JCPSLP vol 14 no 3 2012

Technology

Around the journals

One important finding was that the primary measures of language and auditory processing improved significantly across all groups at all data points. However, without a no-treatment control group, we cannot assess the extent to which intervention or alternatively natural change over time contributed to improvements observed. In short, there is no additional benefit of FFW-L compared with another computerised intervention or intervention delivered by a SLP or a general intervention focusing on academic enrichment. Even though these results did not support the temporal auditory processing hypothesis, the authors emphasised that this does not mean that auditory processing skills are not important for language development and a necessary part of listening to speech (Gillam et al., 2008). SpeechBITE ratings

Fast ForWord Language intervention in school-age children

Gillam, R. B., Loeb, D. F., Hoffman, L. M., Bohman, T., Champlin, C. A., Thibodeau, L., Widen, J., Brandel, J., & Friel-Patti, S. (2008). The efficacy of Fast ForWord Language intervention in school-age children with language impairment: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 51 (1), 97–119. SpeechBITE rating: 8/10 speechBITE review – Katherine Salmon and Tricia McCabe Do language impairments reflect a deficit in auditory temporal processing skills? Fast ForWord Language (FFW-L; Scientific Learning Corporation, 1998) operates on the hypothesis that they do. FFW-L is an approach to language intervention designed to improve auditory temporal processing skills in school-age children with language impairments. Until now, few studies have compared FFW-L to alternate interventions. Furthermore, the utility of using acoustically modified speech to remediate language impairments has been questioned (e.g., Cohen et al., 2005; Pokorni, Worthington, & Jamison, 2004). This study compared the efficacy of Fast ForWord Language (FFW-L) to three other interventions – academic enrichment (AE), computer-assisted language intervention (CALI), and individualised language intervention (ILI) – to determine whether FFW-L was more effective than the other interventions for improving language and auditory processing skills. The current research attempted to address the limitations of previous research, in particular, the fact that none of the previous trials evaluating FFW-L directly measured changes in temporal auditory processing. This study also included a larger group of participants (216 children diagnosed with language impairment) than previously reported. Participants were followed for 6 months following completion of the treatment phase and the study compared FFW-L to a variety of alternative interventions. The selection of 3 comparison interventions and FFW-L, all presented 5 days per week for 6 weeks for 80 minutes per day, allowed comparisons to be made between (a) computer-delivered versus human-delivered services, (b) modified speech versus unmodified speech, and (c) specific versus nonspecific intervention goals. Gillam and colleagues hypothesised that based on the temporal processing deficit hypothesis (Tallal, 2004) children assigned to the FFW-L intervention would have better outcomes than children in the other three interventions. The results of the study showed no difference across the four groups on receptive and expressive language and auditory processing. That is, the children in all four interventions made similar improvements on the language and auditory processing measures. However, children in the FFW-L and CALI interventions did make greater improvements on a measure of phonological awareness than children randomised to the ILI and AE interventions at the six-month follow-up.

Eligibility specified: Y Random allocation: Y Concealed allocation: Y Baseline comparability: Y Blind subjects: N Blind therapists: N Blind assessors: Y Adequate follow-up: Y Intention-to-treat analysis: Y Between-group comparisons: Y Point estimates and variability: Y References

Cohen, W., Hodson, A., O’Hare, A., Boyle, J., Durrani, T., McCartney, E., … Watson, J. (2005). Effects of computer- based intervention through acoustically modified speech (Fast ForWord) in severe mixed receptive-expressive language impairment: Outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 48 , 715–729. Pokorni, J. L, Worthington, C .K., & Jamison, P. J. (2004). Phonological awareness intervention: Comparison of Fast ForWord, Earobics, and LiPS. Journal of Educational Research , 97 , 147–157. Tallal, P. (2004). Improving language and literacy is a matter of time. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience , 5 , 721–728. Online treatment of speech and voice in people with Parkinson’s disease Constantinescu, G., Theodoros, D., Russell, T., Ward, E., Wilson, S., & Wootton, R. (2011). Treating disordered speech and voice in Parkinson’s disease online: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders , 46 (1), 1–16. SpeechBITE rating: 6/10 speechBITE review – Vivian Kan and Tricia McCabe A significant proportion of the Parkinson’s disease (PD) population experiences hypokinetic dysarthria (Ramig, Fox, & Sapir, 2004) which negatively affects patients’ quality of

157

JCPSLP Volume 14, Number 3 2012

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au