Lexicality and intensity in speech intervention (Cummings et al., 2018)

Purpose: This study examined how lexical representations and intervention intensity affect phonological acquisition and generalization in children with speech sound disorders.Method: Using a single-subject multiple baseline design, 24 children with speech sound disorders (3;6 to 6;10 [years;months]) were split into 3 word lexicality types targeting word-initial complex singleton phonemes: /ɹ l ʧ θ/. Specifically, academic vocabulary words, nonwords (NWs), and high-frequency (HF) words were contrasted. Intervention intensity was examined by comparing the performance of 12 children who completed eleven 50-min sessions (4 children/word type) to the performance of 12 who completed 19 sessions (4 children/word type). Children’s production accuracy of their treated phonemes and overall percent consonants correct values were used to measure phonological generalization via percentage accuracy scores and d scores. Results: All word lexicality conditions elicited phonological change, suggesting that academic vocabulary words, NWs, and HF words are viable intervention targets. Group mean averages were similarly high for the NWs and HF words, although children in the NW condition demonstrated more consistent phonological gains. Children who received 19 intervention sessions achieved 6 times more gains in treated sound accuracy than did children who received 11 sessions.Conclusions: Word lexicality did not significantly influence children’s intervention outcomes. More intensive intervention, as characterized by the number sessions, resulted in greater phonological change than did a shorter intervention program. Intervention intensity outcomes should be considered when establishing best practices for speech intervention scheduling.Supplemental Material S1. Neighborhood density, phonotactic probability, Kučera and Francis (1967) word frequency (WF), log 10 WF, and age of acquisition (in years) measurements (AoA) for the academic vocabulary (AV) words.Supplemental Material S2. Neighborhood density and phonotactic probability measurements for the nonwords (NWs).Supplemental Material S3. Neighborhood density, phonotactic probability, Kučera and Francis (1967) word frequency (WF), log 10 WF, and age of acquisition (in years) measurements (AoA) for the high-frequency (HF) words.Supplemental Material S4. Intervention fidelity data sheet for Imitation phase.Supplemental Material S5. Intervention fidelity data sheet for Spontaneous Production phase.Supplemental Material S6. Number of intervention trials (i.e., treatment dose) for each session and all children. Gray boxes identify sessions included in the intervention fidelity assessment.Cummings, A., Hallgrimson, J., & Robinson, S. (2018). Speech intervention outcomes associated with word lexicality and intervention intensity. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-18-0026

研究目的：本研究旨在探讨词汇表征及干预强度如何影响患有语音障碍儿童的语言习得及泛化能力。研究方法：采用单一受试者多重基线设计，将24名患有语音障碍的儿童（年龄介于3岁6个月至6岁10个月之间）分为三组，针对词首复杂单音素/ɹ l ʧ θ/进行词汇类型干预：学术词汇、非词（NWs）和高频（HF）词汇。通过比较完成11次50分钟会话（每组4名儿童/词汇类型）的12名儿童与完成19次会话（每组4名儿童/词汇类型）的12名儿童的绩效，考察干预强度。通过测量儿童治疗语音的产出准确性和总体正确百分比，利用百分比准确度得分和d值来衡量语音泛化。研究结果：所有词汇类型条件均引起了语音变化，表明学术词汇、非词和高频词汇均是可行的干预目标。非词和高频词汇组的平均均值相似，尽管非词条件下的儿童在语音习得方面表现出更一致的增长。接受19次干预会话的儿童在治疗语音准确性方面的进步是接受11次会话儿童的6倍。研究结论：词汇类型并未显著影响儿童的干预结果。干预强度，即会话数量，比短期的干预计划更能促进语音变化。在建立语音干预的最佳实践时，应考虑干预强度的结果。补充材料S1：学术词汇（AV）的邻域密度、音位规则概率、Kučera和Francis（1967）词汇频率（WF）、对数10 WF和习得年龄（以年为单位）的测量。补充材料S2：非词（NWs）的邻域密度和音位规则概率测量。补充材料S3：高频（HF）词汇的邻域密度、音位规则概率、Kučera和Francis（1967）词汇频率（WF）、对数10 WF和习得年龄（以年为单位）的测量。补充材料S4：模仿阶段的干预忠实度数据表。补充材料S5：自发产生阶段的干预忠实度数据表。补充材料S6：每次会话和所有儿童的干预试验次数（即治疗剂量）。灰色框标识了干预忠实度评估中包含的会话。Cumming，A.，Hallgrimson，J.，& Robinson，S.（2018）。与词汇类型和干预强度相关的语音干预结果。语言、语音和听力学校服务。在线预发表。https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-18-0026