No AccessAmerican Journal of Speech-Language PathologyResearch Article6 Feb 2018

Comparing Traditional Service Delivery and Telepractice for Speech Sound Production Using a Functional Outcome Measure

    Purpose

    Using American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (ASHA's) National Outcomes Measurement System (NOMS) Functional Communication Measure (FCM) as a common metric, this investigation compared traditional service delivery and telepractice service delivery for children receiving therapy for the NOMS diagnostic category of “speech sound production.”

    Method

    De-identified cases were secured from ASHA's NOMS database and a proprietary database from a private e-learning provider. Cases were included if they met 3 criteria: (a) children received treatment exclusively for speech sound production, (b) they were between 6.0 and 9.5 years old, and (c) they received therapy lasting between 4 and 9 months.

    A total of 1,331 ASHA NOMS cases and 428 telepractice cases were included. The 2 groups were matched by initial FCM scores. Mann–Whitney U tests were completed to compare differences in the median change scores (the difference between the initial and final FCM scores) between the 2 groups.

    Results

    There were no significant differences in the median change scores between the traditional group and the telepractice group.

    Conclusions

    These results suggest comparable treatment outcomes between traditional service delivery and telepractice for treatment of children exhibiting speech sound disorders. The findings provide support for the use of telepractice for school-age children.

    References

    • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2003). National Outcomes Measurement System (NOMS): K–12 speech-language pathology user's guide. Rockville, MD: Author.
    • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2005). Speech-language pathologists providing clinical services via telepractice (position statement). Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/docs/html/PS2005-00116.html
    • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2015). ASHA's National Outcomes Measurement System (NOMS). Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/NOMS/
    • Baharav, E., & Reiser, C. (2010). Using telepractice in parent training in early autism.Telemedicine and E-health, 16(6), 727–731.
    • Boisvert, M., Hall, N., Andrianopoulos, M., & Chaclas, J. (2012). The multi-faceted implementation of telepractice to service individuals with autism.International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 4(2), 11–24.
    • Boisvert, M. K., Lang, R., Andrianopoulos, M., & Boscardin, M. L. (2010). Telepractice in the assessment and treatment of individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review.Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13(6), 423–432.
    • Edwards, M., Stredler-Brown, A., & Houston, K. T. (2012). Expanding use of telepractice in speech-language pathology and audiology.The Volta Review, 112(3), 227–242.
    • Fleming, A. M., Brown, K. J., & Houston, K. T. (2013). Putting the “tele-” in telepractice.SIG 18 Perspectives on Telepractice, 3, 9–15.
    • Gabel, R., Grogan-Johnson, S., Alvares, R., Bechstein, L., & Taylor, J. (2013). A field study of telepractice for school intervention using the ASHA NOMS K-12 database.Communication Disorders Quarterly, 35(1), 44–53.
    • Grogan-Johnson, S. (2012). Providing school-based speech-language therapy services by telepractice: A brief tutorial.SIG 18 Perspectives on Telepractice, 2, 42–48.
    • Grogan-Johnson, S., Alvares, R., Rowan, L., & Creaghead, N. (2010). A pilot study comparing the effectiveness of speech language therapy provided by telemedicine with conventional on-site therapy.Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 16(3), 134–139.
    • Grogan-Johnson, S., Gaebel, R., Taylor, J., Rowan, L. E., Alvares, R., & Schenker, J. (2011). A pilot exploration of speech sound disorder intervention delivered by telehealth to school-age children.International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 3(1), 31–41.
    • Grogan-Johnson, S., Schmidt, A. M., Schenker, J., Alvares, R., Rowan, L. E., & Taylor, J. (2013). A comparison of speech sound intervention delivered by telepractice and side-by-side service delivery models.Communication Disorders Quarterly, 34(4), 210–220.
    • McCarthy, M., Duncan, J., & Leigh, G. (2012). Telepractice: The Australian experience in an international context.The Volta Review, 112(3), 297–312.
    • Mullen, R., & Schooling, T. (2010). The National Outcomes Measurement System for pediatric speech-language pathology.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 44–60.
    • Shprintzen, R. J., & Golding-Kushner, K. J. (2012). The international use of telepractice.Perspectives on Telepractice, 2(1), 16–25.
    • Theodoros, D. (2011). Telepractice in speech-language pathology: The evidence, the challenges, and the future.SIG 18 Perspectives on Telepractice, 1, 10–21.
    • Wilson, L., Onslow, M., & Lincoln, M. (2004). Telehealth adaptation of the Lidcombe program of early stuttering intervention: Five case studies.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13, 81–93.

    Additional Resources