MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2926627897 · doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12472

Investigating intervention dose frequency for children with speech sound disorders and motor speech involvement

2019· article· en· W2926627897 on OpenAlexaff
Aravind Kumar Namasivayam, Margit Pukonen, Debra Goshulak, Francesca Granata, Derek J. Le, Robert M. Kroll, Pascal van Lieshout

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsAmgen (Canada)The Speech and Stuttering InstituteToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalysis of varianceRepeated measures designAudiologyPsychologySpeech productionPopulationIntervention (counseling)Articulation (sociology)Intelligibility (philosophy)Speech soundMedicineSpeech recognitionStatisticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Treatment outcome data for children with severe speech sound disorders with motor speech involvement (SSD-MSI) are derived from Phase I clinical research studies. These studies have demonstrated positive improvements in speech production. Currently there is no research examining the optimal treatment dose frequency for this population. The results of this study, which is the first of its kind, will inform the delivery of effective services for this population. AIMS: To investigate optimal treatment dose frequency for the Motor Speech Treatment Protocol (MSTP) for children with SSD-MSI. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A total of 48 children (aged 43-47 months) with SSD-MSI participated in the study. Participants received 45-min MSTP intervention sessions either once per week (lower dose frequency) or twice per week (higher dose frequency) for a 10-week period. Blinded outcome assessments were carried out at pre- and post-intervention. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Treatment-related change was assessed at body structures, functions and activities participation level as per the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning framework: Children and Youth Version (ICF-CY) framework WHO (2007). These measures are related to articulation, functional communication and speech intelligibility. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that for all variables the baseline scores were not statistically different (p > 0.05) between the two dose-frequency groups. Overall, there was a significant main effect of Time (pre-post) across all variables (p < 0.01). However, repeated-measures ANOVA did not result in any statistical interactions (Time × Dose frequency) for any of the variables tested (p > 0.05). Only marginal clinical advantages (< 4% change in intelligibility) were noted with the 10 extra sessions. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Overall, the MSTP intervention approach in conjunction with home practice led to significant positive changes for all measures in children with SSD-MSI. No statistical differences between high- and low-dose-frequency groups were observed for any of the variables. Clinical effects were examined using effect sizes, as well as changes in articulation, speech intelligibility and functional communication; these differed marginally between the two dose frequencies. This suggests limited benefits of 10 additional sessions per block. Thus, it is recommended that caregivers, speech-language therapists and policy-makers perform a cost-benefit analysis before determining the dose frequency, when considering additional sessions per block.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.311
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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Language & Communication DisordersSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207