

 

Martikainen & Korpilahti (2011)

 

 

Population: CAS, Children, N = 1 (age: 4;7)

 

 

Nonprosodic Targets: vowels, consonants

 

Aspects of Prosody Used in Treatment of Nonprosodic Targets: music (pitch/intonation, tempo, loudness)

 

Description of Procedure/Source Martikainen & Korpilahti (2011)

  • Design: Single-Subject Experimental Design: ABA (Level of Evidence: IIb)
  • Administrator: SLP
  • Dosage: individual sessions, 30 minute sessions, 18 sessions per 6 week block
  • Procedures:

– Investigators administered 6 week long blocks of MIT and the Touch Cue Method. (Only MIT is reported in this review.) There was also a 6 week long withdrawal block and a follow up block.

 

Evidence Supporting Procedure/Source Martikainen & Korpilahti (2011)

– For the percentage of correct vowels, there was a significant improvement for Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT) training immediately following treatment.

– For the percentage of correct consonants, there was a significant improvement for Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT) training 6 weeks after the termination of treatment.

 

========

 

McCabe et al. (2014)

 

Population: CAS, Children, N = 4 (ages: 5;5-8;6)

 

Prosodic Targets: stress (lexical)

 

Nonprosodic Targets: consonants, vowels

 

Aspects of Prosody Used in Treatment of Nonprosodic Targets: stress (lexical)

 

Description of Procedure/Source McCabe et al. (2014)

  • Design: Single-Subject Design: AB (Level of Evidence: IIb)
  • Administrator: SLP
  • Dosage: individual sessions, 60 minutes, 4 times a weeks, 3 weeks (12 sessions)
  • Procedures: Administered ReST

Evidence Supporting Procedure/Source McCabe et al. (2014)

– Only raw data were provided by the authors of the sources, a summary of the data was not provided in the current investigation

 

Evidence Contraindicating Procedure/Source McCabe et al. (2014)

– Only raw data were provided by the authors of the sources, a summary of the data was not provided in the current investigation

====

 

Vashdi (2013)

 

Population: CAS, Children, N = 1 (age: 14)

 

Prosodic Targets: intensity, frequency, duration

 

Description of Procedure/Source Vashdi (2013)

  • Design: Case Study (Level of Evidence: III)
  • Administrator: Verbal Motor Learning (VML) Therapist
  • Dosage: individual sessions, 30 minute sessions, 1 time a week. 4 weeks
  • Procedures:

– Administered VML therapy paired with the Distal Dynamic Stabilization Technique

 

Evidence Supporting Procedure/Source Vashdi (2013)

  • Significant improvements were noted for word length (duration), intensity, and frequency.

 

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


Heggie & Wade-Woolley (2017)

August 30, 2017

 

SECONDARY REVIEW CRITIQUE

 

 

KEY:

 

C = clinician

NA = not applicable

P = patient or participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

SR = Systematic Review

 

 

Source: Heggie, L., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2017) Reading longer words: Insights into multisyllabic word reading. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups-SIG 1, 2 (Part 2), 86 – 94.

 

Reviewer(s): pmh

 

Date: August 25, 2017

 

Overall Assigned Grade: D   (The highest possible grade based on the design of the publication was D, Traditional/Narrative Review of the Literature.)

 

Level of Evidence: D, Traditional/Narrative Review of the Literature

 

Take Away: Although this review of the literature focused on teaching the reading of multisyllabic words, some of the interventions appear to have potential for teaching stress, weak/strong forms, and alterations. Only a prosody related interventions is analyzed and summarized in this review. This intervention yielded more gains than a control group.

 

What type of secondary review? Narrative 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)? No

 

  • The authors of the secondary research did not describe the search strategy.

 

  • Did the sources involve only English language publications? Yes

 

  • Did the sources include unpublished studies? No _

 

  • 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? No

 

  • Did the authors of the secondary research describe procedures used to evaluate the validity of each of the sources? No

 

  • Was there evidence that a specific, predetermined strategy was used to evaluate the sources? No

 

Did the authors of the secondary research or review teams rate the sources independently? No

 

  • Were interrater reliability data provided? No

 

  • If there were no interrater reliability data, was an alternate means to insure reliability described? No

 

  • Were assessments of sources sufficiently reliable? Unclear

 

  • Was the information provided sufficient for the reader to undertake a replication? Unclear

 

  • Did the sources that were evaluated involve a sufficient number of participants? Unclear

 

  • Were there a sufficient number of sources? Yes

 

 

  1. Description of outcome measures:

 

  • Outcomes #1: Production of stress in multisyllablic words

 

  • Outcome #2: Improved reading skills

 

 

  1. Description of results:

 

  • What measures were used to represent the magnitude of the treatment/effect size? No measures of the magnitude of the treatment effect/effect size were reported

 

  • Summary of overall findings of the secondary research:

 

  • There is only limited research focusing on multisyllabic word reading. The authors noted that this condition exists despite the fact that over 90% of the words in English are multisyllabic. They also noted that secondary students who struggle with reading may be able readers of monosyllabic words.

 

  • The authors summarized factors that make multisyllabic words more difficult to read:

   – the length of the word and its relationship to working memory

   – the relationship between word/lexical stress and vowel reduction*

   – vowel pronunciation variations

   – grapheme-phoneme correspondences

   – morphological complexity

* the focus of this review

 

  • The authors summarized why they considered the teaching of word/lexical stress to be important to the teaching of multisyllabic word reading.

 

  • The word/lexical stress instructional program they summarized was

     – Diliberto et al.’s English accenting patterns (p. 91) – The authors reported that this approach resulted in greater gains (not described) than a control group.

 

 

  • Were the results precise? No

 

  • 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? Variable

 

  • For the most part, were the results similar from source to source? Yes

 

  • Were the results in the same direction? Yes

 

  • 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? No

           

                                                                                                                   

  1. Were maintenance data reported? No

 

 

  1. Were generalization data reported? No

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

 

Population: literacy problems

 

Prosodic Targets: word/lexical stress

 

Nonprosodic Targets: literacy

 

Aspects of Prosody Used in Treatment of Nonprosodic Targets: word/lexical stress

 

Description of Procedure/Source —(Diliberto et al.’s English accenting patterns)

 

  • This intervention comprises 20 lessons
  • The instructors teach students about

– syllable patterns and

– syllabification

  • Stimuli include

– nonsense words

– low frequency monosyllable words

– low frequency multisyllabic words

  • Encoding and decoding are targeted.
  • Teachers note

– students should stress the root of the word, not the affix or suffix,

– in a disyllable word, stress should be placed on the first syllable,

– in multisyllabic words of 3 or more syllables, place the stress on the 3rd syllable from the end.

 

 

Evidence Supporting Procedure/Source —(Diliberto et al.’s English accenting patterns)

 

  • The authors reported that this approach resulted in greater gains (not described) than a control group.

 

 

————————————————————————————————————

 


Diekema (2016)

March 23, 2017

ANALYSIS GUIDELINES

Comparison Research

 

KEY: 

CS = Clear Speech

eta = partial eta squared

f = female

fo = fundamental frequency

m = male

MLU = mean length of utterance

NA = Not Applicable

P = participant or patient

PD = Parkinson Disease

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

S = segment

SD = standard deviation

SLP = speech-language pathologist

ST = semitones

 

SOURCE: Diekema, E. (2016). Acoustic Measurements of Clear Speech Cue Fade in Adults with Idiopathic Parkinson Disease. (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation). Bowling State University, Bowling Green, OH. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: March 17, 2017

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: Not graded. This investigation is not classified as an intervention study; rather it is an investigation of learning behavior in adults with Parkinson Disease (PD.)

 

TAKE AWAY: This investigation is not classified as an intervention study; rather it is an investigation of learning behavior in adults with Parkinson Disease (PD.) The results, however, can inform therapeutic practice. Speech samples of 12 adults with PD were recorded while they read aloud part of the Rainbow Passage following cues to use Clear Speech (CS) to explore whether the selected prosodic changes would be maintained after the CS cue. The results indicated that improvements in the following measures decreased throughout the passage suggesting that the gains from CS cues were not maintained: speech rate, articulation rate, percent pause time, fo variability, and intensity throughout the passage. However, gains in the following measures were maintained throughout the passage: intensity associated with word stress and mean fo . The investigator suggested that when using CS with adults with PD, clinicians should consider modifications to enhance the cues effectiveness over time.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

  • What was the type of design? Retrospective, Single Group with Multiple Measurements of Selected Outcomes

 

  • What was the focus of the research? Clinically Related

                                                                                                           

  • What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Level = not graded.

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

  • If there were 2 or more groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? Not Applicable (NA), there was only one group.

                                                                   

 

  1. Were experimental conditions concealed?

                                                                                                           

  • from participants? No

                                                                    

  • from administrators of experimental conditions? No

                                                                    

  • from analyzers/judges? No

                                                                    

 

  1. Was the group adequately described? No

 

– How many participants were involved in the study?

 

  • total # of Ps: 12
  • # of groups: 1:
  • Did the group maintain membership throughout the investigation? Yes

 

 

CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS

  • diagnosis: idiopathic PD • gender:

 

DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

  • age: 55- 84 years (mean = 73 years)
  • gender: 6m; 6f
  • medication: All Ps were receiving medications

 

  • Were the groups similar? NA, there was only one group

 

  • Were the communication problems adequately described? No

 

  • disorder type: dysarthria associated with PD

 

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

                                                                                                             

  • Subject (Classification) Groups?

                                                               

  • Experimental Conditions? No

 

  • Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? Yes

 

  • Outcomes were for measured for the 5 segments of the read aloud versions of the Rainbow Passage of approximately 25 syllables each:

– Segment (S) 1

– S2

– S3

– S4

– S5

 

 

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

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

                                                                                                             

– OUTCOMES

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Average speech rate
  • OUTCOME #2: Average articulation rate
  • OUTCOME #3: Percent pause time
  • OUTCOME #4: Average fundamental frequency (fo) in semitones (ST) for the segment
  • OUTCOME #5: Average fo comparison (difference) for beginning (S1) and end (S5) of passage
  • OUTCOME #6: Coefficient of variation of fo for each segment
  • OUTCOME #7: Standard deviation (SD) in ST for each segment
  • OUTCOME #8: Differences in intensity between the first “rain” and first “bow” and last “rain” and “bow” for each participant (P)
  • OUTCOME #9: Difference in intensity from beginning to end of the Rainbow Passage (i.e., S1 “rain” versus S5 “rain” and S1 “bow” versus S5 “bow”)

 

None of the dependent measures were subjective.

 

– All of the dependent/ outcome measures were objective.

 

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

  • Interobserver for analyzers?   No

 

  • Intraobserver for analyzers? No

 

  • Treatment or test administration fidelity for investigator? No

 

 

  1. Description of design:
  • The investigator analyzed pre-existing speech samples of 12 Ps diagnosed with PD.
  • The samples consisted of segments of the Rainbow Passage which the Ps had been directed to read aloud as if listeners where having trouble with understanding or hearing.
  • To analyze the samples, the investigator divided the passage into 5 segments of 25 syllables each with the exception of S5 that had 26 syllables. (The purpose of the segmentation was to enable the investigator to answer her question regarding the fading of the effectiveness of CS cues. Fading would be indicated by changes in the acoustic outcome measures over the 5 segments.)
  • Although there were an equal number of syllables in each segment, there were an unequal number of natural pauses in the segments:

– S1 = 2 pauses

– S2 = 1 pause

– S3 = 2 pauses

– S4 = 3 pauses

– S5 = 1 pause

 

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

 

  • RESULTS:

 

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Average speech rate

– With the exception of S4, speech rate increased as the Ps progressed through the passage (i.e., there were significant difference among segments.)

     – From S1 to S5 across all Ps, there was an average increase in speech rate of 22%.

   – This suggests that the CS cue faded.

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Average articulation rate

– With the exception of S4, articulation rate increased as the Ps progressed through the passage (i.e., there were significant difference among segments.)

     – From S1 to S5 across all Ps, there was an average increase in speech rate of 18%.

   – This suggests that the CS cue faded.

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Percent pause time

     – Although there was a significant difference among the segments, the changes in pause time were not consistent. (This could be because of the differences in the number of natural pauses in the segments.)

     – The comparisons that were significant included

  • S1 (2 pauses) versus S4 (3 pauses)
  • S2 (1 pause) versus S4 (3 pauses)
  • S3 (2 pauses) versus S5 (1 pause)
  • S4 (3 pauses) versus S5 (1 pause)

   – This suggests that the CS cue faded.

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Average fundamental frequency (fo) in semitones (ST) for the segment

– The average fo (in ST) tended to decrease as Ps progressed through the passage but the investigator noted that the change in ST was only 1 ST and was unlikely to be perceivable.

   – This suggests that the CS cue was maintained.

 

  • OUTCOME #5: Average fo comparison (difference) for beginning (S1) and end (S5) of passage

– The average fo (in semitones) decreased in S1 compared to S5 but the investigator noted that the change in ST was only 1 ST and was unlikely to be perceivable

   – This suggests that the CS cue was maintained.

 

  • OUTCOME #6: Coefficient of variation of fo for each segment

     – Although Ps patterns of fo variation did not change in a linear manner. The highest variation was in S1 and the smallest was in S5.

   – This suggests that the CS cue faded.

  • OUTCOME #7: Standard deviation (SD) in ST for each segment

     – Ps patterns of fo variation were more linear than for Outcome #6.

     – The variation tended to decrease from S1 to S5.

   – This suggests that the CS cue faded.

 

  • OUTCOME #8: Differences in intensity between the first “rain” and first “bow” and last “rain” and “bow” for each participant (P) [i.e., stress related intensity]

– There were no significant differences for these comparisons suggesting the original CS cue was maintained (i.e., it did not fade.)

 

  • OUTCOME #9: Difference in intensity from beginning to end of the Rainbow Passage (i.e., S1 “rain” versus S5 “rain” and S1 “bow” versus S5 “bow”) [i.e., intensity throughout the sample]

     Overall, there were significant difference in the first and last productions of “rain” and the first and last productions of “bow.”

   – This suggests that the CS cue faded.

 

– What were the statistical tests used to determine significance?

  • t-test
  • ANOVA
  • MANOVA
  • Bonferroni correction

 

– Were effect sizes provided? Yes, but since this is not an intervention study, it will not be reported in this review.

 

– Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. Summary of correlational results: NA

 

 

  1. Summary of descriptive results: Qualitative research NA

 

 

  1. Brief summary of clinically relevant results:
  • The strength of the CS cue was maintained only for measures of intensity associated with word stress and mean fo throughout the 5 segments of the Rainbow Passage (Outcomes 4, 5, and 8.)
  • For the following measures, the strength of the CS cue faded during the reading of the Rainbow Passage: speech rate, articulation rate, percent pause time, fo variability, and intensity throughout the passage (Outcomes 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9.)
  • The investigator suggested that when using CS with adults with PD, clinicians should consider modifications to enhance the cues temporal effectiveness.

 

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: no grade, this is an not an intervention investigation.

 

 

 

 


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.