JCPSLP vol 14 no 3 2012

51 / 56

Technology
JCPSLP Volume 14, Number 3 2012 157
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
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
Around the journals
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.