Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2006. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 142-146).

Thesis (M. Communication Pathology)--University of Pretoria, 2006. / Summary in English and Afrikaans. Includes bibliographical references.

No description available.

Purpose: The occurrence of similar speech and non-speech behaviors in some children with autism and Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS) calls for the consideration of CAS in some children with autism. The majority of research on CAS has been conducted with children who are otherwise typically developing. The purpose of this study was to determine whether and to what extent children with autism are being diagnosed with or suspected to have CAS as well as what assessment and treatment methods are currently being used with these children. Method: A nationwide survey of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with children ages 0-6 years was distributed through snowball sampling, e-mail distribution lists and Facebook discussion pages. The survey requested information on numbers of children served with autism and suspected CAS as well as the criteria used to identify CAS in children with autism and the treatment methods being used in intervention. Results: 132 surveys were received and analyzed. SLPs from across the United States participated in the study. The mean number of children with autism currently served per participant was 6 children and the mean number of children with autism and suspected CAS per participant was 1. Participants reported suspected CAS in 16% of children with autism. SLPs working in the field the longest and those serving more total children with autism were suspecting CAS in children with autism more often than other participants. Of the total participants, 80% indicated that they would begin assessment for CAS in a child with autism as soon as they notice specific signs of CAS. The most common markers used were difficulty combining and sequencing phonemes and inconsistent production of speech sounds. Participants reported using a wide range of assessment tools to assess for CAS in a child with autism. Participants tended to rely upon informal assessment measures for this population; the most common assessment tool was a connected speech sample. The most commonly used intervention technique with this population was AAC; participants also reported high familiarity with PROMPT as a treatment for CAS. The least commonly used intervention technique was integral stimulation; 62% of the participants indicated that they have no knowledge of the technique. Conclusion: Results revealed that on average, SLPs are suspecting CAS in approximately 1 in 5 children with autism but much fewer children with autism have a second diagnosis of CAS. The decision of when to assess a child with autism for CAS as well as the assessment tools used varied greatly across participants. Participants reported using up to 22 different diagnostic markers to identify CAS in a child with autism. It was also discovered that not all of the traditional diagnostic markers for CAS should necessarily be considered diagnostic markers of CAS in a child with autism (e.g. suprasegmental abnormalities). With no scientific research to date regarding treatment efficacy for the treatment of CAS in children with autism, SLPs are forced to rely on anecdotal data when selecting a treatment to target CAS in a child with autism; SLPs may not be using the most effective treatment methods for this population. Results of the study support continued investigation of CAS in children with autism. There is a strong need for the development of clear diagnostic guidelines for CAS in a child with autism as well as reliable assessment tools that should be used. Further studies are needed to identify the most effective treatment approach for children with CAS and autism and how an SLP should incorporate that treatment into an overall comprehensive treatment approach for autism.

No description available.

No description available.

Introduction: Differentiating between normal language variation and abnormal language development can be difficult for clinicians working with young children who present with slow language development, so-called “late talkers”. Although the language difficulties of many late talkers resolve spontaneously, there is clearly a group of children whose problems persist, either for a long period or possibly permanently (after the age of five, often referred to as children with specific language impairment: SLI). There is a lack of research examining potential markers of language difficulties in young children which may enable the early detection of children at risk of SLI. The aim of this thesis was to determine the most suitable measure, or combination of measures, that can predict which late talkers at age 3;0 to 4;0 will be likely to have SLI at age 4;0 to 5;0. Methods Forty seven late talkers and 47 children with typical language development (TLD) aged from 3;0 to 4;0 were assessed on a number of language, IQ and marker tasks (baseline assessment). The children were recruited from 13 nurseries and one family centre in Aberdeen city. The children were reassessed one year later on a number of language, IQ and marker tasks (follow-up assessment). Results: Characteristics of the child or family examined were not associated with membership of the expressive language delay group at follow-up. Within the late talker group only, the Preschool Language Scale-3 Expressive Communication (PLS-3 EC) and Recalling Sentences scores at baseline were the best predictors of persistent expressive language delay at follow-up. Late talkers performance on the PLS-3 EC and Recalling Sentences tasks at age 3;0 to 4;0 has potential as predictors of persistent expressive language delay (children likely to have SLI) at age 4;0 to 5;0. Conclusions: A sizeable proportion of children identified as late talkers at age 3;0 to 4;0 have persistent language problems a year later at follow-up. The language measure PLS-3 EC has the potential to differentiate between late talkers who are going to have more persistent problems from those who recover. The marker task Recalling Sentences also has the potential to differentiate between late talkers who are going to have more persistent problems from those who recover. Given the simplicity of Recalling Sentences, this task has the potential to be a useful screening test in clinical practice although this needs to be evaluated in further research.

A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master in Speech-Language Pathology / Background: Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) worldwide are using apps in their interventions. Despite this growing trend, there is limited literature on the use of apps for language intervention. Reports indicate that SLPs are selecting apps by word-of-mouth and popularity. One of the difficulties in evaluating apps is related to the lack of consensus about which features are important in an app when providing speech-language therapy to children. Aim: This study aimed to investigate the features of apps that SLPs regard as valuable for language intervention with children and how SLPs were using apps in their intervention. Method: The study employed an explanatory, sequential mixed-method approach using SLPs in 6 predominantly English-speaking countries. A self-developed online survey (N = 338) identifying the features of apps was distributed to SLPs who use apps. This was followed by a semi-structured interview with some participants (n = 16) in order to obtain further insights from the survey. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the survey results. Interview data were explored using thematic analysis. Findings: The findings show that SLPs view apps as an engaging and motivating tool for therapy to facilitate their intervention goals. The lack of guidelines to support SLPs in their selection of apps has contributed to the selection of apps based on popularity and word-of-mouth rather than feature matching. Findings showed that specific content and design features of apps may support effective intervention, however these features need to be carefully evaluated in terms of the underlying principles of language intervention, multimedia learning and learning. Features that may impede effective intervention must also be considered. In addition, the social and pragmatic aspects of communication must be contemplated when using apps. Conclusions: A feature-matching checklist was developed in order to assist SLPs select apps based on feature matching. The findings from the study highlight the need for SLPs to engage more deeply with the theory underlying multimedia learning so that this information can be used to contribute to evidence-based practice when using apps for intervention. This study, calls for SLPs to make a concerted effort to engage in research around apps and app use. / MT2018

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Arts University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg in partial fulfilment for the Degree of Master of Arts in Speech-Language Pathology. / This dissertation explores the role of the speech-language therapist in second language acquisition. The motivation for the study arose out of recent political changes in South Africa, which led to desegregated education, and the need for young children to cope with English as the medium of instruction from the start of their schooling. The aim was to determine whether language intervention provided by a speech-language therapist significantly improved the English proficiency of a group of black pre-school children. A pre-test, post-test, centrol group experimental design was employed. The comprehension and expression of English vocabulary and syntax of thirty, three to six year old subjects was assessed using a modified version of the Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language-Revised (Carrow, 3.988), a newly devised vocabulary measure, as well as crystal's (1982) Profile in Lexical Semantics, and the Language Assessment Remediation and Screening Procedure (crystal et aL, 1989). The results showed that the English proficiency of the group of children who received language intervention from a speech-language therapist, improved significantly more than that of the first control group, who received only additional input in English, and the second control group, who received no input beyond that provided through the regular pre-school programme. The positive results of this research can now be applied to the teaching of languages other than English, and the training of teachers who would like to improve their skills at facilitating language acquisition. / Andrew Chakane 2018

One of the most common articulation errors made by children is on the phoneme Ir I. Treatment techniques for this sound have varied and have included the stimulus approach (Van Riper, 1972), phonetic placement techniques (Scripture, 1923), the sensory-motor approach (McDonald, 1964), the motokinesthetics approach (Young & Hawk, 1938), and sequential programming approach (Shriberg, 1975; Wood, 1988), to name a few. An integral part of many of these treatment methods is the use of the auditory stimulation. An innovative technique using a prosthetic device to facilitate the production of Ir I was used by Leonti, Blakeley, and Louis (1975), in the treatment of a 9.8 year old male. A follow-up study was conducted by Clark, Schwarz, and Blakeley, (1993) in which a prosthetic device, the R-appliance, was used to facilitate the production of Ir I at the word level. The results of the study indicated that the appliance facilitated the production of Ir I in isolation, in words, and in spontaneous speech. The present study investigated the use of the R-stick appliance as a facilitative device for the production of the Ir/ phoneme at the word level. It was hypothesized that the experimental group (R-stick) would have higher mean scores at the word level than the control group (no R-stick). This hypothesis was not supported by the data. Both groups showed significant improvements in their Ir I word productions, but no difference was shown between the two treatment approaches. There are several possible reasons for these results: (a) insufficient training with the use of the R-stick and the treatment protocol, (b) lack of probes during the course of the study, (c) length of treatment, (d) the small number of subjects participating in the study, and (e) the R-stick appliance is a clinician-manipulated tool.