PROMPT intervention for children with severe speech motor delay: a randomized control trial

Aravind K Namasivayam, Anna Huynh, Francesca Granata, Vina Law, Pascal van Lieshout, Aravind K Namasivayam, Anna Huynh, Francesca Granata, Vina Law, Pascal van Lieshout

Abstract

Background: Currently, there is limited information on the intervention efficacy for children with speech motor delay (SMD). This randomized control trial (RCT) study examined the effectiveness of Prompts for Restructuring Oral Muscular Phonetic Targets (PROMPT) intervention to improve the outcomes in children with SMD. We hypothesized that children with SMD receiving PROMPT intervention would improve more in the measured outcomes than those waitlisted and receiving home training.

Methods: Using a two-arm, parallel group, RCT, 49 children with SMD were allocated to either an intervention group (N = 24) that received 45 min of PROMPT intervention two times a week for 10 weeks or were waitlisted for the same duration and received only home training instructions (N = 25). Outcome measures for speech motor control, articulation, speech intelligibility (word and sentence levels), and functional communication were assessed at baseline and at a 10-week follow-up.

Results: PROMPT intervention was associated with notable improvements in speech motor control, speech articulation, and word-level speech intelligibility. Intervention allocation yielded weak improvements in sentence-level speech intelligibility and functional communication.

Conclusions: PROMPT intervention is a clinically effective intervention approach for children with SMD.

Impact: Currently, there is limited information on the intervention efficacy for children with SMD. We report on the findings of a phase III intervention efficacy study on children with SMD using an RCT design. PROMPT intervention is a clinically effective intervention approach for children with SMD. Results of the study will be fundamental to the delivery of effective services for this population. These findings may facilitate the development of an evidence-based care pathway for children with severe speech sound disorders.

Conflict of interest statement

The study was funded by the PROMPT Institute, Santa Fe, NM, USA. However, the funding agency was not involved in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the article for publication.

Figures

Fig. 1. Outcome measures.
Fig. 1. Outcome measures.
Different outcome measures used to assess the body structures and functions, and activities and participation levels for the WHO-ICF-CY framework. See section on “Outcomes measures” for further details. a Verbal Motor Production Assessment for Children – Focal Oromotor Control.b Verbal Motor Production Assessment for Children – Sequencing.c Probe Words.d Single-word articulation assessment subtest of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation & Phonology test (DEAP).e PCC, percentage of consonants correct derived from the DEAP test.f Single-word phonology assessment subtest of the DEAP.g Children’s Speech Intelligibility Measure (CSIM).h Beginner’s Intelligibility Test (BIT).i Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six tool (FOCUS).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flow diagram.

References

    1. Shriberg LD, et al. Extensions to the speech disorders classification system (SDCS) Clin. Linguist. Phon. 2010;24:795–824. doi: 10.3109/02699206.2010.503006.
    1. Shriberg LD, Kwiatkowski J, Mabie HL. Estimates of the prevalence of motor speech disorders in children with idiopathic speech delay. Clin. Linguist. Phon. 2019;33:679–706. doi: 10.1080/02699206.2019.1595731.
    1. Namasivayam AK, et al. Investigating intervention dose frequency for children with speech sound disorders and motor speech involvement. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2019;54:673–686.
    1. Hayden, D., Eigen, J., Walker, A. & Olsen, L. in Interventions for Speech Sound Disorders in Children (eds Williams, L., McLeod, S., & McCauley, R.) (Brookes, Baltimore, 2010).
    1. Namasivayam AK, et al. Relationship between speech motor control and speech intelligibility in children with speech sound disorders. J. Commun. Disord. 2013;46:264–280. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2013.02.003.
    1. Shriberg LD, Lohmeier HL, Strand EA, Jakielski KJ. Encoding, memory, and transcoding deficits in childhood apraxia of speech. Clin. Linguist. Phon. 2012;26:445–482. doi: 10.3109/02699206.2012.655841.
    1. Raitano NA, Pennington BF, Tunick RA, Boada R, Shriberg LD. Pre-literacy skills of subgroups of children with speech sound disorders. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatr. 2004;45:821–835. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00275.x.
    1. Murray E, McCabe P, Ballard KJ. A randomized controlled trial for children with childhood apraxia of speech comparing rapid syllable transition treatment and the Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme – Third Edition. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2015;58:669–686. doi: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-13-0179.
    1. Pennington L, et al. Internet delivery of intensive speech and language therapy for children with cerebral palsy: a pilot randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e024233. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024233.
    1. Shriberg LD, Wren YE. A frequent acoustic sign of speech motor delay (SMD) Clin. Linguist. Phon. 2019;33:757–771. doi: 10.1080/02699206.2019.1595734.
    1. Vick JC, et al. Data-driven subclassification of speech sound disorders in preschool children. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2014;57:2033–2050. doi: 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-S-12-0193.
    1. Namasivayam A, et al. Motor Speech Treatment Protocol for developmental motor speech disorders. Dev. Neurorehab. 2015;18:296–303. doi: 10.3109/17518423.2013.832431.
    1. Square PA, Namasivayam AK, Bose A, Goshulak D, Hayden D. Multi-sensory treatment for children with developmental motor speech disorders. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2014;49:527–542. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12083.
    1. Robey RR. A five-phase model for clinical-outcome research. J. Commun. Disord. 2004;37:401–411. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2004.04.003.
    1. Kearney E, et al. Outcome measures in developmental speech sound disorders with a motor basis. Curr. Dev. Disord. 2015;2:253–272. doi: 10.1007/s40474-015-0058-2.
    1. Hayden D, Namasivayam AK, Ward R. The assessment of fidelity in a motor speech treatment approach. Speech Lang. Hear. 2015;18:30–38. doi: 10.1179/2050572814Y.0000000046.
    1. Yu VY, et al. Changes in voice onset time and motor speech measures in children with motor speech disorders after PROMPT therapy. Clin. Linguist. Phon. 2014;28:396–412. doi: 10.3109/02699206.2013.874040.
    1. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health–Children and Youth Version (World Health Organization, Geneva, 2007).
    1. Shriberg LD, Austin D, Lewis BA, McSweeny JL, Wilson DL. The percentage of consonants correct (PCC) metric: extensions and reliability data. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 1997;40:708–722. doi: 10.1044/jslhr.4004.708.
    1. Ehrler, D. J. & McGhee, R. L. PTONI: Primary Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (Pro-Ed, Austin, 2008).
    1. Wiig, E. H., Secord, W. & Semel, E. M. CELF Preschool 2: Clinical Evaluation Of Language Fundamentals Preschool (Pearson/PsychCorp, USA, 2004).
    1. Semel, E. M., Wiig, E. H. & Secord, W. A. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4th edn (The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, 2003).
    1. Namasivayam AK, et al. Treatment intensity and childhood apraxia of speech. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2015;50:529–546. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12154.
    1. Dale P, Hayden D. Treating speech subsystems in CAS with tactual input: the PROMPT approach. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 2013;4:644–661. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2013/12-0055).
    1. Ward R, Leitão S, Strauss G. An evaluation of the effectiveness of PROMPT therapy in improving speech production accuracy in six children with cerebral palsy. Int. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 2014;16:355–371. doi: 10.3109/17549507.2013.876662.
    1. Maas E, et al. Principles of motor learning in treatment of motor speech disorders. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 2008;17:277–298. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2008/025).
    1. Justice LM, Kaderavek JN, Fan X, Sofka A, Hunt A. Accelerating preschoolers’ early literacy development through classroom-based teacher–child storybook reading and explicit print referencing. Lang. Speech Hear. Serv. Sch. 2009;40:67–85. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2008/07-0098).
    1. Hayden, D. & Square, P. VMPAC: Verbal Motor Production Assessment for Children (The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, 1999).
    1. Dodd, B., Crosbie, S., Zhu, H., Holm, A. & Ozanne, A. The Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (The Psychological Corporation, London, 2002).
    1. Issac, S. & Michael, W. B. (eds). Handbook in Research and Evaluation for Education and the Behavioral Sciences 3rd edn (EdITS Publishers, San Diego, 1997).
    1. Wilcox, K. A. & Morris, S. Children’s Speech Intelligibility Measure: CSIM (Psychological Corporation, 1999).
    1. Osberger MJ, Robbins AM, Todd SL, Riley AI. Speech intelligibility of children with cochlear implants. Volta Rev. 1994;96:169–180.
    1. Thomas-Stonell N, Oddson B, Robertson B, Rosenbaum P. Validation of the FOCUS©: FOCUS on the outcomes of communication under six: a communicative participation outcome measure. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2013;55:546–552. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12123.
    1. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding inter-observer agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam. Med. 2005;37:360–363.
    1. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011;2:53–55. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
    1. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Version 3.5.1 [software] (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013).
    1. Moher D, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869.
    1. Washington Speech and Hearing Association. Suggested Guidelines for Evaluation and Identification of Students with Communication Disorders (Washington Speech and Hearing Association, Washington, 2019).
    1. Chin SB, Tsai PL, Gao S. Connected speech intelligibility of children with cochlear implants and children with normal hearing. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 2003;12:440–451. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2003/090).
    1. Gordon-Brannan M, Hodson BW. Intelligibility/severity measurements of prekindergarten children’s speech. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 2000;9:141–150. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360.0902.141.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner