Mudanças fonológicas obtidas no tratamento pelo modelo de oposições múltiplas

Ceron, Marizete Ilha; Keske‐Soares, Márcia

doi:10.1590/s1516-18462012005000083

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, greater gains are seen with more intense interventions, but various formats (e.g., telepractice, parentimplemented intervention) are efficacious (Allen, 2013;Lee, 2018;Sugden et al, 2020). The research in Brazilian Portuguese replicated the efficacy findings in a new language (Ceron & Keske-Soares, 2013;Pagliarin et al, 2009Pagliarin et al, , 2011.…”

Section: Multiple Oppositionsmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…The multiple oppositions approach has been studied in children age 3-6 years with moderate-to-severe SSD in American English (Allen, 2013;Lee, 2018;Williams, 2000aWilliams, , 2000bWilliams, , 2005Williams, , 2012, Australian English (Sugden et al, 2020), and Brazilian Portuguese (Ceron & Keske-Soares, 2013;Pagliarin et al, 2009Pagliarin et al, , 2011. Williams initially developed and documented the efficacy of the approach in American English (Williams, 2000a(Williams, , 2000b(Williams, , 2005, and then subsequent work examined issues of intervention intensity (Allen, 2013;Williams, 2012) and intervention format (Lee, 2018;Sugden et al, 2020).…”

Section: Multiple Oppositionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Minimal, Maximal, or Multiple: Which Contrastive Intervention Approach to Use With Children With Speech Sound Disorders?

Storkel

2022

LSHSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This tutorial contrasts a familiar and frequently used speech sound disorder (SSD) intervention approach, conventional minimal pair, with newer but less familiar and less frequently used variants that may be more effective: (a) maximal opposition and (b) multiple oppositions. Method: This tutorial provides a general description of each contrastive approach, focusing on the evidence base and a small number of critical elements that define the approach and make it unique from all other approaches. Hypothetical cases are used to illustrate how the approaches can be tailored to child needs and speech-language pathologist (SLP) expertise. Supplemental materials enhance the reader's skill in using these approaches in their practice with a minimal initial investment. Results: The reader will be able to identify which children with SSD are appropriate for conventional minimal pair, maximal opposition, or multiple oppositions approaches and will be able to plan intervention (i.e., select target sounds and contrasting words or nonwords, develop intervention activities, write goals, and determine intervention intensity) for each of these approaches. Conclusions: This tutorial highlights that using the conventional minimal pair approach should be restricted to children with a small number of errors (i.e., older children or children with mild SSD). There is an opportunity for SLPs to use newer, more efficacious approaches with younger children and children with more severe SSDs. The maximal opposition approach is well suited to children with multiple errors across multiple sound classes. The multiple oppositions approach specifically targets global phoneme collapses that impact intelligibility. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19178783

show abstract

Section: Multiple Oppositionsmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Multiple Oppositionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimal, Maximal, or Multiple: Which Contrastive Intervention Approach to Use With Children With Speech Sound Disorders?

Storkel

2022

LSHSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies show that structured programs of speech-language intervention in language bring linguistic gains to those submited to them [16][17][18]. Such programs can often help clinical speech pathologists to plan and organize their intervention beter and play a key role as a practical guide in developing therapeutic planning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intervention Program for Brazilian Children with Language Delay

Guarnieri¹,

Lopes-Herrera²

2017

Advances in Speech-Language Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acquisition and development of language are primary in a child's life, especially because language is one of the main means of social interaction. Therefore, it is of great importance that good language development has been assured to children and, when necessary, good intervention at their diiculties. Currently, in the ield of children's language in Brazil, diferent therapeutic approaches are arguable, but the necessity of development of structured therapeutic programs is veriied, elaborated with technical and scientiic quality so that they may stimulate the diferent abilities of language, aiming at considering the speciicities of each child in order to minimize the diiculties. Such intervention programs would guide speech-language pathologists to plan their therapies and provide more efects in the intervention process. The aim of this study is to elaborate a stimulation program for verbal language for children with language delay. For this reason, the stimulation program was judged by peers (experts) after it was designed. The experts veriied if the strategies were coherent about (a) the stimulation target and (b) the complexity level. In conclusion, the program reached the goal, since it could give direction and enhance to speech-language pathologists in cases of diiculties in verbal language.

show abstract

Progresso terapêutico de sujeitos submetidos a terapia fonológica pelo modelo de oposições múltiplas: comparação do progresso terapêutico

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este trabalho tem como objetivo analisar e comparar o progresso terapêutico apresentado por crianças submetidas ao Modelo de Oposições Múltiplas estimuladas na terapia com os mesmos sons-alvo. Participaram deste relato de caso duas crianças com desvio fonológico, sendo um menino (S1) e uma menina (S2), com idades de 4:2 e 4:11, respectivamente. Os dados da fala foram coletados por meio da avaliação fonológica. Para o tratamento, foi utilizado o Modelo de Oposições Múltiplas durante 25 sessões com os mesmos sons-alvo, todos pertencentes a classe das fricativas. As substituições e omissões no inventário fonológico de cada criança foram analisadas, assim como a ocorrência de processos fonológicos pré e pós-terapia. Observou-se que o sujeito que apresentava mais substituições (S1) foi o que apresentou maiores aquisições de fonemas no inventário fonológico. O S1 foi o que apresentou maior ocorrência de processos em sua fala, tanto pré quanto pós-terapia, o que dificultava a inteligibilidade de fala para o ouvinte. Os processos que envolveram a classe das líquidas foram os que apresentaram um maior percentual de ocorrência, mesmo após a terapia. O Modelo de Oposições Múltiplas possibilitou um adequado progresso no tratamento dessas crianças com desvio fonológico, proporcionando uma expansão no inventário fonológico e uma diminuição de ocorrência de processos fonológicos apesar de haver diferenças quanto a evolução apresentada por cada uma.

show abstract

Mudanças fonológicas obtidas no tratamento pelo modelo de oposições múltiplas

Cited by 3 publications

References 22 publications

Minimal, Maximal, or Multiple: Which Contrastive Intervention Approach to Use With Children With Speech Sound Disorders?

Minimal, Maximal, or Multiple: Which Contrastive Intervention Approach to Use With Children With Speech Sound Disorders?

Intervention Program for Brazilian Children with Language Delay

Progresso terapêutico de sujeitos submetidos a terapia fonológica pelo modelo de oposições múltiplas: comparação do progresso terapêutico

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About