Service delivery and intervention intensity for phonology‐based speech sound disorders

Sugden, Eleanor; Baker, Elise; Munro, Natalie; Williams, A. Lynn; Trivette, Carol M.

doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12399

Cited by 38 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 62 publications

(112 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This may not be a conscious action but nevertheless, the lack of consensus between SLTs in how interventions are labelled and described may pose challenges when comparing approaches. Similar issues were observed in studies of intervention for children with speech sound disorder (Baker et al, 2018) and with primary speech and language impairment (Roulstone et al, 2015).…”

Section: Speech and Language Therapy Intervention In The Non-cleft Posupporting

confidence: 61%

“…The complexity of speech and language therapy interventions has been highlighted as a challenge in both research and clinical practice. Further analysis of specific intervention approaches has proposed that some techniques encompass multiple elements (Baker et al, 2018). Baker et al (2018)…”

Section: Speech and Language Therapy Intervention In The Non-cleft Pomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further analysis of specific intervention approaches has proposed that some techniques encompass multiple elements (Baker et al, 2018). Baker et al (2018)…”

Section: Speech and Language Therapy Intervention In The Non-cleft Pomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They concluded that detailed reporting of intervention intensity is required in future research to determine the optimal levels for effective treatment. Factors such as the frequency, dosage, location, duration and person delivering the intervention are all recognized to be crucial when investigating how intervention is delivered (Sugden et al, 2018;Hegarty et al, 2018;Roulstone et al, 2012;2015).…”

Section: Delivery Of Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An Exploratory Study of Speech and Language Therapy Intervention for Children Born With Cleft Palate ± Lip

Williams

Harding

Wren

2020

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Children born with a cleft palate ± lip are at risk of developing speech and language difficulties, which may require intervention from a speech and language therapist (SLT). To date, there is no strong evidence to support one approach to intervention over another, neither is it clear which approaches or methods of provision are commonly used. Objectives: To describe the range of speech and language therapy interventions being used with children born with cleft palate in the United Kingdom up to 5 years of age. To explore the different ways, interventions are being delivered. Design: A prospective study to conduct 9 semi-structured focus groups. Iterative content analysis was completed. Setting: Regional Cleft Lip and Palate Centers in the United Kingdom. Participants: Sixty-two speech and language therapy professionals from specialist cleft teams and community services. Results: Four main codes were identified: “intervention approaches,” “service delivery models,” “decision-making and rationale,” and “patient-centered care.” Participants frequently discussed how they adopt an eclectic style when delivering intervention, the importance of an individualized approach for each child and service delivery constraints, such as a lack of resources. Conclusion: Insight into the multitude of intervention approaches used by SLTs, aspects which influence their decision-making and the variability of service delivery models were gained. Uncertainty regarding which intervention approaches and methods for delivery are most effective provides rationale for future research, to improve the effectiveness of speech and language intervention for children with cleft palate ± lip.

show abstract

Section: Speech and Language Therapy Intervention In The Non-cleft Posupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Speech and Language Therapy Intervention In The Non-cleft Pomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further analysis of specific intervention approaches has proposed that some techniques encompass multiple elements (Baker et al, 2018). Baker et al (2018)…”

Section: Speech and Language Therapy Intervention In The Non-cleft Pomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Delivery Of Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An Exploratory Study of Speech and Language Therapy Intervention for Children Born With Cleft Palate ± Lip

Williams

Harding

Wren

2020

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, Sugden et al . , Brumbaugh and Smit ), with the child being provided with auditory information regarding the target sounds and their own productions. In these approaches to intervention, particularly for those aimed at remediating phonetic errors, the SLT typically provides auditory cues to children regarding how to move and where to place their articulators (e.g., Secord et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of ultrasound visual biofeedback in intervention for speech sound disorders

Sugden

Lloyd

Lam

et al. 2019

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: As cost and access barriers to ultrasound technology have decreased, interest in using ultrasound visual biofeedback (U-VBF) as a tool for remediating speech sound disorders (SSD) has increased. A growing body of research has investigated U-VBF in intervention for developmental SSD; however, diversity in study design, participant characteristics, clinical methods and outcomes complicate the interpretation of this literature. Thus, there is a need for a synthesis and review of the evidence base for using U-VBF in intervention for SSD. Aims: To synthesise and evaluate the research evidence for U-VBF in intervention for developmental SSD. Methods: A systematic review was conducted. Eight electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published before 2018. Details about study design, participants, intervention procedures, service delivery, intervention intensity and outcomes were extracted from each study that met the inclusion criteria. The included studies were rated using both a critical appraisal tool and for their reporting of intervention detail. Main Contributions: Twenty-eight papers, comprising 29 studies, met the inclusion criteria. The most common research design was single-case experimental design (44.8% of studies). The studies included between one and 13 participants (mean = 4.1) who had a mean age of approximately 11 years (range = 4;0-27 years). Within the research evidence, U-VBF intervention was typically provided as part of, or as an adjunct to, other articulatorybased therapy approaches. A range of lingual sounds were targeted in intervention, with 80.6% of participants across all reviewed studies receiving intervention targeting rhotics. Outcomes following therapy were generally positive with the majority of studies reporting that U-VBF facilitated acquisition of targets, with effect sizes ranging from no effect to a large effect. Difficulties with generalisation were observed for some participants. Most studies (79.3%) were categorised as efficacy rather than effectiveness studies and represented lower levels of evidence. Overall, the reviewed studies scored more highly on measures of external validity than internal validity. Conclusions: The evidence base for U-VBF is developing; however, most studies used small sample sizes and lower strength designs. Current evidence indicates that U-VBF may be an effective adjunct to intervention for some individuals whose speech errors persist despite previous intervention. The results of this systematic review underscore the need for more high-quality and large-scale research exploring the use of this intervention in both controlled and community contexts.

show abstract

Interventions targeting working memory in 4–11 year olds within their everyday contexts: A systematic review

Rowe

Titterington

Holmes

et al. 2019

Developmental Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights Non-computerised training can improve working memory and near-transfer skills. Training other skills (physical activity, play, inhibition) is beneficial indirectly. Tapping into attentional resources (executive control) is key to task effectiveness. Further studies need clear theoretical underpinnings and rigorous methodology. Outcome measurement and dosage need greater consideration.

show abstract

Service delivery and intervention intensity for phonology‐based speech sound disorders

Cited by 38 publications

References 62 publications

An Exploratory Study of Speech and Language Therapy Intervention for Children Born With Cleft Palate ± Lip

An Exploratory Study of Speech and Language Therapy Intervention for Children Born With Cleft Palate ± Lip

Systematic review of ultrasound visual biofeedback in intervention for speech sound disorders

Interventions targeting working memory in 4–11 year olds within their everyday contexts: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Service delivery and intervention intensity for phonology‐based speech sound disorders

Cited by 38 publications

References 62 publications

An Exploratory Study of Speech and Language Therapy Intervention for Children Born With Cleft Palate ± Lip

An Exploratory Study of Speech and Language Therapy Intervention for Children Born With Cleft Palate ± Lip

Systematic review of ultrasound visual biofeedback in intervention for speech sound disorders

Interventions targeting working memory in 4–11 year olds within their everyday contexts: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Interventions targeting working memory in 4–11 year olds within their everyday contexts: A systematic review