Protocol for Correcting Residual Errors with Spectral, ULtrasound, Traditional Speech therapy Randomized Controlled Trial (C-RESULTS RCT)

Tara McAllister, Jonathan L Preston, Elaine R Hitchcock, Jennifer Hill, Tara McAllister, Jonathan L Preston, Elaine R Hitchcock, Jennifer Hill

Abstract

Background: Speech sound disorder in childhood poses a barrier to academic and social participation, with potentially lifelong consequences for educational and occupational outcomes. While most speech errors resolve by the late school-age years, between 2 and 5% of speakers exhibit residual speech errors (RSE) that persist through adolescence or even adulthood. Previous findings from small-scale studies suggest that interventions incorporating visual biofeedback can outperform traditional motor-based treatment approaches for children with RSE, but this question has not been investigated in a well-powered randomized controlled trial.

Methods/design: This project, Correcting Residual Errors with Spectral, ULtrasound, Traditional Speech therapy Randomized Controlled Trial (C-RESULTS RCT), aims to treat 110 children in a parallel randomized controlled clinical trial comparing biofeedback and non-biofeedback interventions for RSE affecting the North American English rhotic sound /ɹ/. Eligible children will be American English speakers, aged 9-15 years, who exhibit RSE affecting /ɹ/ but otherwise show typical cognitive-linguistic and hearing abilities. Participants will be randomized, with stratification by site (Syracuse University or Montclair State University) and pre-treatment speech production ability, to receive either a motor-based treatment consistent with current best practices in speech therapy (40% of participants) or treatment incorporating visual biofeedback (60% of participants). Within the biofeedback condition, participants will be assigned in equal numbers to receive biofeedback in the form of a real-time visual display of the acoustic signal of speech or ultrasound imaging of the tongue during speech. The primary outcome measure will assess changes in the acoustics of children's production of /ɹ/ during treatment, while a secondary outcome measure will use blinded listeners to evaluate changes in the perceived accuracy of /ɹ/ production after the completion of all treatment. These measures will allow the treatment conditions to be compared with respect to both efficacy and efficiency.

Discussion: By conducting the first well-powered randomized controlled trial comparing treatment with and without biofeedback, this study aims to provide high-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions for children with RSE.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03737318, November 9, 2018.

Keywords: Biofeedback; Randomized controlled trial; Speech sound disorder.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schedule of evaluation, allocation, treatment, and close-out activities for C-RESULTS RCT

References

    1. Hitchcock E, Harel D, McAllister BT. Social, emotional, and academic impact of residual speech errors in school-aged children: a survey study. Semin Speech Lang. 2015;36(4):283–293. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1562911.
    1. Crowe Hall BJ. Attitudes of fourth and sixth graders towards peers with mild articulation disorders. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1991;22(1):334–340. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461.2201.334.
    1. McCormack J, McLeod S, McAllister L, Harrison LJ. A systematic review of the association between childhood speech impairment and participation across the lifespan. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009;11(2):155–170. doi: 10.1080/17549500802676859.
    1. Felsenfeld S, Broen PA, McGue M. A 28-year follow-up of adults with a history of moderate phonological disorder: linguistic and personality results. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1992;35(5):1114–1125. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3505.1114.
    1. Shriberg LD. Childhood speech sound disorders: from postbehaviorism to the postgenomic era. In: Paul R, Flipsen P, editors. Speech sound disorders in children. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2009.
    1. Culton GL. Speech disorders among college freshmen: a 13-year survey. J Speech Hear Disord. 1986;51(1):3–7. doi: 10.1044/jshd.5101.03.
    1. Flipsen P. Emergence and prevalence of persistent and residual speech errors. Semin Speech Lang. 2015;36(4):217–223. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1562905.
    1. Ruscello DM. Visual feedback in treatment of residual phonological disorders. J Commun Disord. 1995;28(4):279–302. doi: 10.1016/0021-9924(95)00058-X.
    1. Volin RA. A relationship between stimulability and the efficacy of visual biofeedback in the training of a respiratory control task. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1998;7(1):81–90. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360.0701.81.
    1. McAllister Byun T, Hitchcock ER. Investigating the use of traditional and spectral biofeedback approaches to intervention for /r/ misarticulation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2012;21(3):207–221. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0083).
    1. McAllister Byun T, Campbell H. Differential effects of visual-acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual speech errors. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10(567):1–17.
    1. McAllister BT. Efficacy of visual-acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual rhotic errors: a single-subject randomization study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017;60(5):1175–1193. doi: 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-0038.
    1. Preston JL, McCabe P, Rivera-Campos A, Whittle JL, Landry E, Maas E. Ultrasound visual feedback treatment and practice variability for residual speech sound errors. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2014;57(6):2102–2115. doi: 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-S-14-0031.
    1. Preston JL, Leece MC, Maas E. Motor-based treatment with and without ultrasound feedback for residual speech sound errors. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2017;52(1):80–94. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12259.
    1. Preston JL, McAllister T, Phillips E, Boyce S, Tiede M, Kim JS, et al. Remediating residual rhotic errors with traditional and ultrasound-enhanced treatment: a single-case experimental study. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2019;28(3):1167–1183. doi: 10.1044/2019_AJSLP-18-0261.
    1. McAllister Byun T, Hitchcock ER, Swartz MT. Retroflex versus bunched in treatment for rhotic misarticulation: evidence from ultrasound biofeedback intervention. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2014;57(6):2116–2130. doi: 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-S-14-0034.
    1. Sugden E, Lloyd S, Lam J, Cleland J. Systematic review of ultrasound visual biofeedback in intervention for speech sound disorders. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019;54(5):705–728. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12478.
    1. Hodges NJ, Franks IM. Learning a coordination skill: interactive effects of instruction and feedback. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2001;72(2):132–142. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2001.10608943.
    1. Maas E, Robin DA, Austermann Hula SN, Freedman SE, Wulf G, Ballard KJ, et al. Principles of motor learning in treatment of motor speech disorders. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2008;17(3):277–298. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2008/025).
    1. Van Riper C. Speech Correction: Principles and Methods, vol. 1. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1939.
    1. Van Riper C. Speech Correction: Principles and Methods, vol. 9. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1996.
    1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208.
    1. Wechsler D. Wechsler abbreviated scales of intelligence. 2. San Antonio: Pearson; 2011.
    1. Wiig E, Semel E, Secord W. Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals—fifth edition (CELF-5) Bloomington: Pearson; 2013.
    1. Goldman R, Fristoe M. Goldman-Fristoe test of articulation. 3. Bloomington: Pearson; 2015.
    1. Shriberg LD, Lohmeier HL, Campbell TF, Dollaghan CA, Green JR, Moore CA. A nonword repetition task for speakers with misarticulations: the syllable repetition task (SRT) J Speech Lang Hear Res JSLHR. 2009;52(5):1189–1212. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0047).
    1. Bowers L, Huisingh R. Linguisystems articulation test. East Moline: Linguisystems, Inc; 2011.
    1. Thoonen G, Maassen B, Gabreels F, Schreuder R, de Swart B. Towards a standardised assessment procedure for developmental apraxia of speech. Eur J Disord Commun. 1997;32(1):37–60. doi: 10.3109/13682829709021455.
    1. Thoonen G, Maassen B, Gabreels F, Schreuder R. Validity of maximum performance tasks to diagnose motor speech disorders in children. Clin Linguist Phon. 1999;13(1):1–23. doi: 10.1080/026992099299211.
    1. Miccio AW. Clinical problem solving: assessment of phonological disorders. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2002;11(3):221–229. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2002/023).
    1. Boyce SE. The articulatory phonetics of /r/ for residual speech errors. Semin Speech Lang. 2015;36(4):257–270. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1562909.
    1. Klein HB, McAllister Byun T, Davidson L, Grigos MI. A multidimensional investigation of children’s /r/ productions: perceptual, ultrasound, and acoustic measures. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2013;22(3):540–553. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2013/12-0137).
    1. McAllister Byun T, Hitchcock E, Ortiz J. Challenge-R. 2014.
    1. Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD. Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. J Mot Behav. 2004;36(2):212–224. doi: 10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224.
    1. Rvachew S, Brosseau-Lapré F. Developmental phonological disorders: foundations of clinical practice. San Diego: Plural Pub; 2012.
    1. Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer. 6.1.06. 2019.
    1. Lennes M. Collect formant data from files [internet] 2003.
    1. Campbell Heather, Harel Daphna, Hitchcock Elaine, McAllister Byun Tara. Selecting an acoustic correlate for automated measurement of American English rhotic production in children. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2017;20(6):635–643. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2017.1359334.
    1. Dugan SH, Silbert N, McAllister T, Preston JL, Sotto C, Boyce SE. Modelling category goodness judgments in children with residual sound errors. Clin Linguist Phon. 2019;33(4):295–315. doi: 10.1080/02699206.2018.1477834.
    1. McAllister Byun T, Halpin PF, Szeredi D. Online crowdsourcing for efficient rating of speech: a validation study. J Commun Disord. 2015;53:70–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.11.003.
    1. McAllister Byun T, Harel D, Halpin PF, Szeredi D. Deriving gradient measures of child speech from crowdsourced ratings. J Commun Disord. 2016;64:91–102. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2016.07.001.
    1. Muraki Eiji. Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York, NY: Springer New York; 1997. A Generalized Partial Credit Model; pp. 153–164.
    1. van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. Mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J statistical software. 2011;45:1–67. doi: 10.18637/jss.v045.i03.
    1. R Core Team . R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017.
    1. ASHA . ASHA 2016 Schools survey: SLP caseload characteristics report [internet] 2016.
    1. McAllister Byun T, Campbell H, Carey H, Liang W, Park TH, Svirsky M. Enhancing intervention for residual rhotic errors via app-delivered biofeedback: a case study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017;60(6S):1810–1817. doi: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-16-0248.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe