A Vocabulary Acquisition and Usage for Late Talkers Treatment Efficacy Study: The Effect of Input Utterance Length and Identification of Responder Profiles.
A Vocabulary Acquisition and Usage for Late Talkers Treatment Efficacy Study: The Effect of Input Utterance Length and Identification of Responder Profiles.
复制标题
晚说话者的词汇获取和使用治疗效果研究：输入话语长度和响应者概况识别的影响。
DOI：
10.1044/2020_jslhr-20-00525
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Erikson,JessieA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alt,Mary;Figueroa,CeciliaR;Mettler,HeidiM;Evans-Reitz,Nora;Erikson,JessieA
目的本研究通过控制临床医生呈现目标词的发音长度(剂量长度)，考察了晚期说话者的词汇习得和使用(Vault)治疗的有效性。这项研究还探索了区分治疗应答者和无应答者的方法。方法19名以英语为主的晚说话幼儿(治疗开始时年龄为24-34个月)接受了vault，并被准随机分配，让目标单词以两种长度之一的语法话语呈现：简短(四个单词或更少)或扩展(五个单词或更多)。对儿童在治疗前和治疗后产生的(A)特定于治疗的目标词和控制词以及(B)非特定于治疗的词的产量进行了测量。采用分类回归树(CART)分析对应答者和无应答者进行分类。结果VAULT总体上是成功的(即治疗效果大小大于0)，短期条件和扩展条件之间没有差异。尽管总体上治疗效果显著，但治疗并不是对所有参与者都成功。CART结果(使用当前研究的参与者和之前的vault迭代)提供了一个双节点决策树，用于区分治疗应答者和无应答者。结论基于输入的vault治疗方案是有效的，并在话语长度方面提供了一定的灵活性。当金库工作时，它工作得很好。CART决策树使用前两个治疗过程中的预处理词汇水平和表现，为临床医生提供有希望的指南，说明谁可能是无应答者，因此可能需要修改治疗计划。补充Materialhttps://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14226641
PurposeThis study examined the efficacy of the Vocabulary Acquisition and Usage for Late Talkers (VAULT) treatment in a version that manipulated the length of clinician utterance in which a target word was presented (dose length). The study also explored ways to characterize treatment responders versus nonresponders.MethodNineteen primarily English-speaking late-talking toddlers (aged 24–34 months at treatment onset) received VAULT and were quasirandomly assigned to have target words presented in grammatical utterances matching one of two lengths: brief (four words or fewer) or extended (five words or more). Children were measured on their pre- and posttreatment production of (a) target and control words specific to treatment and (b) words not specific to treatment. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was used to classify responders versus nonresponders.ResultsVAULT was successful as a whole (i.e., treatment effect sizes of greater than 0), with no difference between the brief and extended conditions. Despite the overall significant treatment effect, the treatment was not successful for all participants. CART results (using participants from the current study and a previous iteration of VAULT) provided a dual-node decision tree for classifying treatment responders versus nonresponders.ConclusionsThe input-based VAULT treatment protocol is efficacious and offers some flexibility in terms of utterance length. When VAULT works, it works well. The CART decision tree uses pretreatment vocabulary levels and performance in the first two treatment sessions to provide clinicians with promising guidelines for who is likely to be a nonresponder and thus might need a modified treatment plan.Supplemental Materialhttps://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14226641