MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123618607 · doi:10.1044/2015_ajslp-14-0056

A Randomized Trial of 12-Week Interventions for the Treatment of Developmental Phonological Disorder in Francophone Children

2015· article· en· W2123618607 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Rvachew, Françoise Brosseau‐Lapré

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre for Research on Brain Language and Music
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Context (archaeology)Psychological interventionPsychologyDialogicRandomized controlled trialArticulation (sociology)Reading (process)Developmental psychologyMedicineLinguisticsPedagogyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study was designed to test the relative efficacy of different combinations of intervention approaches when targeting speech production accuracy and phonological awareness skills. All children received individual speech therapy, a home program, and a small-group phonological awareness intervention. METHOD: Sixty-five 4-year-olds with a developmental phonological disorder received these intervention components in different combinations over 12 weeks, resulting in 4 groups: output-oriented individual intervention and articulation practice home program, output-oriented individual intervention and dialogic reading home program, input-oriented individual intervention and articulation practice home program, and input-oriented individual intervention and dialogic reading home program. RESULTS: A significant interaction of the individual treatment condition and the home program condition was observed for 2 outcome measures: targeted feature match (which reflected changes in speech production accuracy for features and word shape structures that were targeted in therapy) and explicit phonological awareness skills. CONCLUSION: In this context, in which the children received a brief period of direct therapy and a home program component provided sequentially, the most effective strategy was to teach the parents to use treatment procedures at home that were congruent with the direct therapy component.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Speech-Language PathologySame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207