Motor speech treatment protocol for developmental motor speech disorders

Namasivayam, Aravind Kumar; Pukonen, Margit; Hard, Jennifer; Jahnke, Rene; Kearney, Elaine; Kroll, Robert M.; Lieshout, Pascal van

doi:10.3109/17518423.2013.832431

Cited by 20 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, data on treatment outcomes, effectiveness and efficacy are limited for this population (e.g., Namasivayam et al . ). A 2009 Cochrane review on the treatment of MSD in children indicated a critical need for treatment effectiveness studies to advance evidence‐based practice in this area (Morgan and Vogel ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Two of the three studies reported for this population are single subject multiple probe design studies ( N = 5 for Namasivayam et al . , and N = 6 for Square et al . ) and the third is a prospective single group pre‐ and post‐test design study ( N = 12 for Namasivayam et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From these sparse data available for this population, the multi‐sensory treatment approaches have demonstrated preliminary, yet positive, improvements in accuracy of speech movement patterns, percentage of phonemes accurately produced, speech intelligibility and generalization of target features to untrained words (Namasivayam et al . , , Square et al . ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Namasivayam

Pukonen

Goshulak

et al. 2019

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Treatment outcome data for children with severe speech sound disorders with motor speech involvement (SSD‐MSI) are derived from Phase I clinical research studies. These studies have demonstrated positive improvements in speech production. Currently there is no research examining the optimal treatment dose frequency for this population. The results of this study, which is the first of its kind, will inform the delivery of effective services for this population. Aims To investigate optimal treatment dose frequency for the Motor Speech Treatment Protocol (MSTP) for children with SSD‐MSI. Methods & Procedures A total of 48 children (aged 43–47 months) with SSD‐MSI participated in the study. Participants received 45‐min MSTP intervention sessions either once per week (lower dose frequency) or twice per week (higher dose frequency) for a 10‐week period. Blinded outcome assessments were carried out at pre‐ and post‐intervention. Outcomes & Results Treatment‐related change was assessed at body structures, functions and activities participation level as per the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning framework: Children and Youth Version (ICF‐CY) framework WHO (2007). These measures are related to articulation, functional communication and speech intelligibility. One‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that for all variables the baseline scores were not statistically different (p > 0.05) between the two dose‐frequency groups. Overall, there was a significant main effect of Time (pre–post) across all variables (p < 0.01). However, repeated‐measures ANOVA did not result in any statistical interactions (Time × Dose frequency) for any of the variables tested (p > 0.05). Only marginal clinical advantages (< 4% change in intelligibility) were noted with the 10 extra sessions. Conclusions & Implications Overall, the MSTP intervention approach in conjunction with home practice led to significant positive changes for all measures in children with SSD‐MSI. No statistical differences between high‐ and low‐dose‐frequency groups were observed for any of the variables. Clinical effects were examined using effect sizes, as well as changes in articulation, speech intelligibility and functional communication; these differed marginally between the two dose frequencies. This suggests limited benefits of 10 additional sessions per block. Thus, it is recommended that caregivers, speech–language therapists and policy‐makers perform a cost–benefit analysis before determining the dose frequency, when considering additional sessions per block.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Namasivayam

Pukonen

Goshulak

et al. 2019

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, Namasivayam et al . ). Although there are at least 20 treatment approaches for SSDs in use today, data on treatment outcomes, effectiveness and efficacy are limited (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Multi‐sensory treatment for children with developmental motor speech disorders

Square

Namasivayam

Bose

et al. 2014

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…), suggesting a transferring of their motor skills. Likewise, the transferring of gestures has been seen in studies using a multi-sensory treatment approach for children with motor speech disorders (Grigos, Hayden, & Eigen, 2010;Namasivayam et al, 2013) and in populations with aphasia (Bose et al, 2001). In these studies, the participants showed improvements on speech motor control and speech intelligibility following intervention.…”

Section: Sensorimotor Information In Speech Motor Controlmentioning

confidence: 96%

Changes in voice onset time and motor speech skills in children following motor speech therapy: Evidence from /pa/ productions

Kadis

et al. 2014

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated changes in motor speech control and inter-gestural coordination for children with speech sound disorders (SSD) subsequent to Prompts for Restructuring Oral and Muscular Phonetic Targets (PROMPT) intervention. We measured the distribution patterns of voice onset time (VOT) for a voiceless stop (/p/) to examine the changes in inter-gestural coordination. Two standardized tests were used (Verbal Motor Production Assessment for Children (VMPAC), GFTA-2) to assess the changes in motor speech skills and articulation. Data showed positive changes in patterns of VOT with a lower pattern of variability. All children showed significantly higher scores for VMPAC, but only some children showed higher scores for GFTA-2. Results suggest that the proprioceptive feedback provided through PROMPT had a positive influence on speech motor control and inter-gestural coordination in voicing behavior. This set of VOT data for children with SSD adds to our understanding of the speech characteristics underlying speech motor control. Directions for future studies are discussed.

show abstract

Motor speech treatment protocol for developmental motor speech disorders

Abstract: These results provide preliminary evidence that the MSTP, which integrates multi-sensory information and utilizes hierarchical goal selection, may positively impact speech sound production by improving speech motor control in this population.

Cited by 20 publications

References 9 publications

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

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

Multi‐sensory treatment for children with developmental motor speech disorders

Changes in voice onset time and motor speech skills in children following motor speech therapy: Evidence from /pa/ productions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About