Treating Children Ages 3–6 Who Have Speech Sound Disorder: A Survey

Brumbaugh, Klaire Mann; Smit, Ann Bosma

doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2013/12-0029)

Cited by 92 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Over the past decade, SLPs' practices with children with SSD have been described based on surveys undertaken in countries including the US (Brumbaugh & Smit, 2013;Caesar & Kohler, 2009;Lof & Watson, 2008;Roseberry-McKibbin, Bruce, & O'Hanlon, 2005;Skahan, Watson, & Lof, 2007), the UK (Joffe & Pring, 2008;Mennen & Stansfield, 2006), Australia (McLeod & Baker, 2004;Watts Pappas, McLeod, McAllister, & McKinnon, 2008;Williams & McLeod, 2012), the Netherlands (Priester, Post, & Goorhuis-Brouwer, 2009), and internationally (Jordaan, 2008). These surveys have revealed that SLPs' assessments typically include administration of a commercial assessment tools, consideration of intelligibility, stimulability, and hearing screening (Skahan et al, 2007).…”

Section: Surveys Of Slps' Practices With Children With Ssdmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Few SLPs used computerized analysis procedures (McLeod & Baker, 2004;Skahan et al, 2007). SLPs frequently chose intervention targets based on prioritizing those that impacted intelligibility, stimulable sounds, and using a developmental order of acquisition (Brumbaugh & Smit, 2013;McLeod & Baker, 2004). According to Joffe and Pring (2008), selection of intervention approaches in the UK was influenced by the child's age, parental attitude (motivation and ability), as well as the child's language, cognition, ability to listen and to hear.…”

Section: Surveys Of Slps' Practices With Children With Ssdmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The surveys revealed that SLPs were aware of and used a variety of intervention approaches (Brumbaugh & Smit, 2013;Joffe & Pring, 2008;McLeod & Baker, 2004). Intervention approaches that were frequently used by SLPs in the US survey were the following: traditional articulation approaches, phonological awareness training, minimal pairs, cycles, and whole language approaches (Brumbaugh & Smit, 2013).…”

Section: Surveys Of Slps' Practices With Children With Ssdmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intervention approaches that were frequently used by SLPs in the US survey were the following: traditional articulation approaches, phonological awareness training, minimal pairs, cycles, and whole language approaches (Brumbaugh & Smit, 2013). In another US survey, 85% of 537 SLPs reported that they used NSOMEs during intervention for children with SSD (Lof & Watson, 2008).…”

Section: Surveys Of Slps' Practices With Children With Ssdmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

132

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

Section: Surveys Of Slps' Practices With Children With Ssdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Surveys Of Slps' Practices With Children With Ssdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Surveys Of Slps' Practices With Children With Ssdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Surveys Of Slps' Practices With Children With Ssdmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recall too that treatment herein centered on imitation and spontaneous production of sounds. Although consistent with conventional procedures, there are a variety of instructional techniques available for phonological treatment (Baker & McLeod, 2011;Brumbaugh & Smit, 2013;Williams, McLeod, & McCauley, 2010, for reviews). Examples include treatment directed toward perception, stimulability, formation of phonological categories, or phonological awareness.…”

Section: Treatment Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect Size for Single-Subject Design in Phonological Treatment

Gierut

Morrisette

Dickinson

2015

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study was to document, validate, and corroborate effect size (ES) for single-subject design in treatment of children with functional phonological disorders; to evaluate potential child-specific contributing variables relative to ES; and to establish benchmarks for interpretation of ES for the population. Method Data were extracted from the Developmental Phonologies Archive for 135 preschool children with phonological disorders who previously participated in single-subject experimental treatment studies. Standard mean difference all with correction for continuity was computed to gauge the magnitude of generalization gain that accrued longitudinally from treatment for each child with the data aggregated for purposes of statistical analyses. Results ES ranged from 0.09 to 27.83 for the study population. ES was positively correlated with conventional measures of phonological learning and visual inspection of learning data on the basis of procedures standard to single-subject design. ES was linked to children's performance on diagnostic assessments of phonology but not other demographic characteristics or related linguistic skills and nonlinguistic skills. Benchmarks for interpretation of ES were estimated as 1.4, 3.6, and 10.1 for small, medium, and large learning effects, respectively. Conclusion Findings have utility for single-subject research and translation of research to evidence-based practice for children with phonological disorders.

show abstract