Investigating intervention dose frequency for children with speech sound disorders and motor speech involvement

Namasivayam, Aravind Kumar; Pukonen, Margit; Goshulak, Debra; Granata, Francesca; Le, Daniel; Kroll, Robert M.; Lieshout, Pascal van

doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12472

Cited by 12 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Prospective phenotype and persistence studies are needed to assess the generalizability of findings with large, representative samples from diverse clinical communities. Findings from recent treatment studies by Namasivayam and colleagues (Namasivayam, Granata, Huynh, & Van Lieshout, 2018; Namasivayam et al, in press) support the construct validity of SMD, using rationale and methods similar to those described in Shriberg (2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 69%

Initial studies of the phenotype and persistence of speech motor delay (SMD)

Shriberg

Campbell

Mabie

et al. 2019

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech Motor Delay (SMD) is a recently proposed childhood motor speech disorder characterized by imprecise and unstable speech, prosody, and voice that does not meet criteria for either Childhood Dysarthria or Childhood Apraxia of Speech. The goals of the present research were to obtain information on the phenotype of SMD and initial information on the persistence of SMD in children receiving treatment for idiopathic Speech Delay (SD). Five questions about the phenotype and persistence of SMD were posed using a database of audio-recordings and participant records and longitudinal data from audio-recordings of children with early SMD treated for SD. Three phenotype questions examined associations between participant risk factors and prevalence of SMD, and described the most frequent speech, prosody, and voice signs of early SMD. To provide initial estimates of the persistence of SMD, two questions examined associations between the persistence of SMD and participant risk factors using the audio-recordings of 14 participants with SMD treated for idiopathic SD. Phenotype findings indicated that SMD is characterized by across-the-board delays in the spatiotemporal precision and stability of speech, prosody, and voice production. Persistence findings indicated that although most participants normalized early SMD by 6 years of age, SMD persisted until at least late adolescence in 21.4% of participants. Findings are interpreted to support the construct validity of SMD and the potential for research using additional assessment modalities to explicate its genomic and neuromotor causal pathways.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 69%

Initial studies of the phenotype and persistence of speech motor delay (SMD)

Shriberg

Campbell

Mabie

et al. 2019

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two intervention studies targeted children’s impairments 28,29 . One evaluated intervention frequency for children with motor‐based speech sound disorders and the other evaluated a computer‐based intervention.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Original 50-item FOCUS (n=20) 13,15,16,[18][19][20][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][32][33][34][35][37][38][39] FOCUS-F (n=1) 42 FOCUS-G (n=1) 41 FOCUS-I (n=1) 40 FOCUS-34 (n=2) 20,21 FOCUS Thomas-Stonell et al 15 Case series 4 Thomas-Stonell et al 16 Case series 4 Hidecker et al 19 Case series 4 Kwok et al 20 Case series 4 Cunningham et al 21 Case series 4 Thomas-Stonell et al 22 Case series 4 Washington et al 23 Cohort 3 Washington et al 24 Cohort 3 Namasivayam et al 26 Cohort 3 Pennington et al 27 Case series 4 McLeod et al 28 Randomized trial 2 Namasivayam et al 29 Cohort 3 Washington et al 38 Case series 4…”

Section: Version Usedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 Generally, children who had better functional communication had more rapid development and higher FOCUS scores, a finding also documented by Hidecker et al 19 Importantly, however, children in the lowest levels of function (CFCS levels IV and V) still developed, although at a slower rate. 18 Based on the data, children in CFCS levels I to III were predicted to make clinically meaningful change in under 4 months, while children in 28,33 Canada (n=17) 13,15,16,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]29,[37][38][39]42 Germany (n=1) 41 Italy (n=1) 40 Jamaica (n=1) 32 UK (n=1) 27 USA (n=1) 34 Vietnam (n=1) 35…”

Section: Charting Communicative Development Over Timementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Descriptive or discriminative (n=4) [32][33][34][35] Evaluative (n=13) 16,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Reliability and validity testing (n=8) 13,15,[37][38][39][40][41][42] Population General speech, language, and communication impairments (n=13) 13,15,16,18,19,[22][23][24][25][37][38][39]42 Autism spectrum disorder (n=1) 32 Developmental language disorder (n=1) 35 Speech sound disorder (n=7) [26][27][28][29][33][34]41 Late talkers (n=2) 20,21 Typically developing (n=1) 40…”

Section: Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing communicative participation in preschool children with the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six: a scoping review

Cunningham

Thomas‐Stonell

Rosenbaum

2020

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To describe uses of the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS) in research with children with and without various communication disorders since its publication in 2010. Method Six databases were searched for the term ‘Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six’. With additional searches we ascertained 70 articles, of which 25 met inclusion criteria for full review and data extraction. Results The FOCUS has been used in research across multiple countries, purposes, populations, contexts, and versions. Evaluative studies have described: the development of children’s communicative participation skills and factors that impact the development of communicative participation; the impact of specific interventions on communicative participation; how FOCUS captures change relative to measures of impairment; and how FOCUS performs when used at different intervals. Adaptations have included: use of the FOCUS as a descriptive or discriminative tool; use with children outside the validated age range; use of select items; and use with typically developing children. Interpretation The FOCUS is used worldwide in research and practice, and much has been learned about children’s communicative participation. Future research is needed to explore the relationship between children’s impairments and their communicative participation, develop a FOCUS App, and develop and validate a FOCUS for school‐age children.

show abstract

PROMPT intervention for children with severe speech motor delay: a randomized control trial

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Currently, there is limited information on the intervention efficacy for children with speech motor delay (SMD). This randomized control trial (RCT) study examined the effectiveness of Prompts for Restructuring Oral Muscular Phonetic Targets (PROMPT) intervention to improve the outcomes in children with SMD. We hypothesized that children with SMD receiving PROMPT intervention would improve more in the measured outcomes than those waitlisted and receiving home training. Methods Using a two-arm, parallel group, RCT, 49 children with SMD were allocated to either an intervention group (N = 24) that received 45 min of PROMPT intervention two times a week for 10 weeks or were waitlisted for the same duration and received only home training instructions (N = 25). Outcome measures for speech motor control, articulation, speech intelligibility (word and sentence levels), and functional communication were assessed at baseline and at a 10-week follow-up. Results PROMPT intervention was associated with notable improvements in speech motor control, speech articulation, and word-level speech intelligibility. Intervention allocation yielded weak improvements in sentence-level speech intelligibility and functional communication. Conclusions PROMPT intervention is a clinically effective intervention approach for children with SMD. Impact Currently, there is limited information on the intervention efficacy for children with SMD. We report on the findings of a phase III intervention efficacy study on children with SMD using an RCT design. PROMPT intervention is a clinically effective intervention approach for children with SMD. Results of the study will be fundamental to the delivery of effective services for this population. These findings may facilitate the development of an evidence-based care pathway for children with severe speech sound disorders.

show abstract

Investigating intervention dose frequency for children with speech sound disorders and motor speech involvement

Cited by 12 publications

References 46 publications

Initial studies of the phenotype and persistence of speech motor delay (SMD)

Initial studies of the phenotype and persistence of speech motor delay (SMD)

Assessing communicative participation in preschool children with the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six: a scoping review

PROMPT intervention for children with severe speech motor delay: a randomized control trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About