A comparison between computer and tabletop delivery of phonology therapy

Abstract

This paper reports on the development and evaluation of a software program aimed at assisting children with phonological impairment. An experimental approach was used whereby children's speech output was assessed pre-and post-therapy. Children were randomly assigned to a computer, a tabletop or a no therapy group. Those children receiving the computer therapy were exposed to an experimental software program that mirrored the tabletop activities using interactive computer games. The results showed no significant difference between any of the three groups with regard to change in speech output. These results may relate to the amount and frequency of therapy given and also to the heterogeneous nature of children included in the study. There was considerable variation in individual performance across all three groups and the data were therefore analysed to look for patterns that might predict performance. Stimulability and gender were identified as possible predictors. Female children and those who were able to produce a greater number of consonant speech sounds in isolation were more likely to make progress in their speech output. Future research might use a similar methodology to compare the therapy conditions but with a more homogenous group in terms of stimulability and using a greater intensity of intervention.

Efeito do tratamento do desvio fonológico pelo modelo de estratos por estimulabilidade e complexidade dos segmentos com software de intervenção para fala (SIFALA)

“…This corroborates with the data in the literature that refer that the use of software in speech therapy has revealed positive results 10,28,29 .…”

A systematic meta‐analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the ‘Fast ForWord’ language intervention program

“…Two were excluded due to lack of baseline equivalence (Troia & Whitney, 2003; Hook, Macaruso, & Jones, 2001), four were excluded as they did not use the commercially available Fast ForWord program (Bishop, Adams, & Rosen, 2006; Bishop, Adams, Lehtonen, & Rosen, 2005; Wren & Roulstone, 2008; Ukrainetz, Ross, & Harm, 2009) and one was excluded because it was a corrigendum to a study included within the review (Given, Wasserman, Chari, Beattie, & Eden, 2009). The corrigendum was noted in the original paper (Given, Wasserman, Chari, Beattie, & Eden, 2008).…”

Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Intervention Delivered by Educators for Children With Speech Sound Disorders

“…The free configuration settings were used rather than the teacher settings, allowing the SLP to select the most appropriate targets and stimuli for each child from session to session. Wren and Roulstone (2008) discovered that although there was not a statistically significant difference between the groups, the preschool children who received the PFSS intervention showed a trend towards more improvement compared to the children in the control group. This occurred when the children were stimulable for the target sounds prior to intervention and showed developmental rather than non-developmental error patterns.…”

“…Each session contains between three and five games that have been configured to target the pattern, with each game being played multiple times across the sessions but with increasing complexity in their configuration. Wren and Roulstone (2008) compared the effect of 12 hours of an experimental version of PFSS with conventional table-top intervention (targeting input processing and phonological awareness) and no intervention (n = 33, with 11 randomly assigned to each of three groups: computer-based PFSS, conventional table-top intervention, and no intervention). Participants received three sessions a week over 8 weeks, each session lasting 30 minutes.…”

“…First, in the current study PFSS was delivered by educators using the teacher settings rather than the free configuration setting, as was used by Wren and Roulstone (2008). We chose to use the teacher settings, because it simplified the delivery of the intervention and addressed one of the primary aims of this study, to investigate the delivery of intervention by non-SLP intervention agents.…”