NATURALISTIC INTERVENTION FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN WITH PHONOLOGICAL - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
NATURALISTIC INTERVENTION FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN WITH PHONOLOGICAL - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
NATURALISTIC INTERVENTION FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN WITH PHONOLOGICAL DISORDERS Chelsea Schmidt Background Information 3 year old Severe phonological disorder Multiple processes used: Final consonant deletion Stopping of
Background Information
3 year old Severe phonological disorder Multiple processes used:
Final consonant deletion Stopping of fricatives and affricates Prevocalic voicing Velar fronting Cluster reduction Weak syllable deletion Idiosyncratic errors
Focused Clinical Question
For a preschool-aged child with a severe
phonological disorder, is a linguistic approach or a minimal pair approach more effective in improving intelligibility?
Inclusion Criteria
Inclusion: Preschool aged children with phonological disorders 1-1 therapy Linguistic-approach Communication-centered Whole-language Broad-based Scaffolded-language Naturalistic Minimal pair approach Improved intelligibility Suppression of processes
Exclusion Criteria
Exclusion: Studies of low evidence Different disorder: apraxia, articulation disorders
etc.
Non-English speaking or English as a second
language
Search Strategy
Databases:
Academic Search Premiere
CINAL
ASHA
Search Terms:
Severe phonological disorder
Improved intelligibility
Whole-language approach
Language-based therapy
Suppressing final consonant deletion
Play-based therapy
Minimal pair approach
Broad-based intervention/approach/therapy
Treating phonological disorders
Phonological disorder therapy
Search Results
Studies Located: 172 Title/Abstract Review: 7 Articles Included: 3
Hoffman, P., Norris, J., Monjure, J. (1990). Comparison of process targeting and whole language treatments for phonologically delayed preschool children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 102-109.
Hart, S., Gonzalez, L. (2009). The effectiveness of using communication-centered intervention to facilitate phonological learning in young children. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 32(1), 13-25. doi: 10.1177/1525740109333966.
Bellon-Harn, M., Credeur-Pampolina, M., LeBoeuf, L. (2012). Scaffolded-language intervention: Speech production outcomes. Communication Disorders Quarterly. 34(2), 120-132. doi: 10.1177/1525740111425086.
Article Brief:
Comparison of Process Targeting and Whole Language Treatments for Phonologically Delayed Preschool Children.
Method: 2 boys aged 4;1 Moderate phonological disorders Minimal pair approach: Auditory discrimination Imitate in words, phrases, sentences, and conversation Whole-language approach: Listened to story Retell the story Clinician expansions and models after incorrect phonological
productions
Results: Both children improved intelligibility
Article Brief: The Effectiveness of Using Communication-Centered Intervention to Facilitate Phonological Learning in Young Children
Method:
3 children ages 3;7-4;11 Severe phonological disorders
Communication-centered approach:
Storybook reading 2 activities that facilitated naturalistic interactions Feedback:
Correct: Repeat and acoustically highlight target Incorrect: Minimal pair and opportunity to self-correct Results:
Increased intelligibility in 2 children Maintained results in 1 child at follow-up
Article Brief: Scaffolded-Language Intervention: Speech Production Outcomes
Method: 2 children 4;2 and 4;8 Phonological disorder Scaffolded-Language Intervention: Repeated Storybook Reading (RSR) Same book every session Read more pages each time Spontaneous responses or WH- questions to elicit responses Feedback: Correct: Expansions Incorrect: Minimal pair or imitation of target response Results: Improved intelligibility in both children
Summary/Key Findings
Linguistic and minimal pair approaches were
effective
Used together to improve intelligibility
Limitations
Lack of common vocabulary Small sample sizes Low levels of evidence Lack of recent studies
Clinical Bottom Line
Both the linguistic and minimal pair approaches
were effective
Used together Naturalistic exchanges with minimal pairs as
corrective feedback
Further research is needed
Recommendations
Further research should include:
Larger sample sizes Higher levels of evidence Comparison of the combination of approaches to each