Treatment Effects Analysis on Credit Guarantee using Survey Questionnaire

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 1079-1112
Author(s):  
Jaesung James Park ◽  
Jongseok Oh
2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 2109-2130
Author(s):  
Lauren Bislick

Purpose This study continued Phase I investigation of a modified Phonomotor Treatment (PMT) Program on motor planning in two individuals with apraxia of speech (AOS) and aphasia and, with support from prior work, refined Phase I methodology for treatment intensity and duration, a measure of communicative participation, and the use of effect size benchmarks specific to AOS. Method A single-case experimental design with multiple baselines across behaviors and participants was used to examine acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of treatment effects 8–10 weeks posttreatment. Treatment was distributed 3 days a week, and duration of treatment was specific to each participant (criterion based). Experimental stimuli consisted of target sounds or clusters embedded nonwords and real words, specific to each participants' deficit. Results Findings show improved repetition accuracy for targets in trained nonwords, generalization to targets in untrained nonwords and real words, and maintenance of treatment effects at 10 weeks posttreatment for one participant and more variable outcomes for the other participant. Conclusions Results indicate that a modified version of PMT can promote generalization and maintenance of treatment gains for trained speech targets via a multimodal approach emphasizing repeated exposure and practice. While these results are promising, the frequent co-occurrence of AOS and aphasia warrants a treatment that addresses both motor planning and linguistic deficits. Thus, the application of traditional PMT with participant-specific modifications for AOS embedded into the treatment program may be a more effective approach. Future work will continue to examine and maximize improvements in motor planning, while also treating anomia in aphasia.


Methodology ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 104-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Vis-Visschers ◽  
Vivian Meertens

We used the Cognitive Interviewing Reporting Framework (CIRF) to restructure the report of a pretest on a European health survey questionnaire. This pretest was conducted by the Questionnaire Laboratory of Statistics Netherlands, and the original report was written according to a standard Statistics Netherlands format for pretesting reports. This article contains the rewritten report with highlights from the case study. The authors reflect on the process of rewriting and the usefulness of the CIRF. We conclude that expanded use of the CIRF as a reporting format for articles on cognitive pretests would enhance international comparability, completeness, and uniformity of research designs, terminology, and reporting. A limitation of the CIRF is that it does not provide an exhaustive list of items that could be included in a report, but it is more a “minimal standard”: that is a report on how a cognitive pretest was conducted should at least contain a description of the CIRF items.


2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaitlyn A. Powers ◽  
Carmen Edwards ◽  
Stephen R. Boggs ◽  
Regina Bussing ◽  
Sheila M. Eyberg

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document