Comparison of Traditional Articulation Therapy and Picture Articulation Test in Children with Articulation Disorders
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Articulation disorders in children can impede communication and social interaction. Traditional Articulation Therapy (TAT) and the Picture Articulation Test (PAT) are two contrasting approaches employed to address these disorders. While TAT is a conventional method focusing on sensory-perceptual training and sound stabilization, PAT uses visual aids to assess and encourage correct speech sound production.
Objective: The study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of TAT and PAT in treating substitution errors in children with articulation disorders.
Methods: Employing a randomized sampling technique, the study included 10 children with functional articulation disorders, aged 8 to 18 years, from both genders. Exclusion criteria included organic articulation disorders. Participants were divided into two groups at REX Medical Center, Lahore, and treated over a six-month period, with two sessions per week lasting 30-40 minutes. Pre- and post-intervention assessments were conducted using the Articulation Assessment Test and the Articulation Severity Rating Scale. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 24, with paired and independent sample t-tests.
Results: TAT showed a significant reduction in substitution error scores from pre- to post-intervention across all error types (initial, middle, and final), with significant p-values indicating improvement (p ≤ 0.05). PAT did not demonstrate a significant reduction in error scores, with p-values exceeding the threshold of significance.
Conclusion: TAT was found to be more effective than PAT in decreasing substitution errors in children with articulation disorders. The findings advocate for the application of TAT in clinical settings, while recognizing the potential for integrating traditional methods with newer technologies to optimize treatment outcomes.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Williams C, Harding S, Wren Y. An exploratory study of speech and language therapy intervention for children born with cleft palate±lip. The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal. 2021;58(4):455-69.
Rinaldi S, Caselli MC, Cofelice V, D’Amico S, De Cagno AG, Della Corte G, et al. Efficacy of the treatment of developmental language disorder: A systematic review. Brain Sciences. 2021;11(3):407.
Palmer R, Enderby P, Hawley M. Addressing the needs of speakers with longstanding dysarthria: computerized and traditional therapy compared. International journal of language & communication disorders. 2007;42(S1):61-79.
Nicoll A, Roulstone S, Williams B, Maxwell M. Understanding capacity for implementing new interventions: A qualitative study of speech and language therapy services for children with speech sound disorder. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. 2023.
Mendoza Ramos V, Vasquez‐Correa JC, Cremers R, Van Den Steen L, Nöth E, De Bodt M, et al. Automatic boost articulation therapy in adults with dysarthria: Acceptability, usability and user interaction. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. 2021;56(5):892-906.
Mendonça RF, Ercan SA, Asenbaum H. More than words: A multidimensional approach to deliberative democracy. Political Studies. 2022;70(1):153-72.
McAllister T, Preston JL, Hitchcock ER, Hill J. Protocol for correcting residual errors with spectral, ultrasound, traditional speech therapy randomized controlled trial (C-RESULTS RCT). BMC pediatrics. 2020;20:1-14.
Klatte IS, Ketelaar M, de Groot A, Bloemen M, Gerrits E. Collaboration: How does it work according to therapists and parents of young children? A systematic review. Child: Care, Health and Development. 2023.
Kiverstein J, Rietveld E. Scaling-up skilled intentionality to linguistic thought. Synthese. 2021;198(Suppl 1):175-94.
Khan MSG, Noreen H, Khan MA. Effectiveness of linguistic base approach and traditional articulation therapy to improve articulation among children (8-12 years) with mild to severe hearing loss. Journal of Rehman Medical Institute. 2021;7(1):08-12.
Kaufmann J, Bhovad P, Li S. Harnessing the multistability of kresling origami for reconfigurable articulation in soft robotic arms. Soft Robotics. 2022;9(2):212-23.
Karpovich I, Sheredekina O, Krepkaia T, Voronova L. The use of monologue speaking tasks to improve first-year students’ English-speaking skills. Education Sciences. 2021;11(6):298.
Jesus LM, Martinez J, Santos J, Hall A, Joffe V. Comparing traditional and tablet-based intervention for children with speech sound disorders: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2019;62(11):4045-61.
Janik Blaskova L, Gibson JL. Reviewing the link between language abilities and peer relations in children with developmental language disorder: The importance of children’s own perspectives. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments. 2021;6:23969415211021515.
Hema C, Marquez FPG. Emotional speech recognition using cnn and deep learning techniques. Applied Acoustics. 2023;211:109492.
Hegarty N, Titterington J, Taggart L. A qualitative exploration of speech-language pathologists’ intervention and intensity provision for children with phonological impairment. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2021;23(2):213-24.
Hamdan A-L, Sataloff RT, Hawkshaw MJ. Traits of Civilization and Voice Disorders: Springer Nature; 2022.
Gillon GT, McNeill BC. Integrated Phonological Awareness. An intervention program for preschool children with speech-language impairment Christchurch: University of Canterbury. 2007.
Furlong LM, Morris ME, Serry TA, Erickson S. Treating childhood speech sound disorders: Current approaches to management by Australian speech-language pathologists. Language, speech, and hearing services in schools. 2021;52(2):581-96.
Combiths P. Advancing Efficient and Equitable Intervention for Children with Phonological Disorder: San Diego State University; 2021.
Cabbage KL, Hitchcock ER. Clinical considerations for speech perception in school-age children with speech sound disorders: A review of the current literature. Language, speech, and hearing services in schools. 2022;53(3):768-85.
Bhat C, Vachhani B, Kopparapu S, editors. Automatic assessment of articulation errors in Hindi speech at phone level. TENCON 2015-2015 IEEE Region 10 Conference; 2015: IEEE.
Benway NR, Hitchcock ER, McAllister T, Feeny GT, Hill J, Preston JL. Comparing biofeedback types for children with residual/ɹ/errors in American English: A single-case randomization design. American journal of speech-language pathology. 2021;30(4):1819-45.
Alsaad M, McCabe P, Purcell A. A survey of interventions used by speech-language pathologists for children with speech sound disorders in the Middle East. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology. 2021:1-8.
Alighieri C, Bettens K, Bruneel L, D'haeseleer E, Van Gaever E, Van Lierde K. Effectiveness of speech intervention in patients with a cleft palate: Comparison of motor-phonetic versus linguistic-phonological speech approaches. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2020;63(12):3909-33.
Mendoza Ramos V, Paulyn C, Van den Steen L, Hernandez‐Diaz Huici ME, De Bodt M, Van Nuffelen G. Effect of boost articulation therapy (BArT) on intelligibility in adults with dysarthria. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. 2021;56(2):271-82.
Sugden E, Lloyd S, Lam J, Cleland J. Systematic review of ultrasound visual biofeedback in intervention for speech sound disorders. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019;54(5):705-28.
Lee SAS. The treatment efficacy of multiple opposition phonological approach via telepractice for two children with severe phonological disorders in rural areas of West Texas in the USA. Child Language Teaching and Therapy. 2018;34(1):63-78.