Rehabilitation of speech disorders following glossectomy, based on ultrasound visual illustration and feedback

Typical examples of four different speech disorders—voice, cleft palate, articulation, and stuttering—were ranked for severity by kindergarten, first-grade, second-grade, and third-grade teachers and by public school speech clinicians. Results indicated that classroom teachers, as a group, moderately agreed with speech clinicians regarding the severity of different speech disorders, and classroom teachers displayed significantly more agreement among themselves than did the speech clinicians.

Download Full-text

A Case-Based Approach to Teaching Evidence-Based Practice and Motor Speech Disorders

Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders ◽

10.1044/cicsd_36_f_123 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 37 (Fall) ◽

pp. 123-130 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Ben Bloom

Keyword(s):

Evidence Based Practice ◽

Speech Disorders ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Motor Speech ◽

Motor Speech Disorders ◽

Approach To Teaching ◽

Case Based

Download Full-text

Selected Bibliography from Current Books and Periodicals on Speech Disorders in Time of War

Journal of Speech Disorders ◽

10.1044/jshd.0902.126 ◽

1944 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. 126-151 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sara Stinchfield Hawk ◽

Emil Fröschels ◽

Margaret Hall ◽

Paul Pfaff

Keyword(s):

Speech Disorders

Download Full-text

Social Variables and Speech Disorders

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research ◽

10.1044/jshr.0401.78 ◽

1961 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

pp. 78-78

Author(s):

Lonnie L. Emerick

Keyword(s):

Speech Disorders ◽

Social Variables

Download Full-text

The Labeling Problem in Aphasia

Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders ◽

10.1044/jshd.5102.176 ◽

1986 ◽

Vol 51 (2) ◽

pp. 176-180 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Audrey L. Holland ◽

Davida Fromm ◽

Carol S. Swindell

Keyword(s):

Speech Disorders ◽

Case Description ◽

Test Results ◽

Apraxia Of Speech ◽

Poor Agreement ◽

Motor Speech ◽

Motor Speech Disorders ◽

Communication Difficulties ◽

Token Test ◽

Primary Problem

Twenty-five "experts" on neurogenic motor speech disorders participated in a tutorial exercise. Each was given information on M, a patient who had communication difficulties as the result of stroke, and asked to complete a questionnaire about his problem. The information included a detailed case description, an audiotape of M's speech obtained at 4, 9, 13, and 17 days post-stroke, and test results from the Western Aphasia Battery, the Token Test, and a battery for apraxia of speech. The experts were in excellent agreement on M's primary problem, although it was called by seven different names. The experts were in poor agreement on his secondary problem(s), e.g., the presence and type of aphasia and dysarthria. The results suggest that labeling is difficult, even for "experts." Furthermore, the practicing clinician needs to be sensitive to the likelihood of more than one coexisting problem.

Download Full-text

What Have We Learned From Physiological Approaches to Characterizing Dysarthria and Other Speech Production Disorders?

Perspectives on Speech Science and Orofacial Disorders ◽

10.1044/ssod20.2.37 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 20 (2) ◽

pp. 37-46

Author(s):

Nicole M. Etter

Keyword(s):

Speech Production ◽

Speech Disorders ◽

Research Literature ◽

Systematic Research ◽

Physiological Measures ◽

Validity And Reliability ◽

Assessment Measures ◽

Perceptual Assessment ◽

Perceptual Characteristics ◽

Diagnostic Resolution

Traditionally, speech-language pathologists (SLP) have been trained to develop interventions based on a select number of perceptual characteristics of speech without or through minimal use of objective instrumental and physiologic assessment measures of the underlying articulatory subsystems. While indirect physiological assumptions can be made from perceptual assessment measures, the validity and reliability of those assumptions are tenuous at best. Considering that neurological damage will result in various degrees of aberrant speech physiology, the need for physiologic assessments appears highly warranted. In this context, do existing physiological measures found in the research literature have sufficient diagnostic resolution to provide distinct and differential data within and between etiological classifications of speech disorders and versus healthy controls? The goals of this paper are (a) to describe various physiological and movement-related techniques available to objectively study various dysarthrias and speech production disorders and (b) to develop an appreciation for the need for increased systematic research to better define physiologic features of dysarthria and speech production disorders and their relation to know perceptual characteristics.

Download Full-text