JCPSLP July 2014_Vol16_no2

Table 3. SLPs’ direct language and literacy treatments for (C)APD

Do you use individualised language-

Yes

No

based treatments? (n = 40)

39

1

Are they effective?

Very effective

Effective

Somewhat effective

Not effective

Not sure

(C)AP skills (n = 38)

6 9 7 7

13 21 17 15

9 8

1 0 2 0

9 1 2 4

Language skills (n = 39) Literacy skills (n = 38) Academic skills (n = 39) Do you use phonological awareness training? (n = 39)

10 13

Yes

No

35

4

Is it effective?

Very effective

Effective

Somewhat effective

Not effective

Not sure

(C)AP skills (n = 36)

8 3

11

10 13

0 5 0 0

7 4 1 3

Language skills (n = 34) Literacy skills (n = 37) Academic skills (n = 37)

9

10

21 15

5

7

12

Do you use visualisation and

Yes

No 12

verbalisation? (n = 39)

29

Is it effective?

Very effective

Effective

Somewhat effective

Not effective

Not sure

(C)AP skills (n = 28)

4 6 5 4

11 14 10 14

8 8 8 7

2 0 2 0

3 0 3 3

Language skills (n = 28) Literacy skills (n = 28) Academic skills (n = 28)

Do you use other individualised reading / spelling remediation?

Yes

No 17

22

(n = 39) Is it effective?

Very effective

Effective

Somewhat effective

Not effective

Not sure

(C)AP skills (n = 23)

4 3 6 4

8 8

5 8 6 6

2 2 0 0

4 2 1 1

Language skills (n = 23) Literacy skills (n = 23) Academic skills (n = 23)

10 11

Do you use closure training?

Yes

No 16

(n = 39)

23

Is it effective?

Very effective

Effective

Somewhat effective

Not effective

Not sure

(C)AP skills (n = 23)

1 1 2 1

13 10 10

6 7 7 9

0 2 1 1

3 3 3 5

Language skills (n = 23) Literacy skills (n = 23) Academic skills (n = 23)

7

Do you use commercial software

Yes

No 31

packages? (n = 41)

10

(Earobics, n=9)

Is it effective?

Very effective

Effective

Somewhat effective

Not effective

Not sure

(C)AP skills (n = 10)

1 1 2 1

4 3 3 3

5 5 5 6

0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0

Language skills (n = 10) Literacy skills (n = 10) Academic skills (n = 10)

States (Emanuel et al., 2011). The use of simple speech training is also supported by the research, which has revealed that non-speech and simple speech training can successfully treat auditory deficits in children with specific language impairment and/or specific reading disability (McArthur et al., 2008). However, it appears to have no effect on the spoken language and/or reading skills of these children (McArthur et al., 2008). Of the other direct auditory treatments, speech-in-noise training was used by approximately one-third of respondents with most of these indicating that it is at least somewhat effective in improving auditory processing skills but does not generalise well to the language, literacy, and academic

domains. To date, auditory treatments such as speech-in- noise training have received little research attention, with the studies that have been undertaken failing to provide any clear support for their use (Fey et al., 2011). Fast ForWord (Scientific Learning Corporation, 1998) was not generally employed or recommended by clinicians, a practice supported by a recent meta-analysis of the program which concluded that there was no evidence that the program effectively treated language and literacy skills (Strong, Torgerson, Torgerson, & Hulme, 2011). A small number of clinicians indicated that they use their own direct treatments and find these effective, but unfortunately they provided only very limited details of what these treatments entailed.

76

JCPSLP Volume 16, Number 2 2014

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology