The Table to Tablet (T2T) Speech and Language Therapy Software Development Roadmap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have analyzed gains in using computers in speech and language therapy interventions for children with speech and/or language disorders when compared to a control group, but virtual tutors and computer-based visual feedback have been gaining interest in the literature. Previous systematic reviews mainly focused on development technological details of computer-based speech training systems or the potential of integrating mobile technology into education and rehabilitation, but recent systematic reviews have also evaluated the efficacy of computer-based speech and language therapy for children and how digital technology can support different activities, at school or elsewhere. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze a continuous communication and joint team approach to develop solutions focused on the real needs of end users, which digitally emulate reliable and validated physical intervention materials for children with speech sound disorders (SSD). METHODS: The Table to Tablet (T2T) software was developed using a design-based research methodology, which included four phases: activities development; ethnographic pretesting with a sample from the target population; software development; and beta-testing. The technology used to develop the software, the method used to ensure satisfaction and replay ability of the intervention materials, and results from the ethnographic and beta-testing phases are presented. RESULTS: Nineteen activities were developed during the first phase, which were then tested, with 7 service users, using a physical prototype. The beta-test approach included extensive testing and reformulation, supported by direct, nonparticipant observation and data collection using a questionnaire designed for children. Feedback was used to improve the software and interaction with users. CONCLUSIONS: The use of T2T-based intervention programmes by speech and language therapists (SLTs) will allow these professionals to make a better and more effective communication intervention, based on proven methodologies, that coexists in a structured physical and a digital version. These versions provide a full, 6-week intervention program, with minimal effort in preparing the session by the SLTs while delivering a very consistent intervention, with high replay value. A continuous communication and joint team approach was beneficial to the project and to the development of a solution focused on the real needs of SLTs and children with SSD. All problems were approached as a team with different skills and expertise, which minimized errors (eg, the developer making choices that would save him from spending time doing something that would not be used) and time spent. To add to this, the importance of integrating the end users as testers and collecting their opinions and actions per session allowed the production of better-targeted activities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02490826; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02490826.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.010 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".