Premium
Speech and language therapy in a community clinic: report of an efficacy study
Author(s) -
LETTS CAROLYN
Publication year - 1995
Publication title -
international journal of language and communication disorders
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.101
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1460-6984
pISSN - 1368-2822
DOI - 10.1111/j.1460-6984.1995.tb01650.x
Subject(s) - psychology , set (abstract data type) , language development , developmental psychology , language disorder , language acquisition , audiology , medicine , cognition , psychiatry , computer science , mathematics education , programming language
ABSTRACT This paper reports on a small‐scale efficacy study carried out with language delayed/disordered child patients attending a community clinic. The purpose of the study was not only to attempt an evaluation of procedures but also to establish a methodology for such studies that is practicable within the constraints of a working clinic. The design was a set of individual case studies. Six children were selected and a treatment area decided for each, following initial assessment. In each case, the treatment targeted a new grammatical structure or morphological ending. Probes were devised to elicit baseline data on the treatment structures and, for each child, a similar probe was devised for a similar non‐treatment structure. Probes were repeated after each child had received an average of five treatment sessions, with the addition of a ‘generalisation’ probe which tested use of the structure in response to a slightly different stimulus. Further re‐assessment was carried out six months later. The first part of the study is described here. Results after the first block of treatment suggested progress in nearly every case (it was not possible to establish a reliable baseline with one child), but not in straightforward terms of having acquired a structure or not. What emerged was a picture of transitional stages of acquisition, falling into one of the following categories: (1) Acquisition of a form (e.g. morphological ending), but application to only a limited number of relevant lexical items; (2) Acquisition of a grammatical contrast, but not the ability to signal it in the conventional way; (3) Acquisition of a form, but over‐generalisation to non‐appropriate items (e.g. those used in non‐treatment probes). Probes on non‐treatment structures showed no transitional stages, there being either no progress at all or the structure having apparently been learned spontaneously. It is concluded that, whilst it is possible to carry out studies of this kind, care must be taken over measures taken and interpretation of results.