A Comparison of Speech Sound Intervention Delivered by Telepractice and Side-by-Side Service Delivery Models

Abstract

Telepractice has the potential to provide greater access to speech-language intervention services for children with communication impairments. Substantiation of this delivery model is necessary for telepractice to become an accepted alternative delivery model. This study investigated the progress made by school-age children with speech sound impairments in side-by-side intervention compared with telepractice intervention. Fourteen children aged 6 through 10 years with identified speech sound disorders were randomly assigned to intervention delivered in a side-by-side or telepractice service delivery model. Intervention was provided twice a week for 30-min individual sessions during a 5-week summer intervention program. Children in both service delivery models made improvement in their speech sound production during the program. There were no significant differences between the two groups on postintervention assessments including standardized assessment and listener judgments of word productions. Measurements of treatment fidelity were also reported. The results of this study support the use of telepractice in the intervention of children’s speech sound disorders.

Telehealth language assessments using consumer grade equipment in rural and urban settings: Feasible, reliable and well tolerated

“…These results are in line with those reported by Waite and colleagues 11 in their study of [5][6][7][8][9] year-olds whose language was assessed using the CELF-4 via telehealth. Their study found very good agreement between telehealth and face-to-face scorers when assessing children using custom built equipment in a university setting, with some variation between subtests (k range from 0.93 to >0.99).…”

“…9 Yet despite evidence for its utility in delivering interventions, only a small number of studies have examined the role for telehealth in standardised language assessment. Language assessments are crucial in establishing diagnoses, guiding intervention and documenting progress in children with language difficulties.…”

Distance delivery of a parent-implemented language intervention for young boys with fragile X syndrome

“…Following a stable baseline, participants had staggered entry into the intervention phase of the study in which data were collected continuously for 12 weeks. Further, staggered entry into the intervention phase was determined based on a set number of days (Gast et al, 2013), with each dyad entering the intervention phase after the previous dyad completed 3 weeks of intervention. Thus, Dyads 1, 2, and 3 completed 5, 7, and 9 baseline sessions, respectively.…”

“…McDuffie et al (2013) found that targeted parent behaviors were used as frequently during video-conferencing sessions as they were during face-to-face sessions conducted in the clinic. A study by Grogan-Johnson et al (2013) found no significant differences between face-to-face and distance delivery of an intervention on the degree of improvement in speech sound production in school-aged children. Further, work by Wainer and Ingersoll (2015) found significant gains in parents’ use of intervention strategies aimed at increasing imitation in children with ASD through a parent-training paradigm administered through online training.…”

Telehealth delivery of Rapid Syllable Transitions (ReST) treatment for childhood apraxia of speech

“…). The participants in Grogan‐Johnson et al.’s () study had articulation and phonological disorders rather than CAS (S. Grogan‐Johnson, personal communication, 6 February 2015) and therefore these findings cannot necessarily be applied to children with CAS. Effective treatments for CAS often focus on prosody or speech movements (Maas et al .…”