A Literature Review: Evidence Base in Speech-Language Pathology for the Management of Pediatric Oral Phase Dysphagia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose A review was conducted of published literature regarding management of feeding difficulties at the oral phase of feeding in children with autism spectrum disorder and/or developmental disability. The articles selected were open access or free for speech-language pathologist (SLP) members of their professional bodies. The specific research question was: What research and evidence-based practice articles have been published in the SLP literature to assist SLPs in the implementation of evidence-based practice for children with challenges during the oral phase dysphagia? Method Initial inclusion criteria were articles published in English, published in SLP journals, discussed management of behavioral feeding difficulties and oral phase dysphagia, and were published between 2008 and 2018. Exclusion criteria for this review included articles that addressed dysphagia for participants who were medically fragile, used pharmacological intervention, or studies that included adults. A comprehensive search was conducted of ASHAWire, the Speech-Language and Audiology Canada website, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapy of the United Kingdom and the website Speech Pathology Australia. Articles were analyzed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and using a modified feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness, effectiveness framework for qualitative case studies. Interrater reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient across four raters. Results All but one of the articles included for this review were qualitative articles containing descriptions of strategies or case studies (e.g., food chaining), were not peer reviewed, but did constitute evidence-based practice as outlined by American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (i.e., were either Level III or Level IV evidence-based strategies or intervention models). Conclusion The review highlighted the need for additional research in SLP designed to answer questions about the management of functional skills in feeding and eating for the population of children with autism spectrum disorder and developmental disability, patients who are increasingly on caseloads of SLPs.
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 | 0.024 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".