Developing a Technology-Based Speech Intervention for Acquired Dysarthria

2016 ◽  
pp. 93-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ute Ritterfeld ◽  
Juliane Muehlhaus ◽  
Hendrike Frieg ◽  
Kerstin Bilda
Keyword(s):  
Speech Intervention

Is High-Intensity Speech Intervention Better? A Comparison of High-Intensity Intervention Versus Low-Intensity Intervention in Children With a Cleft Palate

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Cassandra Alighieri ◽  
Kristiane Van Lierde ◽  
Anne-Sophie De Caesemaeker ◽  
Kris Demuynck ◽  
Laura Bruneel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Palate ◽  
High Intensity ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Velopharyngeal Insufficiency ◽  
Dose Frequency ◽  
Baseline Design ◽  
Low Intensity ◽  
Session Duration ◽  
Speech Intervention ◽  
Over Time

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of speech intervention provided with a low intensity with speech intervention provided with a high intensity on the speech and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Dutch-speaking children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP ± L) between 4 and 12 years. Method A longitudinal, prospective, randomized controlled trial with a multiple baseline design was used. Twelve children with a CP ± L ( M age = 8.0 years, SD = 1.54) were divided into two groups using block randomization stratified by age and gender: One group received low-intensity speech intervention (LISI; n = 6) and one group received high-intensity speech intervention (HISI; n = 6). Children in the LISI group received intervention with a session duration of 1 hr, a dose frequency of 1 session per week, and a total intervention duration of 10 weeks. Children in the HISI group received intervention with a session duration of 1 hr, a dose frequency of 5 sessions per week, and a total intervention duration of 2 weeks. The cumulative intervention intensity was kept constant. Both groups received identical therapy programs provided by the same experienced speech therapist. Perceptual speech assessments were performed on baseline and posttreatment data points. Changes in HRQoL were assessed using the Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Effects on Life Outcomes (VELO) questionnaire. Both groups were compared over time using (generalized) linear mixed models. Results No significant Time × Group interactions were observed for the percentage of correctly produced consonants at the word and sentence levels, indicating no differences in evolution over time among the two groups. The variables speech understandability, speech acceptability, and the total VELO scores significantly improved following HISI, but not following LISI. Conclusions Children in the HISI group made equal and, for some variables, even superior progress in only 2 weeks of therapy compared to children in the LISI group who received 10 weeks of therapy. HISI is a promising strategy to improve speech outcomes and HRQoL in a shorter time period.

scholarly journals Supporting Children With Speech Sound Disorders During COVID-19 Restrictions: Technological Solutions

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 1805-1808
Author(s):  
Sharynne McLeod ◽  
Kirrie J. Ballard ◽  
Beena Ahmed ◽  
Nicole McGill ◽  
Michelle I. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Rural Areas ◽  
School Achievement ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Waiting Lists ◽  
Speech Development ◽  
Speech Pathology ◽  
Speech Sound Disorders ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Speech Intervention ◽  
The Impact

Purpose “Children are the hidden victims of the COVID-19 pandemic” (United Nations Children's Fund, 2020). Timely and effective speech intervention is important to reduce the impact on children's school achievement, ability to make friends, mental health, future life opportunities, and government resources. Prior to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, many Australian children did not receive sufficient speech-language pathology (SLP) services due to long waiting lists in the public health system. COVID-19 restrictions exacerbated this issue, as even children who were at the top of lengthy SLP waiting lists often received limited services, particularly in rural areas. To facilitate children receiving speech intervention remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding three technological solutions are examined: (a) Phoneme Factory Sound Sorter (Sound Start Study), (b) Waiting for Speech Pathology website, and (c) Apraxia World. Conclusions For the first two technological solutions, there were similar gains in speech production between the intervention and control groups, whereas, for the third solution, the average magnitude of treatment effect was comparable to face-to-face SLP therapy. Automated therapy management systems may be able to accelerate speech development and support communication resilience to counteract the effects of the COVID-19 restrictions on children with speech sound disorders. Technology-based strategies may also provide a potential solution to the chronic shortage of SLP services in rural areas into the future.

scholarly journals Impact of Motor Speech Intervention on Neural Activity in Children with Speech Sound Disorders: Use of Magnetoencephalography

2018 ◽  
Vol 08 (07) ◽  
pp. 415-429
Author(s):  
Vickie Y. Yu ◽  
Darren S. Kadis ◽  
Debra Goshulak ◽  
Aravind K. Namasivayam ◽  
Margit Pukonen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neural Activity ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Speech Sound Disorders ◽  
Motor Speech ◽  
Speech Intervention

Can educational speech intervention improve visitors' hand hygiene compliance?

2020 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. El Marjiya Villarreal ◽  
S. Khan ◽  
M. Oduwole ◽  
E. Sutanto ◽  
K. Vleck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Hand Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Speech Intervention ◽  
Hygiene Compliance

Parental involvement in speech intervention: A national survey

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 335-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Watts Pappas ◽  
Sharynne McLeod ◽  
Lindy McAllister ◽  
David H. McKinnon
Keyword(s):  
Parental Involvement ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Speech Intervention

Arguments Against the Aggressive Pursuit of Voice Therapy for Children

1989 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric K. Sander
Keyword(s):  
Voice Therapy ◽  
Loss Of Self ◽  
Self Worth ◽  
Speech Intervention ◽  
Selection Practices

This polemic states the case against indiscriminate speech intervention, focusing on apparent voice problems in general and voice therapy with children in particular. School speech clinicians with conservative selection practices are urged to resist unwise expansions of their caseloads. Our profession will experience no loss of self-worth by admitting that it is best to do nothing on many occasions.

One Size Doesn't Fit All: A Pilot Study Toward Performance-Specific Speech Intervention in Children With a Cleft (Lip and) Palate

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Cassandra Alighieri ◽  
Kim Bettens ◽  
Laura Bruneel ◽  
Jamie Perry ◽  
Greet Hens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Speech Characteristics ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Treatment Plans ◽  
Speech Intervention

Purpose: Speech-language pathologists usually apply a “one size fits all” approach to eliminate compensatory cleft speech characteristics (CSCs). It is necessary to investigate what intervention works best for a particular patient. This pilot study compared the effectiveness of two therapy approaches (a motor-phonetic approach and a linguistic-phonological approach) on different subtypes of compensatory CSCs in Dutch-speaking children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP ± L). Method: Fourteen children with a CP ± L ( M age = 7.71 years) were divided into two groups using block randomization stratified by age, gender, and type of compensatory CSC. Six children received intervention to eliminate anterior oral CSCs ( n = 3 motor-phonetic intervention, n = 3 linguistic-phonological intervention). Eight children received intervention to eliminate non-oral CSCs ( n = 4 motor-phonetic intervention, n = 4 linguistic-phonological intervention). Each child received 10 hr of speech intervention divided over 2 weeks. Perceptual and psychosocial outcome measures were used to determine intervention effects. Results: Children who received linguistic-phonological intervention to eliminate anterior oral CSCs had significantly higher correctly produced consonant scores and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores compared to children who received motor-phonetic intervention to eliminate anterior oral CSCs. In the group of children who received intervention to eliminate non-oral CSCs, no significant differences were found in the correctly produced consonant scores nor in the HRQoL scores between the two intervention approaches. Conclusions: Linguistic-phonological intervention seems to be more appropriate to eliminate anterior oral CSCs. The beneficial effects of linguistic-phonological intervention were less pronounced in children with non-oral CSCs. Perhaps, children with non-oral CSCs benefit more from a hybrid phonetic-phonological approach. This study is a step forward in the provision of performance-specific intervention in children with a CP ± L. Replication in larger samples is needed and will aid to tailor treatment plans to the needs of our patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document