Editorial: Sensory Processing Across the Lifespan: A 25-Year Initiative to Understand Neurophysiology, Behaviors, and Treatment Effectiveness for Sensory Processing

ASHA's focus on evidence-based practice (EBP) includes the family/stakeholder perspective as an important tenet in clinical decision making. The common factors model for treatment effectiveness postulates that clinician-client alliance positively impacts therapeutic outcomes and may be the most important factor for success. One strategy to improve alliance between a client and clinician is the use of outcome questionnaires. In the current study, eight parents of toddlers who attended therapy sessions at a university clinic responded to a session outcome questionnaire that included both rating scale and descriptive questions. Six graduate students completed a survey that included a question about the utility of the questionnaire. Results indicated that the descriptive questions added value and information compared to using only the rating scale. The students were varied in their responses regarding the effectiveness of the questionnaire to increase their comfort with parents. Information gathered from the questionnaire allowed for specific feedback to graduate students to change behaviors and created opportunities for general discussions regarding effective therapy techniques. In addition, the responses generated conversations between the client and clinician focused on clients' concerns. Involving the stakeholder in identifying both effective and ineffective aspects of therapy has advantages for clinical practice and education.

Download Full-text

Establishing the Validity of Stuttering Treatment Effectiveness: The Fallibility of Clinical Experience

Perspectives on Fluency and Fluency Disorders ◽

10.1044/ffd14.2.9 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 14 (2) ◽

pp. 9-12 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Patrick Finn

Keyword(s):

Clinical Experience ◽

Treatment Effectiveness

Download Full-text

Magnitude Estimation and Cross-Modal Matching of Lingual Vibrotactile and Auditory Sensation

Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research ◽

10.1044/jshr.3203.698 ◽

1989 ◽

Vol 32 (3) ◽

pp. 698-702 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Daniel Harris ◽

Donald Fucci ◽

Linda Petrosino

Keyword(s):

Auditory Stimulus ◽

Magnitude Estimation ◽

Sensory Processing ◽

Test Site ◽

Systematic Investigation ◽

Thenar Eminence ◽

Stimulus Range ◽

Psychophysical Scaling ◽

Scaling Methods ◽

Response Biases

The present experiment was a preliminary attempt to use the psychophysical scaling methods of magnitude estimation and cross-modal matching to investigate suprathreshold judgments of lingual vibrotactile and auditory sensation magnitudes for 20 normal young adult subjects. A 250-Hz lingual vibrotactile stimulus and a 1000-Hz binaural auditory stimulus were employed. To obtain judgments for nonoral vibrotactile sensory magnitudes, the thenar eminence of the hand was also employed as a test site for 5 additional subjects. Eight stimulus intensities were presented during all experimental tasks. The results showed that the slopes of the log-log vibrotactile magnitude estimation functions decreased at higher stimulus intensity levels for both test sites. Auditory magnitude estimation functions were relatively constant throughout the stimulus range. Cross-modal matching functions for the two stimuli generally agreed with functions predicted from the magnitude estimation data, except when subjects adjusted vibration on the tongue to match auditory stimulus intensities. The results suggested that the methods of magnitude estimation and cross-modal matching may be useful for studying sensory processing in the speech production system. However, systematic investigation of response biases associated with vibrotactile-auditory psychophysical scaling tasks appears to be a prerequisite.

Download Full-text

Research Consumerism 101: Evaluating External Evidence of Treatment Effectiveness

Perspectives on Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia) ◽

10.1044/sasd17.2.43 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 17 (2) ◽

pp. 43-49

Author(s):

James L. Coyle

Keyword(s):

Treatment Effectiveness ◽

Code Of Ethics ◽

Oropharyngeal Dysphagia ◽

Clinical Importance ◽

Professional Services ◽

Adverse Outcomes ◽

Professional Judgment ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Intervention Selection ◽

Published Research

Abstract The modern clinician is a research consumer. Rehabilitation of oropharyngeal impairments, and prevention of the adverse outcomes of dysphagia, requires the clinician to select interventions for which evidence of a reasonable likelihood of a successful, important outcome exists. The purpose of this paper is to provide strategies for evaluation of published research regarding treatment of oropharyngeal dysphagia. This article utilizes tutorial and examples to inform and educate practitioners in methods of appraising published research. It provides and encourages the use of methods of efficiently evaluating the validity and clinical importance of published research. Additionally, it discusses the importance of the ethical obligation we, as practitioners, have to use evidence-based treatment selection methods and measurement of patient performance during therapy. The reader is provided with tactics for evaluating treatment studies to establish a study's validity and, thereby, objectively select interventions. The importance of avoiding subjective or unsubstantiated claims and using objective methods of generating empirical clinical evidence is emphasized. The ability to evaluate the quality of research provides clinicians with objective intervention selection as an important, essential component of evidence-based clinical practice. ASHA Code of Ethics (2003): Principle I, Rule F: “Individuals shall fully inform the persons they serve of the nature and possible effects of services rendered and products dispensed…” (p. 2) Principle I, Rule G: “Individuals shall evaluate the effectiveness of services rendered and of products dispensed and shall provide services or dispense products only when benefit can reasonably be expected.” (p. 2) Principle IV, Rule G: “Individuals shall not provide professional services without exercising independent professional judgment, regardless of referral source or prescription.” (p. 4)

Download Full-text