Powerful tools for motor-based treatment approaches

Sara Wood, Joanne Cleland, Zoe Roxburgh

Research output: Contribution to specialist publicationFeatured article

Abstract

Since the phonological revolution in the 1970s, SLTs have embraced phonological intervention when dealing with speech sound disorders (SSDs) and largely turned their backs on articulatory approaches. Joffe and Pring (2008) surveyed 98 clinicians working with children with speech difficulties and found the most common approaches used with this client group were auditory discrimination, minimal pairs and phonological awareness, with articulatory approaches used only ‘sometimes’ by around half of respondents. While there is good evidence that phonological impairments can be remediated with these types of phonological therapies (Law, Garrett and Nye, 2003), there remains a proportion of children with persistent SSDs for whom traditional phonological approaches do not provide the whole solution. For these children, the likely root of the impairment is motoric (Gibbon et al, 1999 ).

Fingerprint

Articulation Disorders
Therapeutics
discrimination
Law
evidence
Group
Speech Sound Disorder
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • visual biofeedback
  • motor control
  • speech and language disorders
  • speech and language therapy

Cite this

@misc{ce9b323bbc024cbf881f86244f208fa7,
title = "Powerful tools for motor-based treatment approaches",
abstract = "Since the phonological revolution in the 1970s, SLTs have embraced phonological intervention when dealing with speech sound disorders (SSDs) and largely turned their backs on articulatory approaches. Joffe and Pring (2008) surveyed 98 clinicians working with children with speech difficulties and found the most common approaches used with this client group were auditory discrimination, minimal pairs and phonological awareness, with articulatory approaches used only ‘sometimes’ by around half of respondents. While there is good evidence that phonological impairments can be remediated with these types of phonological therapies (Law, Garrett and Nye, 2003), there remains a proportion of children with persistent SSDs for whom traditional phonological approaches do not provide the whole solution. For these children, the likely root of the impairment is motoric (Gibbon et al, 1999 ).",
keywords = "visual biofeedback, motor control, speech and language disorders, speech and language therapy",
author = "Sara Wood and Joanne Cleland and Zoe Roxburgh",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "31",
language = "English",
volume = "762",
pages = "18--20",
journal = "Bulletin of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists",
issn = "0953-6086",

}

Powerful tools for motor-based treatment approaches. / Wood, Sara ; Cleland, Joanne; Roxburgh, Zoe.

In: Bulletin of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, Vol. 762, 31.10.2015, p. 18-20.

Research output: Contribution to specialist publicationFeatured article

TY - GEN

T1 - Powerful tools for motor-based treatment approaches

AU - Wood, Sara

AU - Cleland, Joanne

AU - Roxburgh, Zoe

PY - 2015/10/31

Y1 - 2015/10/31

N2 - Since the phonological revolution in the 1970s, SLTs have embraced phonological intervention when dealing with speech sound disorders (SSDs) and largely turned their backs on articulatory approaches. Joffe and Pring (2008) surveyed 98 clinicians working with children with speech difficulties and found the most common approaches used with this client group were auditory discrimination, minimal pairs and phonological awareness, with articulatory approaches used only ‘sometimes’ by around half of respondents. While there is good evidence that phonological impairments can be remediated with these types of phonological therapies (Law, Garrett and Nye, 2003), there remains a proportion of children with persistent SSDs for whom traditional phonological approaches do not provide the whole solution. For these children, the likely root of the impairment is motoric (Gibbon et al, 1999 ).

AB - Since the phonological revolution in the 1970s, SLTs have embraced phonological intervention when dealing with speech sound disorders (SSDs) and largely turned their backs on articulatory approaches. Joffe and Pring (2008) surveyed 98 clinicians working with children with speech difficulties and found the most common approaches used with this client group were auditory discrimination, minimal pairs and phonological awareness, with articulatory approaches used only ‘sometimes’ by around half of respondents. While there is good evidence that phonological impairments can be remediated with these types of phonological therapies (Law, Garrett and Nye, 2003), there remains a proportion of children with persistent SSDs for whom traditional phonological approaches do not provide the whole solution. For these children, the likely root of the impairment is motoric (Gibbon et al, 1999 ).

KW - visual biofeedback

KW - motor control

KW - speech and language disorders

KW - speech and language therapy

UR - http://www.rcslt.org/

M3 - Featured article

VL - 762

SP - 18

EP - 20

JO - Bulletin of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists

T2 - Bulletin of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists

JF - Bulletin of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists

SN - 0953-6086

ER -