76
JCPSLP
Volume 16, Number 2 2014
Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
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.
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
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
13
9
1
9
Language skills (n = 39)
9
21
8
0
1
Literacy skills (n = 38)
7
17
10
2
2
Academic skills (n = 39)
7
15
13
0
4
Do you use phonological
Yes
No
awareness training? (n = 39)
35
4
Is it effective?
Very effective
Effective
Somewhat effective
Not effective
Not sure
(C)AP skills (n = 36)
8
11
10
0
7
Language skills (n = 34)
3
9
13
5
4
Literacy skills (n = 37)
10
21
5
0
1
Academic skills (n = 37)
7
15
12
0
3
Do you use visualisation and
Yes
No
verbalisation? (n = 39)
29
12
Is it effective?
Very effective
Effective
Somewhat effective
Not effective
Not sure
(C)AP skills (n = 28)
4
11
8
2
3
Language skills (n = 28)
6
14
8
0
0
Literacy skills (n = 28)
5
10
8
2
3
Academic skills (n = 28)
4
14
7
0
3
Do you use other individualised
Yes
No
reading / spelling remediation?
22
17
(n = 39)
Is it effective?
Very effective
Effective
Somewhat effective
Not effective
Not sure
(C)AP skills (n = 23)
4
8
5
2
4
Language skills (n = 23)
3
8
8
2
2
Literacy skills (n = 23)
6
10
6
0
1
Academic skills (n = 23)
4
11
6
0
1
Do you use closure training?
Yes
No
(n = 39)
23
16
Is it effective?
Very effective
Effective
Somewhat effective
Not effective
Not sure
(C)AP skills (n = 23)
1
13
6
0
3
Language skills (n = 23)
1
10
7
2
3
Literacy skills (n = 23)
2
10
7
1
3
Academic skills (n = 23)
1
7
9
1
5
Do you use commercial software
Yes
No
packages? (n = 41)
10
31
(Earobics, n=9)
Is it effective?
Very effective
Effective
Somewhat effective
Not effective
Not sure
(C)AP skills (n = 10)
1
4
5
0
0
Language skills (n = 10)
1
3
5
0
1
Literacy skills (n = 10)
2
3
5
0
0
Academic skills (n = 10)
1
3
6
0
0
