NATURALISTIC INTERVENTION FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN WITH PHONOLOGICAL - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

naturalistic
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

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


slide-1
SLIDE 1

NATURALISTIC INTERVENTION FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN WITH PHONOLOGICAL DISORDERS

Chelsea Schmidt

slide-2
SLIDE 2

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

slide-3
SLIDE 3

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?

slide-4
SLIDE 4

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

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Exclusion Criteria

 Exclusion:  Studies of low evidence  Different disorder: apraxia, articulation disorders

etc.

 Non-English speaking or English as a second

language

slide-6
SLIDE 6

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

slide-7
SLIDE 7

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.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

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

slide-9
SLIDE 9

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

slide-10
SLIDE 10

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

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Summary/Key Findings

 Linguistic and minimal pair approaches were

effective

 Used together to improve intelligibility

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Limitations

 Lack of common vocabulary  Small sample sizes  Low levels of evidence  Lack of recent studies

slide-13
SLIDE 13

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

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Recommendations

 Further research should include:

 Larger sample sizes  Higher levels of evidence  Comparison of the combination of approaches to each

approach separately