Practice In Communication Disorders Research Articles

Evidence-Based Systematic Review: Effects of Speech-Language Pathology Treatment for Individuals With Paradoxical Vocal Fold Motion.

In this article, our goal was to determine the state of the evidence and the effect of speech-language pathology (SLP) treatment for individuals with paradoxical vocal fold motion (PVFM). The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders searched 22 electronic databases using key words related to PVFM, speech or voice treatment, and behavioral intervention for articles published through July 2013. Identified articles were systematically evaluated to assess the quality of the evidence using a modification of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's critical appraisal scheme. Sixty-five articles met the search criteria. Only 2 out of the 65 articles were judged to contain adequate evidence to evaluate the effect of SLP treatment for PVFM. All 65 articles exemplify the state of the evidence for SLP treatment for PVFM. The state of the evidence for the use of SLP treatment is in its infancy, with a majority of articles in the exploratory stage of research. Consequently, few clinical implications can be drawn at this time. SLP treatment for PVFM is promising; however, there is clearly a pressing need for systematic experimental studies that involve a control group to further the evidence base.

Bilingual aphasia treatment: Clinical recommendations regarding secondary language treatment, cross-language transfer, and the use of language brokers await additional research

This review provides a summary and appraisal commentary on the treatment review by Faroqi-Shah, Y., Frymark, T., Mullen, R., & Wang, B. (2010). Effect of treatment for bilingual individuals with aphasia: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 23, 319–341.Source of funding and declaration of interests: The authors reported that this systematic review was supported by the ASHA’s National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders. It was reported that none of the authors received a paid consultancy or had any other conflict of interest or competing interests.

More research is needed to choose service delivery models for elementary-aged children with speech-language impairments

This review provides a summary and appraisal commentary on the treatment review by Cirrin, F. M., Schooling, T. L., Nelson, N. W., Diehl, S. F., Flynn, P. F., Staskowski, M., … Adamczyk, D. F. (2010). Evidence-based systematic review: Effects of different service delivery models on communication outcomes for elementary school-age children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 233–264.Source of funding and disclosure of interest: The original study was supported by the American Speech-Language Hearing Association and the National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders. No conflicts of interest were reported by the original authors of this research report.

Language Use in Social Interactions of School-Age Children With Language Impairments: An Evidence-Based Systematic Review of Treatment

Pragmatic models were first applied to the treatment of children with language impairment in the late 1970s. Since that time, the study of language use has had considerable impact on language assessment and treatment. Despite the need to address pragmatic language skills clinically, there has been no systematic examination of the efficacy of treatments developed for this purpose. In accordance with the evidence-based practice policy agenda, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) convened an ad hoc committee on language use in social interactions in school-age children. The committee's charge was to develop an evidence-based systematic review of treatment for disorders of language use in social interactions. This charge was conducted in collaboration with ASHA's National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders. This systematic review provided preliminary support for the feasibility of various treatment procedures addressing social communication behaviors. Gains were reported in topic management skills, narrative production, and repairs of inadequate or ambiguous comments. Because further investigation of these treatments is warranted, the committee is unable to make empirically supported recommendations for changes in standard clinical practice based solely on this review. More research is needed to examine the feasibility of interventions that focus on children's language use.

Ethics, Equity, and English-Language Learners: A Decision-Making Framework

Ethics, Equity, and English-Language Learners: A Decision-Making Framework

Constraint-Induced Language Therapy: A Systematic Review

Constraint-Induced Language Therapy: A Systematic Review

Controversies Surrounding Nonspeech Oral Motor Exercises for Childhood Speech Disorders

The use of nonspeech oral motor exercises (NSOMEs) for influencing children’s speech sound productions is a common therapeutic practice used by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the United States, 1 Canada, 2 and the United Kingdom. 3 Reports from these countries have documented that between 71.5% and 85% of practicing clinicians use some type of NSOMEs in therapy to change children’s speech productions. NSOMEs can be defined as any therapy technique that does not require the child to produce a speech sound but is used to influence the development of speaking abilities. 1 The National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders (NCEP) 4 of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) developed this definition: ‘‘Oral-motor exercises are activities that involve sensory stimulation to or actions of the lips, jaw, tongue, soft palate, larynx, and respiratory muscles which are intended to influence the physiologic underpinnings of the oropharyngeal mechanism and thus improve its functions; oral-motor exercises may include active muscle exercise, muscle stretching, passive exercise, and sensory stimulation.’’ The term ‘‘oral motor,’’ which relates to movements and placements of the oral musculature, is established in the field of SLP. Although the existence and importance of the oral-motor aspects of speech production is well understood, the use and effectiveness of nonspeech oral-motor activities is disputed because of the lack of theoretical and empirical support. To understand more about the use of NSOMEs for changing disordered productions of speech, a colleague and I 1 conducted a nationwide survey of 537 practicing clinicians from 48 states. We found that SLPs frequently used the exercises of blowing, tongue wagging and pushups, cheek puffing, the alternating movement of pucker-smile, ‘‘big smile,’’ and tongue-to-nose-to-chin. The clinicians believed these NSOMEs would help their clients obtain tongue elevation, protrusion, and lateralization; increase their tongue and lip strength; become more aware of their articulators; stabilize the jaw; control drooling; and increase velopharyngeal and sucking abilities. The respondents to the survey reported using these techniques for children with a wide variety of different speech disorders stemming from a wide variety of etiologies: dysarthria, childhood apraxia of speech (CAS), Down syndrome, late talkers, phonological impairment, functional misarticulations, and hearing impairment. It makes one curious why clinicians would select these nonspeech therapeutic techniques because they lack adequate theoretical underpinnings for their use. Additionally, the research studies that have evaluated treatment efficacy using the NSOME techniques, although admittedly scant and not at the highest levels of scientific rigor, do not show therapeutic effectiveness. Not only are these nonspeech tasks lacking in theoretical and data support for their use, their application to improve speech intelligibility also often defies logical reasoning. So why do clinicians use these techniques? As I have previously pointed out, 5 SLPs have several possible reasons for using NSOMEs. Some of these reasons may be that

Social Communication: A Framework for Assessment and Intervention

Social Communication: A Framework for Assessment and Intervention

How to Win Private Plan Appeals

How to Win Private Plan Appeals

The State of the Evidence: ASHA Develops Levels of Evidence for Communication Sciences and Disorders

The State of the Evidence: ASHA Develops Levels of Evidence for Communication Sciences and Disorders

Teaching Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) at the Pre-service Level

No AccessPerspectives on Augmentative and Alternative CommunicationArticle1 Sep 2006Teaching Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) at the Pre-service Level Patricia Dowden Patricia Dowden University of WashingtonSeatle, WA Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/aac15.3.22 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In "Teaching Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) at the Pre-service Level." Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15(3), pp. 22–23 References ASHA. (2005). Evidence-based practice in communication disorders [Position statement]. Retrieved April4, , 2006, from www.asha.org/NR/rdonlyres/4837FDFC-576B-4D84-BDD6-8BFF2A803AD3/0/v4PS_EBP.pdf Google Scholar Finn, P., Bothe, A., & Bramlett, R. (2005). Science and pseudoscience in communication disorders: Criteria and applications.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14, 172–186. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Mullen, R. (2005, November8). Survey tests members' understanding of evidence-based practice.The ASHA Leader, 10, pp. 4, 14. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Reilly, S., Douglas, J., & Oates, J. (2004). Evidence based practice in speech pathology. London: Whurr Publishers. Google Scholar Schlosser, R. W. (2000). The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: Toward evidence-based practice. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar Zipoli, R. P., & Kennedy, M. (2005). Evidence-based practice among speech-language pathologists: Attitudes, utilization, and barriers.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14, 208–221. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byLanguage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools44:3 (266-280)1 Jul 2013Evidence-Based Speech-Language Pathology Practices in Schools: Findings From a National SurveyLaVae M. Hoffman, Marie Ireland, Shannon Hall-Mills and Perry Flynn Volume 15Issue 3September 2006Pages: 22-23 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Sep 1, 2006 Metrics Topicsasha-topicsasha-sigsasha-article-typesleader-topicsCopyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2006 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF downloadLoading ...

Clinical Issues: Evidence-Based Speech-Language Pathology (Practice): What’s New?

No AccessPerspectives on Language Learning and EducationClinical Issues1 Mar 2006Clinical Issues: Evidence-Based Speech-Language Pathology (Practice): What’s New? Timothy Meline Timothy Meline Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Texas-Pan AmericanEdinburg, TX Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/lle13.1.2 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References ASHA. (2005). Evidence-based practice in communication disorders [position statement]. Retrieved January 27, 2006, from www.asha.org/NR/rdonlyres/4837FDFC-576B-4D84-BDD6-8BFF2A803AD3/0/v4PS_ EBP.pdf Google Scholar Dewar, J. A. (1998). The informat ion ageand the printing press: Looking backward to see ahead (Document No. P-8014). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Google Scholar Dollaghan, C. (2004, April 13). Evidence-based practice: Myths and realities.The ASHA Leader, 4–5, 12. Google Scholar Gillon, G. T. (2000). The efficacy of phonological awareness intervention for children with spoken language impairment.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31,126–141. LinkGoogle Scholar Glass, G. V. (2000). Meta-analysis at 25. Retrieved July 3,2005, from http://glass.ed.asu.edu/gene/papers/meta25.html Google Scholar Justice, L. M., & Fey, M. E. (2004, September 21). Evidence-based practice in schools: Integrating craft and theory with science and data.The ASHA Leader, 4–5, 30–32. LinkGoogle Scholar Meline, T., & Mata-Pistokache, T. (2003). The perils of Pauline’s e-mail: Professional issues for audiologists and speech-language pathologists.Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 30,118–122. Google Scholar Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Glasziou, P., & Haynes, R. B. (2005). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. New York: Elsevier. Google Scholar Reilly, S., Douglas, J., & Oates, J. (2004). Evidence based practice in speech pathology. Philadelphia: Whurr. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 13Issue 1March 2006Pages: 2-4 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Mar 1, 2006 Metrics Downloaded 23 times Topicsasha-topicsleader-topicsasha-article-typesasha-sigsCopyright & Permissions© 2006 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF DownloadLoading ...

Evidence-based practice in communication disorders: what do we know, and when do we know it?

Evidence-based practice (EBP), a framework that originated in clinical medicine, offers a principled means of addressing longstanding questions about clinical practice in communication disorders. However, in several respects EBP represents a radical departure from traditional thinking in speech-language pathology and audiology. In this paper, I first describe some of the ways in which the EBP orientation challenges conventional wisdom. I then describe criteria from the EBP literature to be used in evaluating evidence on diagnostic procedures. Using EBP criteria to design, conduct, and interpret studies will increase the quality of evidence available to support clinical decision-making in communication disorders, and to the credibility of the field as a whole. Learning outcomes (1) Readers will be able to explain why rigorous scientific studies provide a stronger basis for clinical decision-making than do the opinions of authorities. (2) Readers will be able to list five EBP criteria for evaluating a study of diagnosis. (3) Readers will be able to describe and interpret two measures of diagnostic accuracy. (4) Readers will be able to explain the limitations of small-sample studies of diagnostic procedures.

Evidence-based practice in communication disorders: what do we know, and when do we know it?

Evidence-based practice (EBP), a framework that originated in clinical medicine, offers a principled means of addressing longstanding questions about clinical practice in communication disorders. However, in several respects EBP represents a radical departure from traditional thinking in speech-language pathology and audiology. In this paper, I first describe some of the ways in which the EBP orientation challenges conventional wisdom. I then describe criteria from the EBP literature to be used in evaluating evidence on diagnostic procedures. Using EBP criteria to design, conduct, and interpret studies will increase the quality of evidence available to support clinical decision-making in communication disorders, and to the credibility of the field as a whole. (1) Readers will be able to explain why rigorous scientific studies provide a stronger basis for clinical decision-making than do the opinions of authorities. (2) Readers will be able to list five EBP criteria for evaluating a study of diagnosis. (3) Readers will be able to describe and interpret two measures of diagnostic accuracy. (4) Readers will be able to explain the limitations of small-sample studies of diagnostic procedures.

Private Practice in Communication Disorders. Mary Lovey Wood

Private Practice in Communication Disorders. Mary Lovey Wood