Search

Background: A number of studies have suggested that practitioners hold speech and language therapy (SLT) practice as tacit and consequently it is difficult for the therapist to describe. The current study uses a range of knowledge elicitation (KE) approaches, a technique not used before in SLT, as a way of accessing this tacit knowledge. There is currently no agreed framework that establishes key factors underpinning practice for preschool children with speech and language disorders. This paper attempts to address that gap. Aims: The aim of this study was to develop a framework of speech and language therapists’ practice when working with preschool children with developmental speech and language disorders (DS&LD). Methods and Procedures: A mixed methods approach was adopted for this study. Data were collected iteratively, from 245 speech and language therapists with experience of working with preschool children with DS&LD across sites in England, by means of focus groups and national events. There were three stages of data collection; local sites, specific interest groups and two national events. KE techniques were used to gather data, with initial data being collected in local site focus groups. Findings from groups were taken to subsequent larger groups where a combination of concept mapping, teach-back and sorting exercises, generated a more detailed description of practice, using discussion of consensus and disagreement to stimulate further exploration and definition and provide validatory evidence. Outcomes and Results: This paper provides a high-level framework of therapy for preschool children with DS&LD that makes practice explicit in this area. The framework proposes that therapists’ aims for this group of children fall into three categories: addressing children’s areas of impairment and skills; achieving functionally meaningful skills and carryover; supporting adults to provide a supportive communication environment. The exact configuration is shaped by the child’s context and needs. Conclusions and Implications: The framework highlights themes that are well researched in the literature (e.g. speech) and others that have been little studied (e.g. adult understanding), indicating a disconnect between research evidence and practice. The research also highlights the complex nature of interventions for preschool children with DS&LD and the importance therapists attribute to tailoring therapy to individual needs. The framework provides a scaffold for speech and language therapists to focus their clinical practice and encourages us as a profession to better understand and explore the gaps between research evidence and clinical practice, for preschool children with DS&LD.

BACKGROUND: Speech development requires intact and adequately functioning oral anatomy and cognitive 'speech processing' skills. There is evidence that speech input processing skills are associated with speech output problems in children not born with a cleft. Children born with cleft palate ± lip (CP±L) are at high risk of developing disordered speech output. Less is known about their speech input processing skills and whether they are associated with cleft-related speech sound disorder (SSD). AIMS: (1) To collate and evaluate studies reporting evidence regarding the speech input processing skills of children born with cleft palate in comparison with data from typically developing children or other comparison groups; and (2) to identify any available evidence regarding relationships between speech input processing skills and speech output in children born with CP±L. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Potentially relevant studies published up to November 2019 were identified from the following databases: Medline via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, Cinahl via Ebscohost, PsycInfo via Ebscohost, BNI via ProQuest, AMED via Ovid, Cochrane Library and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were: peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals, any design, published in English, participants born with a CP±L aged up to age 18 years who completed speech input processing assessments compared with normative data and/or a control or other comparison group. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists were used to quality appraise included studies. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Six studies were retained in the final review. There is some evidence that children born with CP±L perform less well than non-cleft controls on some speech input processing tasks and that specific input processing skills may be related to errors in the children's speech. Heterogeneity in relation to study groups and assessments used, as well as small sample sizes, limits generalization of findings. CONCLUSION & IMPLICATIONS: There is limited evidence regarding the speech input processing skills of children born with CP±L. There are indications that children born with CP+/L may have difficulty in some aspects of speech input processing in comparison with children not born with a cleft, and that difficulties with some speech input processing tasks may be specific to errors in children's speech output. Further research is required to develop our understanding of these skills in this population and any associations with speech output. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Few studies have been published that examine aspects of speech input processing in children born with CP±L. Theoretical models of speech processing, and published studies, propose that speech input processing skills are associated with SSD in children who were not born with a cleft. However, it is less clear whether there is any association between speech input processing and cleft-related SSD. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This review systematically collates and evaluates the published, peer-reviewed evidence regarding speech input processing skills in children born with CP±L. The collated evidence indicates that some speech input processing skills differ between children with and without CP±L. There is some evidence, from a single study, that speech input processing of specific cleft speech characteristics (CSCs) may be associated with the presence of these CSCs in the speech output of some children born with CP±L. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? While the evidence is currently limited, increasing our knowledge of speech input processing skills in children born with CP±L contributes to our clinical understanding of the nature of cleft-related SSD. The current evidence suggests that speech and language therapists should consider speech input processing skills when assessing children with cleft-related SSD to support intervention planning. Considering these skills in relation to literacy development in these children may also be important.

Background Children with persistent speech disorder (PSD) are at higher risk of difficulties with literacy, with some evidence suggesting an association with poorer educational attainment. However, studies to date have either used small clinical samples, which exclude children who have not been referred to clinical services, or relied on parent–teacher report of children's speech development. There is a need for an inclusive study to investigate the impact of PSD on educational outcomes using a population‐based sample and robust measures of speech development. Aim Using a large prospective UK population‐based study—the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC)—this study investigated: (1) how children identified with PSD at age 8 years perform on educational attainment tests at ages 10–11 and 13–14 years in comparison with children without PSD; and (2) whether children identified with PSD at age 8 years are more likely to receive a label of special educational needs (SEN) in secondary school. Methods & Procedures We examined the data for 263 children with PSD and 6399 controls who had speech assessed at age 8 years in a research clinic. Educational attainment was measured using data from English school standard attainment tests. Data on SEN categorization were obtained between 11 and 13 years of age. Children with PSD and controls were compared using regression analyses adjusted for biological sex, maternal age, verbal, performance and full‐scale IQ. Outcomes & Results Children with PSD at age 8 years were more likely to achieve lower attainment scores at ages 10–11 years in English and mathematics and across all three subjects of English, mathematics and science at ages 13–14 years after controlling for biological sex and maternal education; score below target levels for English at both time points after controlling for verbal IQ, and at ages 13–14 years after controlling for performance IQ; and receive a label of SEN (typically for the category of cognition and learning needs or communication and interaction needs) in secondary school. Conclusions & Implications PSD identified at age 8 years is associated with poor educational attainment at ages 10–11 and 13–14 years in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science. Children with PSD at age 8 years are more likely to be identified with SEN at ages 11–13 years, particularly cognition and learning needs, and communication and interaction needs. We need to be aware of the potential for the long‐term impact of PSD on educational attainment in providing appropriate and effective support throughout school. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subject Speech‐sound disorder is associated with reading and spelling difficulties, with some evidence to suggest that PSD is associated with a higher risk of literacy difficulties. Limited evidence also suggests that speech‐sound disorder may be associated with poorer educational attainment. However, studies to date have used small clinical samples or parent–teacher report of speech development and there is a need to determine whether the association is observed in larger and more inclusive population‐based samples. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This prospective, longitudinal study of a large community‐based sample of English children has shown that PSD is associated with poorer educational attainment at the end of primary school and at ages 13–14 years. Children with PSD are also more likely to be identified as having SEN in secondary school, especially communication and interaction needs but also including cognition and learning needs. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Understanding the long‐term implications of PSD on educational attainment highlights the importance of ongoing monitoring and support to enable children to reach their potential throughout primary and secondary school. The identification of children with a history of PSD during transition to secondary school will enable effective support to be put in place. The intervention for children with PSD should involve close collaboration between speech and language therapists and education professionals.

Background: Multiple interventions have been developed to address speech sound disorder (SSD) in children.Many of these have been evaluated but the evidence for these has not been considered within a model whichcategorizes types of intervention. The opportunity to carry out a systematic review of interventions for SSD aroseas part of a larger scale study of interventions for primary speech and language impairment in preschool children.Aims: To review systematically the evidence for interventions for SSD in preschool children and to categorize themwithin a classification of interventions for SSD.Methods & Procedures: Relevant search terms were used to identify intervention studies published up to 2012, withthe following inclusion criteria: participants were aged between 2 years and 5 years, 11 months; they exhibitedspeech, language and communication needs; and a primary outcome measure of speech was used. Studies thatmet inclusion criteria were quality appraised using the single case experimental design (SCED) or PEDro-P,depending on their methodology. Those judged to be high quality were classified according to the primary focusof intervention.Outcomes & Results: The final review included 26 studies. Case series was the most common research design.Categorization to the classification system for interventions showed that cognitive–linguistic and productionapproaches to intervention were the most frequently reported. The highest graded evidence was for three studieswithin the auditory–perceptual and integrated categories.Conclusions & Implications: The evidence for intervention for preschool children with SSD is focused on seven outof 11 subcategories of interventions. Although all the studies included in the review were good quality as definedby quality appraisal checklists, they mostly represented lower-graded evidence. Higher-graded studies are neededto understand clearly the strength of evidence for different interventions.

Background: Efforts to increase the evidence base in speech and language therapy are often limited by methodological factors which have restricted the strength of the evidence to the lower levels on the evidence hierarchy. Where higher graded studies, such as randomised controlled trials have been carried out, it has sometimes been difficult to obtain sufficient power to detect a potential effect of intervention owing to small sample sizes or heterogeneity in the participants. With certain clinical groups such as cleft lip and palate, systematic reviews of intervention studies have shown that there is no robust evidence to support the efficacy of any one intervention protocol over another. Aims: The aim of this paper is to describe the setting up of an observational clinical cohort study and to present this as an alternative design for answering research questions relating to prevalence, risk factors and outcomes from intervention. Methods: The Cleft Collective Speech and Language Study is a national cohort study of children born with cleft palate. Working in partnership with regional clinical cleft centres, a sample size of over 600 children and 600 parents is being recruited and followed up from birth to age 5. Variables being collected include demographic, psychological, surgical, hearing and speech and language data. Main Contribution: The process of setting up the study has led to the creation of a unique, largescale dataset which is available for researchers to access now and in the future. As well as exploring predictive factors, the data can be used to explore the impact of interventions in relation to individual differences. Findings from these investigations can be used to provide information on sample criteria and definitions of intervention and dosage which can be used in future trials. Conclusions. The observational cohort study is a useful alternative design to explore questions around prevalence, risk factors and intervention for clinical groups where robust research data are not yet available. Findings from such a study can be used to guide service delivery decisions and to determine power for future clinical trials.

Background Children who are bilingual and have speech sound disorder are likely to be under-referred, possibly due to confusion about typical speech acquisition in bilingual children. Aims To investigate what is known about the impact of bilingualism on children's acquisition of speech in English to facilitate the identification and treatment of bilingual children with speech sound disorder. Methods & Procedures A systematic review of studies from the last 50 years was conducted. Studies investigating speech acquisition in bilingual infants and children (where one language was English) were identified through searching seven electronic databases, bibliographies of relevant articles and e-mailing authors. Sixty-six studies investigating bilingual speech production met inclusion criteria, with 53 describing typically developing children and 13 describing children with speech sound disorder. The 66 studies were analysed thematically and summarized in terms of methods, key findings and underlying theories. Main Contribution There was limited evidence to suggest that bilingual children develop speech at a slower rate than their monolingual peers; however, there was evidence for qualitative differences and increased variation in speech production. Nearly all studies provide evidence for transfer between the two phonological and language structures, although the amount of transfer varied between studies. There was evidence of positive and negative transfer of features from the dominant language (L1) to the second language (L2) as well as from L2 to L1. Positive transfer became more evident with increased age and length of exposure to a second language. More recently researchers have moved away from investigating whether there are one or two phonological systems and accept that there are two systems that interact. Interest has shifted to examining how phonological systems interact and to identifying factors that influence interactions. The review revealed a number of inconsistencies in the findings of studies due to differences in methodology, languages investigated and degree of language exposure. Overall, measurement issues were addressed well but most studies provided limited sample information about language experience, schooling and socio-economic status. Conclusions & Implications There are differences in speech sound acquisition between monolingual and bilingual children in terms of rate and patterns of error, with both positive and negative transfer occurring in bilingual children.

A focus group of seven speech and language therapists (SLTs) who work with children with phonological difficulties was invited to share their views on their current ways of working. Qualitative data was generated through discussion of two video-taped recordings of children with phonological difficulties and a series of brainstorming tasks. The results indicate the use of an electric approach, a mixture of theories rather than a single one. Similarities and differences between SLTs are identified. Implications for the development of clinical guidelines and the investigation of effectiveness are discussed.