A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Two Alternative Program Models for Serving Speech-Disordered Preschoolers

Eiserman, William D.; McCoun, Marilyn; Escobar, Colette M.

doi:10.1177/105381519001400402

Cited by 30 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In spite of the fact that many early intervention researchers have claimed that randomized experimental research is impossible in such areas (see, e.g., Bricker, Bailey, & Bruder, 1984;Dunst & Rheingrover, 1981;White, Taylor, and Moss Odom & Fewell, 1983;Seitz, 1983), recent studies demonstrate that randomized experiments can be successfully done with early intervention research (e.g., Barnett et al, 1988;Eiserman et al, 1990;Infant Health & Development Program, 1990; also see a discussion of these issues by White & Pezzino, 1986). Such research should use diagnosticians who are uninformed about the experimental conditions and the group membership of subjects, and should verify that the alternative interventions were actually implemented as intended.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Does Research Support Claims About the Benefits of Involving Parents in Early Intervention Programs?

White

Taylor²,

Moss³

1992

Review of Educational Research

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely believed that early intervention programs that involve parents are more effective than those that do not. After discussing the types of parent involvement programs that have been implemented in previous early intervention research and defining the benefits which are allegedly associated with the involvement of parents in early intervention programs, this article presents an analysis of the evidence from previous research regarding the alleged benefits. This analysis shows that there is no convincing evidence that the ways in which parents have been involved in previous early intervention research studies result in more effective outcomes. Possible reasons for the lack of observed benefits are offered, and suggestions are made for future research and practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Does Research Support Claims About the Benefits of Involving Parents in Early Intervention Programs?

White

Taylor²,

Moss³

1992

Review of Educational Research

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding the agent of intervention, findings from Lancaster, Keusch, Levin, Pring, and Martin (2010) suggest that SLP-delivered intervention may be better than parent-delivered intervention while Eiserman, McCoun, and Escobar (1990) would suggest that (with appropriate training and assistance), parent-delivered intervention can be equally as effective as SLP-delivered intervention. Using National Outcome Measure System (NOMS) data for preschoolers being treated for SSD only, individual therapy seems to be preferred over group therapy (ASHA, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Speech-language pathologists’ practices regarding assessment, analysis, target selection, intervention, and service delivery for children with speech sound disorders

McLeod

Baker

2014

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey of 231 Australian speech-language pathologists (SLPs) was undertaken to describe practices regarding assessment, analysis, target selection, intervention, and service delivery for children with speech sound disorders (SSD). The participants typically worked in private practice, education, or community health settings and 67.6% had a waiting list for services. For each child, most of the SLPs spent 10-40 min in pre-assessment activities, 30-60 min undertaking face-to-face assessments, and 30-60 min completing paperwork after assessments. During an assessment SLPs typically conducted a parent interview, single-word speech sampling, collected a connected speech sample, and used informal tests. They also determined children's stimulability and estimated intelligibility. With multilingual children, informal assessment procedures and English-only tests were commonly used and SLPs relied on family members or interpreters to assist. Common analysis techniques included determination of phonological processes, substitutions-omissions-distortions-additions (SODA), and phonetic inventory. Participants placed high priority on selecting target sounds that were stimulable, early developing, and in error across all word positions and 60.3% felt very confident or confident selecting an appropriate intervention approach. Eight intervention approaches were frequently used: auditory discrimination, minimal pairs, cued articulation, phonological awareness, traditional articulation therapy, auditory bombardment, Nuffield Centre Dyspraxia Programme, and core vocabulary. Children typically received individual therapy with an SLP in a clinic setting. Parents often observed and participated in sessions and SLPs typically included siblings and grandparents in intervention sessions. Parent training and home programs were more frequently used than the group therapy. Two-thirds kept up-to-date by reading journal articles monthly or every 6 months. There were many similarities with previously reported practices for children with SSD in the US, UK, and the Netherlands, with some (but not all) practices aligning with current research evidence.

show abstract

“…This has caused some conflicting conclusions about the cost effectiveness of dedicated teaching programmes 15 16 17…”

Section: Children With Speech and Language Disordersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech and language therapy: does it work?

Enderby

Emerson

1996

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech and language therapy is a relatively new discipline. The profession was born some 50 years ago, uniting those working with mostly head injured soldiers returning from the second world war. Interest in communication at that time was lead by neurologists, ear, nose, and throat surgeons, and many teachers. As in many other disciplines, the foundations of the profession were based on concern for those with the disorders and an empirical approach to remediation.We undertook a literature review to establish the state of knowledge about the efficacy of speech and language therapy in major client groups and to identify important areas for research.' Not surprisingly, in view of the profession's youth, research has dealt more with the analysis and identification of speech and language disorders and the development of hypotheses underlying therapeutic programmes than with evaluating their efficacy, relevance, and validity.We wanted to take a systematic approach to reviewing the research,2 but there are not enough controlled studies for us to confine ourselves to this approach. We therefore extended our review to studies displaying the state of knowledge and the main therapeutic challenges.This review attempted to cover a broad range of published and grey literature and hence required interrogation of many different databases because the literature related to speech and language therapy appears in journals covering linguistics, psychology, social sciences, and education. Other reviews examining the efficacy of speech and language therapy have not reflected the wealth of literature because they have limited the search to Medline and associated medical databases.' The main findings of the review are summarised in the box.

show abstract

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Two Alternative Program Models for Serving Speech-Disordered Preschoolers

Cited by 30 publications

References 17 publications

Does Research Support Claims About the Benefits of Involving Parents in Early Intervention Programs?

Does Research Support Claims About the Benefits of Involving Parents in Early Intervention Programs?

Speech-language pathologists’ practices regarding assessment, analysis, target selection, intervention, and service delivery for children with speech sound disorders

Speech and language therapy: does it work?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About