Sound Production Treatment: Synthesis and Quantification of Outcomes

Abstract

a,bPurpose: This investigation was designed to provide a quantification and synthesis of a series of single-case experimental design investigations into the effects of sound production treatment, an articulatory-kinematic treatment for acquired apraxia of speech (AOS). The main purpose was to perform a meta-analysis of aggregated sound production treatment data in order to provide benchmarks to serve as indicators of magnitude of change. Additional analyses explored various factors influencing effect sizes and level of performance. Method: Effect sizes were calculated for treated and untreated items for 24 participants across 10 investigations. Benchmarks were calculated as the quartiles of the distributions of the effect sizes. Correlational analyses were performed to examine (a) end-of-treatment performance relative to follow-up performance, (b) response of trained items relative to untrained items, and (c) effect size relative to participant variables. Results: Effect sizes were predominantly large and positive; benchmarks for treated items were larger than those for untreated items. End of treatment and follow-up performance were positively correlated, and response generalization was positively correlated with AOS severity. Conclusion: These benchmarks may assist in evaluating the effects of interventions for individuals with AOS utilizing similar outcome measures in both clinical and research settings.

Motor learning guided treatment for acquired apraxia of speech

“…The standard mean difference (d) as described in Beeson and Robey (2006) is also reported. According to effect size guidelines from Bailey et al (2015), there was a large treatment effect size for P1 (d = 11.96) and P2 (d = 11.78) in the low phrases. A medium effect size was seen for P1 in the high (d = 9.29) phrases and P2 in the untreated (d = 4.32) phrases.…”

“…The standard mean difference (d) as described in Beeson and Robey (2006) is also reported as a conservative estimation of effect size to compliment Tau-U. Treatment effect sizes and follow-up effect sizes were calculated using excel according to guidelines provided in Bailey, Eatchel, and Wambaugh (2015). The Tau-U effect size was calculated for each cycle as well as the standard mean difference effect sizes (d).…”

A Comparison of Outcome Measures for Speech Motor Learning in Acquired Apraxia of Speech Using Motor Learning Guided Treatment

“…The standard mean difference (d) as described in Beeson and Robey [24] is reported as a conservative estimation of effect size. Treatment effect sizes and followup effect sizes were calculated using excel according to guidelines provided in Bailey et al [25].…”

“…Based on our sample, the independent measure for immediacy proved to be a strong influence for speech motor changes in these two cases. According the effect size guidelines [25], immediacy was identified as the main contributor to speech motor changes on both sets of stimuli with a large effect size on set 1 and medium effect size on set 2 for P1. This change was not identified using the multidimensional rating scale and would not have been included in binary measures as reported in other treatment studies.…”

“…The standard mean difference (d) as described in Beeson and Robey [24] was calculated to provide an estimated treatment effect size ( Table 5). According to effect size guidelines from Bailey et al [25], there was a small treatment effect for P1 on set 2 (d = 6.08). Due to the large variation in baseline measures for P2, the effect size in set 1 (d = 3.13) did not meet the effect size benchmarks despite the large mean treatment gain secondary to the degree of variation in baseline performance.…”