Evaluating intervention for language impaired children: a review of the literature

Law, James

doi:10.1111/j.1460-6984.1997.tb01621.x

Cited by 32 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Law [4] reported that treatment evaluation refers to several levels of accountability: effectiveness, efficiency, effects and efficacy. 'Effectiveness' refers to whether a treatment can be shown to work or not insofar as it alters the course of a disorder.…”

Section: Types Of Efficacy Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of the Accent Method of Voice Therapy

Bassiouny

1998

Folia Phoniatr Logop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an increasing need for studies of efficacy of behavior readjustment therapy procedures in human communicative disorders. Legal, social, scientific and professional considerations point up the need for more careful documentation of the effects of treatment techniques used by phoniatricians and speech-language pathologists. This study is conducted in order to evaluate the efficacy of the accent method of voice therapy (AM). The AM is one of the holistic approaches for behavior readjustment voice therapy. It tackles collectively and simultaneously the various parameters of voice such as pitch, loudness and timbre. The results of intervention utilizing the AM in this clinical trial are assessed in a relatively controlled setup. Patients with voice problems resulting from various etiologic vocal pathologies are distributed randomly into two groups. Group 1 (G1) is given the full aspect of the AM, that is, voice hygiene advice plus the accent exercises to correct the faulty vocal technique (habit). Group 2 (G2) receives only voice hygiene advice. The AM is administered in individual sessions 20 min each, twice a week, while the voice hygiene advice counseling is given once a week. The assessment of the vocal pathology is done following a diagnostic protocol utilizing subjective as well as quasi-objective measures of evaluation. The initial assessment presents the baseline (pretest) data for both groups. The follow-up evaluations are done at mid intervention (mid-test), that is, 10 sessions for G1 and 5 sessions for G2, and at the termination of intervention/therapy (post-test). The difference in improvement between G1 and G2 at the end of the observation was generally significant in favor of G1. There were significant improvements in G1 in certain items specific for the various etiologic categories. The improvement from pretest to mid-test to post-test values followed a linear tendency. The significance of the results is discussed and the conclusions are outlined and criticized.

show abstract

Section: Types Of Efficacy Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of the Accent Method of Voice Therapy

Bassiouny

1998

Folia Phoniatr Logop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A cursory examination of the natural communication literature indicates that much attention has been paid to comparing and contrasting different approaches to communication interventions (eg, Creaghead, 1999;Goldstein, Kaczmarek, & Hepting, 1994;Hepting & Goldstein, 1996;Law, 1997;Santos & Lignugaris/Kraft, 1997). Research on the effectiveness of natural learning environment interventions continues to grow and expand (Barnett, Carey, & Hall, 1993;Dunst, Bruder, et al, 2001;McWilliam, 1992;Odom, Favazza, Brown, & Horn, 2000;Prizant & Wetherby, 1998;Santos & Lignugaris/Kraft, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Communication Intervention in Natural Learning Environments

Roper¹,

Dunst²

2003

Infants & Young Children

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 3-dimensional framework for defining different aspects of natural learning environments is used to organize and describe natural communication intervention practices. Seven applicable communication intervention methods and strategies easily implemented in natural environments by speech therapists are described. Procedures for reflecting on practices and ascertaining the extent to which communication strategies are embedded in natural environment interventions are also described.

show abstract

“…Despite the strategic promotion of ‘evidence‐based practice’ (EBP) within the UK since the early 1990s, speech and language therapists do not routinely carry out research into the effectiveness of the services they provide. One of the many complex, contributory factors may be the methodological challenges involved in conducting a robust intervention study which are frequently reported in the literature (Eayers and Jones 1992, Law 1997, Roulstone et al 1999, Bishop and Leonard 2000, Glogowska 2001, Pring 2004, 2005). Cultural reasons may also play a part.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of speech and language therapy interventions for pre‐school children with specific language impairment: a comparison of outcomes following specialist intensive, nursery‐based and no intervention

Gallagher¹,

Chiat

2009

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Clinical services in the UK are increasingly delivering ‘consultative’ methods of intervention rather than ‘direct’ intensive input for children with receptive and expressive language difficulties, yet there has been little systematic evaluation of these different intervention models. Aims: To investigate the effectiveness of different models of therapy provision for children with specific language impairment between the ages of 4;00 and 4;06 years. Methods & Procedures: Twenty‐four children were selected from a specialist waiting list in the London Borough of Lambeth. They were assessed on a range of verbal and non‐verbal skills, and randomly assigned to three different intervention groups. Group 1 received direct intensive speech and language therapy weekly over an 8‐month period at a child development centre; Group 2 received a nursery‐based model of intervention; and Group 3 received review sessions at their local clinic. Outcome & Results: Statistical analysis before the intervention phase revealed no significant differences in scores between the three groups on a range of clinical and parental measures of language, non‐verbal skills, play and behaviour. At the end of the intervention period the Intensive group showed significantly greater improvement than the No Intervention group on all clinical and parental measures, and significantly greater improvement than the Nursery‐based group on all clinical and parental measures except for expressive grammar. Conclusions & Implications: The results of this small‐scale study demonstrate that intensive direct speech and language therapy delivered by speech and language therapists was a more effective model of intervention for this clinical group with severe speech and language impairment.

show abstract

Evaluating intervention for language impaired children: a review of the literature

Cited by 32 publications

References 38 publications

Efficacy of the Accent Method of Voice Therapy

Efficacy of the Accent Method of Voice Therapy

Communication Intervention in Natural Learning Environments

Evaluation of speech and language therapy interventions for pre‐school children with specific language impairment: a comparison of outcomes following specialist intensive, nursery‐based and no intervention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About