Investigation of a new intervention for children with word-finding problems.
Investigation of a new intervention for children with word-finding problems.
复制标题
针对有找词问题的儿童的新干预措施的调查。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2005
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
W. Best
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Best
背景
在接受语言支持服务的儿童中，约有四分之一的儿童在提取单词方面存在困难。对这类儿童的治疗研究表明，语义和语音技术都可以改善单词查找。描述了一种新的干预方法，使用了一种将字母转换为声音提示的计算机化辅助工具。
目标
(1)评估一小部分儿童的寻词能力。(2)研究电脑辅助干预是否能提高儿童的词汇能力。(3)评估治疗对连接言语的影响(使用语篇中的单词发现测验)，以及与儿童、家长和其他从业者的观点的关系(使用问卷)。(4)理解与言语产生的互动模式相关的结果。
方法和程序
5名儿童(年龄6：10-10：7)接受了各种背景测量的评估。在基线评估之后，治疗中包括两组项目：一组研究项目(带有匹配的对照项目)和另一组因其与每个儿童的功能相关性而被选择的项目。使用计算机辅助进行干预，每周一次，为期半学期(6周)。
结果与结果
这些儿童在语言发展和非语言能力上存在差异，但在单词提取方面都存在困难。所有儿童在治疗后的命名干预项目上均有明显改善。这一效果在半个任期后仍保持不变。尽管有非常不同的特征，但这些儿童从干预中受益相似，这表明变化的处理来源是共同的。干预后，两名儿童在语篇寻词测试中的寻词行为(如替换、重复和空词的使用)显著减少。参与者、家长和专业人士的意见不一，但总体上是积极的。
结论
与言语产生的互动模式有关，治疗的主要效果可以理解为加强从意义到形式的联系。辅助治疗的使用改善了对目标项目的单词查找，这发生在临床上现实的时间框架内。这一发现表明，如果目标项目选择得当，这种干预在功能上是有用的。两个孩子在相互联系的语音中的可衡量的变化表明，也可以产生更广泛的好处。总体而言，对于从事这类困难儿童工作的治疗师/教师来说，这项援助可以成为一个有用的额外工具。
BACKGROUND
Around one-quarter of children attending language support services have difficulty in retrieving words. Therapy studies with such children have shown that both semantic and phonological techniques can improve word finding. A new approach to intervention is described using a computerized aid that converts letters into sound cues.
AIMS
(1) To assess the word-finding abilities in a small series of children with word-finding difficulties. (2) To investigate whether intervention with a computerized aid can improve children's ability to find words. (3) To evaluate the effect of therapy on connected speech (using the Test of Word Finding in Discourse) and in relation to children's, parents' and other practitioners' views (using a questionnaire). (4) To understand the outcome in relation to an interactive model of speech production.
METHODS & PROCEDURES
Five children (aged 6:10-10:7) were assessed on a variety of background measures. Following baseline assessment, two sets of items were included in therapy: a research set (with matched control items) and a further set selected for their functional relevance for each child. Intervention using the computerized aid took place once a week for half a term (6 weeks).
OUTCOMES & RESULTS
The children differed from one another in their language development and non-verbal abilities, but all had difficulties in word retrieval. All children showed significant improvement in naming intervention items after therapy. This effect was maintained half a term later. Despite very different profiles, the children benefited similarly from the intervention, suggesting a common processing source for change. After the intervention, two children showed a significant reduction in word-finding behaviours (e.g. use of substitutions, repetitions and empty words) on the Test of Word Finding in Discourse. The views of participants, parents and professionals were varied but generally positive.
CONCLUSIONS
The main effect of therapy can be understood, in relation to an interactive model of speech production, as strengthening links from meaning to form. Use of the aid in therapy improved word finding for targeted items and this occurred within a clinically realistic timeframe. The finding that the gains in word retrieval maintained suggests that the intervention can be functionally useful if target items are chosen appropriately. Measurable change for two children in connected speech suggests wider benefits can also occur. Overall, the aid can be a useful additional tool for therapists/teachers working with children with this difficulty.