TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy of visual-acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual rhotic errors
T2 - A single-subject randomization study
AU - Byun, Tara Mc Allister
N1 - Funding Information:
The author acknowledges support for this research by the National Institutes of Health Grant R03DC 012883 and also by a travel fellowship to attend the Institute of Education Sciences Single-Case Design and Analysis Institute 2014. The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following individuals: for treatment delivery, Heather Campbell; for developing the Challenge-R software, José Ortiz and Elaine Hitchcock; for programming support, Daniel Szeredi; for statistical consultation, Daphna Harel; for data collection and management, numerous student assistants at New York University, notably Laine Cialdella, Tala Ginsberg, Deanna Kawitzky, and Christopher Nightingale. Many thanks also to all participants and their families for their cooperation throughout the study.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Purpose: This study documented the efficacy of visual- acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual rhotic errors, relative to a comparison condition involving traditional articulatory treatment. All participants received both treatments in a single-subject experimental design featuring alternating treatments with blocked randomization of sessions to treatment conditions. Method: Seven child and adolescent participants received 20 half-hour sessions of individual treatment over 10 weeks. Within each week, sessions were randomly assigned to feature traditional or biofeedback intervention. Perceptual accuracy of rhotic production was assessed in a blinded, randomized fashion. Each participant’s response to the combined treatment package was evaluated by using effect sizes and visual inspection. Differences in the magnitude of response to traditional versus biofeedback intervention were measured with individual randomization tests. Results: Four of 7 participants demonstrated a clinically meaningful response to the combined treatment package. Three of 7 participants showed a statistically significant difference between treatment conditions. In all 3 cases, the magnitude of within-session gains associated with biofeedback exceeded the gains associated with traditional treatment. Conclusions: These results suggest that the inclusion of visual-acoustic biofeedback can enhance the efficacy of intervention for some individuals with residual rhotic errors. Further research is needed to understand which participants represent better or poorer candidates for biofeedback treatment.
AB - Purpose: This study documented the efficacy of visual- acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual rhotic errors, relative to a comparison condition involving traditional articulatory treatment. All participants received both treatments in a single-subject experimental design featuring alternating treatments with blocked randomization of sessions to treatment conditions. Method: Seven child and adolescent participants received 20 half-hour sessions of individual treatment over 10 weeks. Within each week, sessions were randomly assigned to feature traditional or biofeedback intervention. Perceptual accuracy of rhotic production was assessed in a blinded, randomized fashion. Each participant’s response to the combined treatment package was evaluated by using effect sizes and visual inspection. Differences in the magnitude of response to traditional versus biofeedback intervention were measured with individual randomization tests. Results: Four of 7 participants demonstrated a clinically meaningful response to the combined treatment package. Three of 7 participants showed a statistically significant difference between treatment conditions. In all 3 cases, the magnitude of within-session gains associated with biofeedback exceeded the gains associated with traditional treatment. Conclusions: These results suggest that the inclusion of visual-acoustic biofeedback can enhance the efficacy of intervention for some individuals with residual rhotic errors. Further research is needed to understand which participants represent better or poorer candidates for biofeedback treatment.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019728667&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85019728667&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-0038
DO - 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-0038
M3 - Article
C2 - 28389677
AN - SCOPUS:85019728667
SN - 1092-4388
VL - 60
SP - 1175
EP - 1193
JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
IS - 5
ER -