MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972121833 · doi:10.1044/2019_jslhr-s-18-0288

An N-of-1 Randomized Controlled Trial of Interventions for Children With Inconsistent Speech Sound Errors

2019· article· en· W2972121833 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Rvachew, Tanya Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicStuttering Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialAudiologySpeech soundPsychological interventionSound (geography)PsychologyAudio equipmentMedicineAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that children with inconsistent speech errors would respond differentially to 1 of 3 specific interventions depending on their primary underlying impairment: Children with deficient motor planning were expected to respond best to an auditory–motor integration (AMI) intervention, and children with deficient phonological planning were expected to respond best to a phonological memory and planning (PMP) intervention. Method Twelve participants were diagnosed with a motor planning ( n = 7) or phonological planning ( n = 5) deficit based on a comprehensive assessment, which included the Syllable Repetition Task as an important source of diagnostic evidence. An N-of-1 randomized controlled trial was used. Each child experienced all 3 interventions: AMI, PMP, and control (CTL); however, these interventions were randomly allocated to sessions within weeks (3 sessions per week × 6 weeks for 18 sessions). The AMI intervention procedures targeted knowledge of the acoustic–phonetic target and integration of auditory and somatosensory feedback during speech practice. The PMP intervention procedures targeted segmenting and recompiling the phonological plan for each word. The CTL intervention was standard drill practice. The child was taught 5 pseudowords in a meaningful context in each intervention condition. Results Same-day (SD) probes assessed transfer from taught pseudowords to untaught real words, and next-day (ND) probes assessed retention of that learning. Nonparametric resampling tests with pooling of p values across children with the same diagnosis were used to assess the results. Pooled p values indicated a significant benefit of AMI over PMP for the group with a motor planning deficit ( p = 2.01E-04 for SD probes and 2.97E-03 for ND probes) and a significant benefit of PMP over AMI for the group with a phonological planning deficit ( p = 1.22E-02 for SD probes and 1.32E-02 for ND probes). Response to the CTL intervention was variable within groups. Conclusion In this study, the child's underlying psycholinguistic deficit helped to predict response to intervention.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing ResearchSame topicStuttering Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207