Article  |   April 2011
Evidence-Based Practice for Children With Speech Sound Disorders: Part 1 Narrative Review
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Elise Baker
    The University of Sydney, Australia
    The University of Sydney, Australia
  • Sharynne McLeod
    Charles Sturt University, Australia
    Charles Sturt University, Australia
  • Correspondence to Elise Baker: elise.baker@sydney.edu.au
  • Editor: Kenn Apel
    Editor: Kenn Apel×
  • Associate Editor: Peter Flipsen, Jr.
    Associate Editor: Peter Flipsen, Jr.×
  • © 2011 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationAmerican Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Research Issues, Methods & Evidence-Based Practice
Article   |   April 2011
Evidence-Based Practice for Children With Speech Sound Disorders: Part 1 Narrative Review
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, April 2011, Vol. 42, 102-139. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2010/09-0075)
History: Received November 4, 2009 , Revised April 6, 2010 , Accepted August 10, 2010
 
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, April 2011, Vol. 42, 102-139. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2010/09-0075)
History: Received November 4, 2009; Revised April 6, 2010; Accepted August 10, 2010
Web of Science® Times Cited: 19

Purpose: This article provides a comprehensive narrative review of intervention studies for children with speech sound disorders (SSD). Its companion paper (Baker & McLeod, 2011) provides a tutorial and clinical example of how speech-language pathologists (SLPs) can engage in evidence-based practice (EBP) for this clinical population.

Method: Studies reporting speech sound intervention for children with SSDs published from 1979 to 2009 were identified and coded.

Results: One hundred thirty-four intervention studies were identified. Intervention typically was conducted by an SLP in a one-to-one individual format for 30- to 60-min sessions 2 to 3 times per week. Total duration of intervention (from assessment to discharge) was reported for 10 studies and ranged from 3 to 46 months. Most studies were either Level IIb (quasi-experimental studies, 41.5%) or Level III (nonexperimental case studies, 32.6%). Single-case experimental design (29.6%) was the most frequently used experimental research design. There were 7 distinct approaches to target selection and 46 distinct intervention approaches, with 23 described in more than 1 publication. Each approach was associated with varying quantities and levels of evidence, according to research design.

Conclusion: Collaborative research reflecting higher levels of evidence using rigorous experimental designs is needed to compare the relative benefits of different intervention approaches.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
An earlier version of this article was presented as an invited seminar at the 2008 annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Chicago, IL. The second author acknowledges assistance from the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT0990588) and the Charles Sturt University Research Institute for Professional Practice, Learning and Education (RIPPLE).
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access