Speech Intervention Outcomes Associated With Word Lexicality and Intervention Intensity

Abstract

Purpose This study examined how lexical representations and intervention intensity affect phonological acquisition and generalization in children with speech sound disorders. Method Using a single-subject multiple baseline design, 24 children with speech sound disorders (3;6 to 6;10 [years;months]) were split into 3 word lexicality types targeting word-initial complex singleton phonemes: /ɹ l ʧ θ/. Specifically, academic vocabulary words, nonwords (NWs), and high-frequency (HF) words were contrasted. Intervention intensity was examined by comparing the performance of 12 children who completed eleven 50-min sessions (4 children/word type) to the performance of 12 who completed 19 sessions (4 children/word type). Children's production accuracy of their treated phonemes and overall percent consonants correct values were used to measure phonological generalization via percentage accuracy scores and d scores. Results All word lexicality conditions elicited phonological change, suggesting that academic vocabulary words, NWs, and HF words are viable intervention targets. Group mean averages were similarly high for the NWs and HF words, although children in the NW condition demonstrated more consistent phonological gains. Children who received 19 intervention sessions achieved 6 times more gains in treated sound accuracy than did children who received 11 sessions. Conclusions Word lexicality did not significantly influence children's intervention outcomes. More intensive intervention, as characterized by the number sessions, resulted in greater phonological change than did a shorter intervention program. Intervention intensity outcomes should be considered when establishing best practices for speech intervention scheduling. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.7336055

Intervention dose frequency: Phonological generalization is similar regardless of schedule

“…A multiple baseline, single-participants experimental design, in which every child served as his/her own control, was used in this intervention program (McReynolds and Kearns, 1983). This design has been used effectively in many different types of intervention studies involving children with SSD (Cummings and Barlow, 2011; Cummings et al, 2019). Following procedures for this design, the children with SSD were randomly assigned to one of two intervention dose frequency conditions: intervention occurring two times per week (2×/week) or intervention occurring four times per week (4×/week).…”

“…Intervention was delivered in two phases: Imitation and Spontaneous Production. This protocol was chosen in order to remain consistent with previous studies (Cummings et al, 2019; Cummings and Barlow, 2011). Intervention was provided 2×/week or 4×/week for 50-minute sessions, for 20 sessions over the course of five or ten weeks.…”

Neural mechanisms underlying speech perception in children with speech sound disorders

“…The speech treatment procedures used in the present study are described in detail elsewhere (Cummings, Hallgrimson, & Robinson, 2018). Briefly, a single-subject multiple baseline design, in which every child served as his/her own control, was used (McReynolds & Kearns, 1983;McReynolds & Thompson, 1986).…”

A Comparison of Treatment lexicality (Real word, Nonword) in the SSR Intervention for Children with SSD

“…무의미 자극어는 어휘적 변수와 음운론적 변수 등을 쉽게 통제할 수 있으며, 아동의 사전 경험이나 단어의 의미와 관련 된 잠재적 편향을 피할 수 있다 (Bryan & Howard, 1992;Leonard, Newhoff, & Mesalam, 1980). 또한 무의미 자극어를 사용하면 아동 이 목표 음소의 발음에만 집중하도록 할 수 있기 때문에 (Cum-mings et al, 2019;van Riper, 1939), 인지 처리 요구를 줄이는데 도 움이 될 수 있다 (Cummings & Barlow, 2011;Gerber, 1973 (Kim, 1996)을 반영한 것으로, 목표 음소는 현재 아동들의 음소 목록(Phonemic inventory)에 포함되 지 않으면서 (Miccio, Elbert, & Forrest, 1999;Cummings et al, 2019) Figure 1. The comparison of the intervention effect of treatments (real word, nonword) as treated words (%).…”

“…다양한 모음 환경에서의 목표 음소 산출을 고르게 중재 Kyungrang Baik, et al • A Comparison of Treatment lexicality in the SSR for Children with SSD 할 수 있다. 무의미 자극어는 소리와 자극어, 둘 간의 연결이 동시에 학습되기 때문에 음운학습을 강화시킬 수 있으며(Storkel, 2018), 인 지 처리 요구를 줄이기 때문에 보다 많은 자동화된 음소와 단어 산 출을 가능하게 할 수 있을 것이다(Cummings et al, 2019). 아동의 보호자와 아동이 상호작용적 이야 기책 읽기를 하는 것으로 중재 간 효과 비교를 하는 것도 의의가 있 을 것으로 여겨진다.…”