Search

Background: Compensatory cleft speech disorders can severely impact speech understandability and speech acceptability. Speech intervention is necessary to eliminate these disorders. There is, however, currently no consensus on the most effective speech therapy approach to eliminate the different subtypes of compensatory cleft speech disorders. Aims: To compare the immediate, short- and long-term effects of three well-defined speech intervention approaches (i.e., a motor-phonetic approach, a linguistic-phonological approach and a combined phonetic-phonological approach) on the speech and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Belgian Dutch-speaking children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP±L) and different subtypes of compensatory speech disorders (i.e., anterior oral cleft speech characteristics (CSCs), posterior oral CSCs or non-oral CSCs). Besides, the perceived acceptability of these three speech intervention approaches will be investigated from the perspectives of caregivers and children with a CP±L. Methods & Procedures: A two-centre longitudinal randomized sham-controlled trial was used. Children were randomly assigned to one of the three intervention programmes and received 10 h of speech intervention divided over 2 weeks. Block randomization was used, stratified by age and gender. Primary outcome measures included perceptual speech outcomes. Secondary outcome measures included patient-reported outcomes. Outcomes & Results: The results of this trial will provide speech-language pathologists evidence-based guidelines to better tailor intervention approaches to the specific needs of a child with a defined compensatory speech disorder.

Background & Aims: Even though evidence for the use of linguistic-phonological intervention approaches in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP±L) is still limited, these approaches are being used by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to treat active or compensatory cleft speech disorders in clinical practice. It is, however, unknown to what extent linguistic-phonological intervention is acceptable to SLPs. The aim of this study is to investigate the retrospective acceptability of linguistic-phonological intervention in children with a CP±L from the perspective of SLPs using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). Methods & Procedures: A total of 18 female community SLPs, aged between 23 and 63 years, were included in the study. An independent interviewer conducted semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using a deductive coding approach. Statements of the SLPs were related to the seven constructs of the TFA: affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness and self-efficacy. Outcomes & Results: The affective attitude and perceived effectiveness of linguistic-phonological intervention differed among the SLPs: some therapists had positive attitudes towards these approaches, while others did not. Positive attitudes were related to the successful use of linguistic-phonological intervention in the past. The construct 'ethicality' revealed that negative attitudes towards these approaches were attributed to the limited available scientific evidence or negative experiences while using these approaches. In contrast, SLPs who had positive attitudes considered these interventions as 'important' and 'valuable'. Some SLPs had negative reflections on linguistic-phonological intervention as these approaches were considered demanding in terms of time needed to gain knowledge on using them in children with a CP±L (constructs 'burden' and 'opportunity costs'). Additionally, some SLPs doubted their self-efficacy to use these approaches in clinical practice. Conclusions & Implications: The acceptability of linguistic-phonological intervention differed between the SLPs in this sample and was most likely related to their previous experiences with these linguistic-phonological approaches. It is important to increase not only the amount of scientific evidence for linguistic-phonological approaches but also the supply of evidence-based workshops and training courses on this topic. These initiatives should distribute scientific information that is translated into guidelines that are immediately applicable in clinical practice. This may potentially reduce the time-related burden that some SLPs currently experience to gain expertise in this matter. In future research, it is necessary to investigate if there exist differences in acceptability between the different types of linguistic--phonological therapy.

Background: Evidence-based speech therapy involves the integration of (1) the scientific evidence for therapy with (2) the perspectives of clinicians concerning therapy and (3) the perspectives of patients about therapy. The cleft literature has already paid attention to the first two cornerstones of evidence-based speech therapy. Much less is known about how children perceive cleft speech therapy. Aims: The purpose of the current qualitative study was to investigate the perceptions, emotions and expectations of Flemish-speaking Dutch children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP ± L), aged 5-12 years, with regard to the speech therapy they receive. In this study, a focus was made on speech therapy to eliminate compensatory cleft speech errors. Methods & Procedures: Six children with a CP ± L, aged between 5 and 12 years, were included in this study. Child-friendly semi-structured interviews were conducted using a participatory, art-based qualitative approach. This means that the 'play and puppets technique' and 'draw-write and photo-elicitation technique' were used to guide the children through the interviews. Data derived from these interviews were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Trustworthiness of the data was achieved by applying researcher triangulation, negative case analysis and an audit trail. Outcomes & Results: Analyses of the interviews revealed three major themes of importance to the children: (1) treatment values, (2) treatment practices and (3) treatment outcomes. Each theme was divided into different subthemes. The theme 'treatment values' consisted of the subthemes expectations and emotions around therapy and interference with daily living. Information flow, therapy content, confirmation and rewards, parents' attendance, therapy intensity, and homework were subthemes of the major theme 'treatment practices'. The theme 'treatment outcomes' was divided into two subthemes, namely speech improvement and peers' reactions. Conclusions & Implications: Most children had positive attitudes towards speech therapy: it was 'something they liked' and 'something fun'. If children had negative attitudes they were related to having a fear of making mistakes during therapy. Children had clear expectations of the purpose of speech therapy. Speech therapy should 'help' improve their speech and make it more understandable to others. The children in this sample made some suggestions to decrease the experienced burden related to speech therapy. The results of this study will help to better tailor speech therapy programmes to the needs and experiences of children with a CP ± L.

Background: Increasing attention is paid to the effectiveness of high-intensity speech intervention in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP±L). It is, however, unknown if high-intensity intervention is acceptable to the intervention recipients. Parents have an integral role in supporting their children with intervention highlighting the importance of intervention acceptability to parents. Aims: To compare the retrospective acceptability of high-intensity speech intervention (10 1-hr speech therapy sessions divided over 2 weeks) with the retrospective acceptability of low-intensity speech intervention (10 1-hr speech therapy sessions divided over 10 weeks) for children with a CP±L from the parents' point of view. Methods & Procedures: Twelve parents of 12 children, aged 6-0 years who received high-intensity speech intervention (n = 6) or low-intensity speech intervention (n = 6), were invited to participate in this study. Seven parents (n = 3 in the high-intensity group and n = 4 in the low-intensity group) agreed to participate (total response rate: 7/12, 58.33%). A qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews was applied. To investigate the retrospective acceptability of the two intervention intensities, deductive coding according to the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) was used. Outcomes & Results: With regard to the TFA construct 'affective attitude', results demonstrated that parents had positive feelings about the provided speech intervention regardless of the intensity. Parents of children who received high-intensity speech intervention reported two specific benefits related to the high intervention intensity: (1) it improved their relationship with the speech-language pathologist and (2) it improved their child's ability to make self-corrections in his/her speech. Even though both high-intensive and low-intensity speech intervention were considered burdensome (TFA construct 'burden'), parents were less likely to drop out of high-intensity intervention because the total intervention period was kept short. Conclusions & Implications: In conclusion, high-intensity speech intervention seemed acceptable to parents. More positive codes were identified for some of the TFA constructs in the high-intensity intervention group than in the low-intensity intervention group. Considering that some parents doubted their self-efficacy to participate in high-intensity speech intervention, speech-language pathologists need to counsel them so that they can adhere to the high intervention intensity. Future studies should investigate whether high-intensity speech intervention is also acceptable to the children who receive the intervention and to the speech-language pathologists who deliver the intervention.

Background: Children born with a cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP ± L) are known to be at risk for speech-language disorders that impact educational and social-emotional growth. It is hypothesized that speech-language intervention delivered before the age of 3 years could decrease the impact of CP ± L on speech-language development. Infant sign training in combination with verbal input expands the natural communication of young children including multimodal speech-language input (i.e., verbal and manual input) via caregivers who act as co-therapists. Aims: To determine the effectiveness of infant sign training in 1-year-old children with CP ± L by comparing different interventions. Methods & Procedures: This is a two-centre, randomized, parallel-group, longitudinal, controlled trial. Children are randomized to either an infant sign training group (IST group), a verbal training group (VT group) or no intervention control group (C group). Caregivers of children who are assigned to the IST group or VT group will participate in three caregiver training meetings to practise knowledge and skills to stimulate speech-language development. Outcome measures include a combination of questionnaires, language tests and observational analyses of communicative acts. Outcomes & Results: It is hypothesized that speech-language development of children with CP ± L will benefit more from IST compared with VT and no intervention. Additionally, the number and quality of communicative acts of both children and caregivers are expected to be higher after IST. Conclusions & Implications: This project will contribute to the development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines regarding early speech-language intervention in children with CP ± L under the age of 3 years.

Purpose: Speech-language pathologists usually apply a "one size fits all" approach to eliminate compensatory cleft speech characteristics (CSCs). It is necessary to investigate what intervention works best for a particular patient. This pilot study compared the effectiveness of two therapy approaches (a motorphonetic approach and a linguistic-phonological approach) on different subtypes of compensatory CSCs in Dutch-speaking children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP ± L). Method: Fourteen children with a CP ± L (Mage = 7.71 years) were divided into two groups using block randomization stratified by age, gender, and type of compensatory CSC. Six children received intervention to eliminate anterior oral CSCs (n = 3 motor-phonetic intervention, n = 3 linguistic-phonological intervention). Eight children received intervention to eliminate non-oral CSCs (n = 4 motorphonetic intervention, n = 4 linguistic-phonological intervention). Each child received 10 hr of speech intervention divided over 2 weeks. Perceptual and psychosocial outcome measures were used to determine intervention effects. Results: Children who received linguistic-phonological intervention to eliminate anterior oral CSCs had significantly higher correctly produced consonant scores and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores compared to children who received motor-phonetic intervention to eliminate anterior oral CSCs. In the group of children who received intervention to eliminate non-oral CSCs, no significant differences were found in the correctly produced consonant scores nor in the HRQoL scores between the two intervention approaches. Conclusions: Linguistic-phonological intervention seems to be more appropriate to eliminate anterior oral CSCs. The beneficial effects of linguistic-phonological intervention were less pronounced in children with non-oral CSCs. Perhaps, children with non-oral CSCs benefit more from a hybrid phonetic-phonological approach. This study is a step forward in the provision of performance-specific intervention in children with a CP ± L. Replication in larger samples is needed and will aid to tailor treatment plans to the needs of our patients.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of speech intervention provided with a low intensity with speech intervention provided with a high intensity on the speech and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Dutch-speaking children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP ± L) between 4 and 12 years. Method: A longitudinal, prospective, randomized controlled trial with a multiple baseline design was used. Twelve children with a CP ± L (M[subscript age] = 8.0 years, SD = 1.54) were divided into two groups using block randomization stratified by age and gender: One group received low-intensity speech intervention (LISI; n = 6) and one group received high-intensity speech intervention (HISI; n = 6). Children in the LISI group received intervention with a session duration of 1 hr, a dose frequency of 1 session per week, and a total intervention duration of 10 weeks. Children in the HISI group received intervention with a session duration of 1 hr, a dose frequency of 5 sessions per week, and a total intervention duration of 2 weeks. The cumulative intervention intensity was kept constant. Both groups received identical therapy programs provided by the same experienced speech therapist. Perceptual speech assessments were performed on baseline and posttreatment data points. Changes in HRQoL were assessed using the Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Effects on Life Outcomes (VELO) questionnaire. Both groups were compared over time using (generalized) linear mixed models. Results: No significant Time × Group interactions were observed for the percentage of correctly produced consonants at the word and sentence levels, indicating no differences in evolution over time among the two groups. The variables speech understandability, speech acceptability, and the total VELO scores significantly improved following HISI, but not following LISI. Conclusions: Children in the HISI group made equal and, for some variables, even superior progress in only 2 weeks of therapy compared to children in the LISI group who received 10 weeks of therapy. HISI is a promising strategy to improve speech outcomes and HRQoL in a shorter time period.

Purpose: This study compared the inter- and intrarater reliability of the percentage of consonants correct (PCC) metrics and the probe scoring system between an experienced and a less experienced rater and between two experienced raters. In addition, these outcome measures' ability to reflect changes following speech intervention was measured. Method: During Phase 1, two raters (Rater 1 with 5 years of experience in cleft-related speech disorders and Rater 2 with limited experience in cleft-related speech disorders) independently assessed 134 speech samples at the word and sentence levels, which were collected on different data points before, during, and following a cleft palate speech intervention. During Phase 2, a third rater (with 8 years of experience) analyzed 34 speech samples. The percentage of consonants correct--revised, the percentage of correct places and manners, and probe scores at the word and sentence levels were measured. Results: Poor-to-moderate interreliability between Raters 1 and 2 was found due to differences in error classification. Interrater reliability between Raters 1 and 3 was very good for both the PCC metrics and the probe scores. The interrater reliability for the amount of targets elicited was lower compared to the interrater reliability for the amount of targets correct. The probe scoring system demonstrated a greater ability to detect changes toward the correct production of the target consonant compared to the PCC metrics. Conclusions: Having an experience with the assessment of cleft-related speech disorders is a crucial factor to gain reliable results. The interrater reliability for the PCC metrics and the probe scoring system between two experienced raters did not differ, suggesting that both outcome measures can be used in cleft palate speech intervention studies. Despite the ability of the probe scoring system to detect changes, further research should provide insight in the benefits of this system both for research and clinical purposes.

Background: Speech disorders in children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP±L) are complex given the magnitude of influencing factors. Providing intervention to eliminate these speech errors is often challenging. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) might have negative perceptions of the treatment of children with a CP±L. Aims: To explore how community SLPs perceive and experience the provision of speech intervention to children with a CP±L. Methods & Procedures: A total of 18 female community SLPs, aged between 23 and 62 years, were included in this study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. The interviews were analysed using an inductive thematic approach aiming to identify themes driven by the data. Trustworthiness of the data was achieved by including researcher triangulation (involving three researchers with different research backgrounds) and deviant case analysis of two cases. Outcomes & Results: Initial responses demonstrated that the community SLPs were excited and enthusiastic to treat children with a CP±L. Expanding on these initial reports, however, they revealed that their excitement turned into professional self-doubt and insecurity when confronted with the treatment challenges inherent with this population. To cope with this self-doubt, they outlined several responsibilities for the cleft team SLPs. They expressed a strong desire to receive confirmation and approval on their treatment practices from more experienced SLPs (i.e., the cleft team SLPs). Their perceptions were dominated by a polarized thinking pattern. Treatment approaches were divided in categories as 'right' or 'wrong' and 'good' or 'bad'. Conclusions & Implications: The community SLPs are lacking professional confidence when treating children with a CP±L. They put themselves in a subordinate position towards the cleft team SLPs and expect the latter to provide ready-made answers to problems and questions. This expectation can perhaps be explained by their fear of making mistakes during therapy preventing treatment progress. If they handle in accordance with the experts' advice, they cannot blame themselves in cases where no treatment progress is seen. Educational programmes need to pay more attention to gaining professional confidence (in the search for the most optimal treatment approach for each individual patient) rather than merely focusing on competency-based learning tools.

Purpose: Speech-language pathologists usually apply a 'one size fits all' approach to eliminate compensatory cleft speech characteristics (CSCs). It is necessary to investigate what intervention works best for a particular patient. This pilot study compared the effectiveness of two therapy approaches (a motorphonetic approach and a linguistic-phonological approach) on different subtypes of compensatory CSCs in Dutch-speaking children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP [+ or -] L). Method: Fourteen children with a CP [+ or -] L ([M.sub.AGE] = 7.71 years) were divided into two groups using block randomization stratified by age, gender, and type of compensatory CSC. Six children received intervention to eliminate anterior oral CSCs (n =3 motor-phonetic intervention, n = 3 linguistic-phonological intervention). Eight children received intervention to eliminate non-oral CSCs (n = 4 motorphonetic intervention, n = 4 linguistic-phonological intervention). Each child received 10 hr of speech intervention divided over 2 weeks. Perceptual and psychosocial outcome measures were used to determine intervention effects. Results: Children who received linguistic-phonological intervention to eliminate anterior oral CSCs had significantly higher correctly produced consonant scores and health-related quality of life (HrQoL) scores compared to children who received motor-phonetic intervention to eliminate anterior oral CSCs. In the group of children who received intervention to eliminate non-oral CSCs, no significant differences were found in the correctly produced consonant scores nor in the HRQoL scores between the two intervention approaches. Conclusions: Linguistic-phonological intervention seems to be more appropriate to eliminate anterior oral CSCs. The beneficial effects of linguistic-phonological intervention were less pronounced in children with non-oral CSCs. Perhaps, children with non-oral CSCs benefit more from a hybrid phonetic-phonological approach. This study is a step forward in the provision of performance-specific intervention in children with a CP [+ or -] L. Replication in larger samples is needed and will aid to tailor treatment plans to the needs of our patients., The impact of a palatal cleft on speech development has been described extensively in literature (Grunwell & Russell, 1988; Harding & Grunwell, 1998; Howard & Lohmander, 2011; Scherer et al., [...]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of two different speech therapy approaches, a traditional motor-phonetic approach and a linguistic-phonological approach, on the speech and health-related quality of life in Dutch-speaking children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP ± L) between 4 and 12 years old. Method: A block-randomized, sham-controlled design was used. Fourteen children with a CP ± L (M[subscript age] = 7.71 years) were divided into two groups using block randomization stratified by age and gender: one receiving motor-phonetic intervention (n = 7) and one receiving linguistic-phonological intervention (n = 7). Each group received 10 hr of speech therapy divided over 2 weeks. Perceptual speech assessments were performed on several baseline and posttreatment data points. The psychosocial effects of the intervention were assessed using the patient-reported Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Effects on Life Outcomes questionnaire. Both groups were compared over time using (generalized) linear mixed models. Within-group effects of time were determined using pairwise comparisons with post hoc Bonferroni correction. Results: Significant Time × Group interactions with large effect sizes were revealed in terms of consonant proficiency, indicating significant differences in evolution over time among the two groups. Only in the group receiving linguistic-phonological intervention, percentage of correctly produced consonants and places significantly improved after the treatment. Total Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Effects on Life Outcomes scores of the parents significantly improved in both groups after the intervention. Conclusions: Both motor-phonetic and linguistic-phonological speech interventions can have a positive impact on the occurrence of cleft speech characteristics and consonant proficiency in children with a CP ± L. A linguistic-phonological approach, however, was observed to be more effective in terms of improving these speech outcomes compared with a motor-phonetic approach. Speech intervention, irrespective of the used approach, significantly improved the participant's health-related quality of life.

Purpose: Treatment fatigue is a complex, multidimensional, multicausal, and subjective phenomenon that is not yet well explored and understood in the area of speech therapy. The purpose of this study was to investigate speech-related treatment fatigue and speech treatment dropout in parents and children with a cleft (lip and) palate receiving or having received speech treatment for cleftrelated articulation disorders. Method: Thirteen participants were included in this study (n = seven parents with a median age of 40 years and n = six children with a median age of 10 years). Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted separately with parents and children to investigate their experiences with cleft speech treatment. An inductive thematic approach was used to analyze the data and construct different themes. Rigor of the data was verified by conducting an investigator triangulation and by performing member checks. Results and Conclusions: The analyses of the interviews yielded three major themes of importance to the children and their parents: (a) physical symptoms of treatment fatigue, (b) psychological symptoms of treatment fatigue, and (c) from treatment fatigue to treatment dropout. Physical symptoms of treatment fatigue were mainly related to transportation burden. On a psychological level, speech treatment may potentially lead to a cognitive-emotional overload. These feelings are primarily related to the practical issue of scheduling required treatment sessions in the family agenda. The decision to discontinue speech treatment was reported to be multifactorial. In this decision-making process, data suggested that the child's perspective must be heard more. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of speech intervention provided with a low intensity with speech intervention provided with a high intensity on the speech and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Dutch-speaking children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP [+ or -] L) between 4 and 12 years. Method: A longitudinal, prospective, randomized controlled trial with a multiple baseline design was used. Twelve children with a Cp [+ or -] L ([M.sub.age] = 8.0 years, SD = 1.54) were divided into two groups using block randomization stratified by age and gender: One group received low-intensity speech intervention (LISI; n = 6) and one group received high-intensity speech intervention (HISI; n = 6). Children in the LISI group received intervention with a session duration of 1 hr, a dose frequency of 1 session per week, and a total intervention duration of 10 weeks. Children in the HISI group received intervention with a session duration of 1 hr, a dose frequency of 5 sessions per week, and a total intervention duration of 2 weeks. The cumulative intervention intensity was kept constant. Both groups received identical therapy programs provided by the same experienced speech therapist. Perceptual speech assessments were performed on baseline and posttreatment data points. Changes in HRQoL were assessed using the Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Effects on Life Outcomes (VELO) questionnaire. Both groups were compared over time using (generalized) linear mixed models. Results: No significant Time x Group interactions were observed for the percentage of correctly produced consonants at the word and sentence levels, indicating no differences in evolution over time among the two groups. The variables speech understandability, speech acceptability, and the total VELO scores significantly improved following HISI, but not following LISI. Conclusions: Children in the HISI group made equal and, for some variables, even superior progress in only 2 weeks of therapy compared to children in the LISI group who received 10 weeks of therapy. HISI is a promising strategy to improve speech outcomes and HRQoL in a shorter time period., The presence of active or compensatory speech errors severely impacts the speech understandability and speech acceptability of children with a cleft of the palate with or without a cleft of [...]

Purpose: This study compared the inter- and intrarater reliability of the percentage of consonants correct (PCC) metrics and the probe scoring system between an experienced and a less experienced rater and between two experienced raters. In addition, these outcome measures' ability to reflect changes following speech intervention was measured. Method: During Phase 1, two raters (Rater 1 with 5 years of experience in cleft-related speech disorders and Rater 2 with limited experience in cleft-related speech disorders) independently assessed 134 speech samples at the word and sentence levels, which were collected on different data points before, during, and following a cleft palate speech intervention. During Phase 2, a third rater (with 8 years of experience) analyzed 34 speech samples. The percentage of consonants correct-revised, the percentage of correct places and manners, and probe scores at the word and sentence levels were measured. Results: Poor-to-moderate interreliability between Raters 1 and 2 was found due to differences in error classification. Interrater reliability between Raters 1 and 3 was very good for both the PCC metrics and the probe scores. The interrater reliability for the amount of targets elicited was lower compared to the interrater reliability for the amount of targets correct. The probe scoring system demonstrated a greater ability to detect changes toward the correct production of the target consonant compared to the PCC metrics. Conclusions: Having an experience with the assessment of cleft-related speech disorders is a crucial factor to gain reliable results. The interrater reliability for the PCC metrics and the probe scoring system between two experienced raters did not differ, suggesting that both outcome measures can be used in cleft palate speech intervention studies. Despite the ability of the probe scoring system to detect changes, further research should provide insight in the benefits of this system both for research and clinical purposes., Speech assessment in children with a cleft of the palate with or without a cleft of the lip (CP [+ or -] L) is challenging given the complex character of [...]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of two different speech therapy approaches, a traditional motor-phonetic approach and a linguistic-phonological approach, on the speech and health-related quality of life in Dutch-speaking children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP [+ or -] L) between 4 and 12 years old. Method: A block-randomized, sham-controlled design was used. Fourteen children with a CP [+ or -] L ([M.sub.age] = 7.71 years) were divided into two groups using block randomization stratified by age and gender: one receiving motor-phonetic intervention (n = 7) and one receiving linguistic-phonological intervention (n = 7). Each group received 10 hr of speech therapy divided over 2 weeks. Perceptual speech assessments were performed on several baseline and posttreatment data points. The psychosocial effects of the intervention were assessed using the patient-reported Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Effects on Life Outcomes questionnaire. Both groups were compared over time using (generalized) linear mixed models. Within-group effects of time were determined using pairwise comparisons with post hoc Bonferroni correction. Results: Significant Time x Group interactions with large effect sizes were revealed in terms of consonant proficiency, indicating significant differences in evolution overtime among the two groups. Only in the group receiving linguistic-phonological intervention, percentage of correctly produced consonants and places significantly improved after the treatment. Total Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Effects on Life Outcomes scores of the parents significantly improved in both groups after the intervention. Conclusions: Both motor-phonetic and linguistic-phonological speech interventions can have a positive impact on the occurrence of cleft speech characteristics and consonant proficiency in children with a CP [+ or -] L. A linguistic-phonological approach, however, was observed to be more effective in terms of improving these speech outcomes compared with a motor-phonetic approach. Speech intervention, irrespective of the used approach, significantly improved the participant's health-related quality of life., It has been known for years that the presence of a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP [+ or -] L) influences the development of speech in [...]

Introduction: Due to the heterogeneity in language trajectories and differences in language exposure, a lot of bilingual children could use some extra support for the acquisition of the school language to reduce the risk of language problems and learning difficulties. Enhancing bilingual children's narrative abilities in the school language could be an efficient approach to advance the general school language abilities as well. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether a narrative intervention could improve both general and narrative school language abilities of typically developing bilingual (Turkish-Dutch) children. Methods: Nineteen Turkish-Dutch bilingual children (6–9.9 years) were enrolled in this single-arm early efficacy study. The intervention procedure was administered in the school language (Dutch) and based on a test-teach-retest principle with two baseline measurements. At baseline 1, the expressive, receptive, and narrative language abilities were determined. The second baseline measurement consisted of a second measurement of the narrative abilities. Subsequently, a weekly 1-h group-based intervention was implemented during 10 sessions. After the intervention phase, the expressive, receptive, and narrative language abilities were tested again. Results: After the intervention, the children produced significantly more story structure elements compared to both baseline measurements. No significant differences were found for microstructure narrative measures. The participants had significantly higher scores on the expressive and receptive language measurements post-intervention. Conclusion: These findings suggest that the intervention could be an efficient approach to stimulate the second language development of bilingual children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study compared the interrater reliability of adult naïve listeners’ perceptual assessments of different speech variables in children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP ± L). In addition, the study investigated whether the listeners were able to perceive differences in these speech variables before and after speech therapy for cleft palate speech disorders. Method: Thirty-four speech samples of 14 children with a CP ± L (14 samples collected immediately before 10 hr of speech intervention, 14 samples collected immediately after speech intervention, and six randomly selected samples that were duplicated to assess intrarater reliability) were perceptually assessed by 26 adult naïve listeners. The listening panel consisted of nine men and 17 women (age range: 18–51 years). The speech variables included speech understandability, speech acceptability, hypernasality, hyponasality, nasal airflow, and articulation, which were assessed on a visual analog scale. Furthermore, the need for speech therapy was assessed. Results: Good to very good interrater reliability was observed for the naïve listeners’ ratings of all speech variables. A significant time effect was found for the pre- and postevolution of the speech variables “speech understandability,” “speech acceptability,” “nasal airflow,” and “articulation.” This time effect indicates an improvement of these variables postintervention. According to the naïve listeners, children were less in need of additional speech therapy after the 10-hr intervention period compared to assessments before this intervention period. Conclusions: Adult naïve listeners perceptually identified an improvement in different speech variables after 10 hr of cleft palate speech therapy. These findings confirm previous assessments of expert speech-language pathologists and suggest that speech improvements after cleft palate speech therapy can also be perceived by communication partners outside the therapy room. Perceptual ratings of naïve listeners can, thus, be used to add life-situation significance to the assessments of experts. Future research could include both expert raters and caregivers or relatives of children with a CP ± L in listening panels, as previous knowledge on craniofacial anomalies may lead to different results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the current situation of the provision of speech-language services in East Africa. An overview of the educational opportunities, workforce density, communication rehabilitation planning, caseload, and ethical and/or cultural challenges is provided. A narrative review was performed. All papers referring to communication disorders in East African countries were identified from EMBASE, PubMed, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded, and ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science using the following search terms: speech therapy, speech pathology, speech-language pathology, speech-language rehabilitation, speech-language therapy, logopedics, East Africa, communication disorders, communication difficulties. Two concepts were combined with a Boolean operator 'AND'. At present, there is an alarming shortage of speech-language pathologists in East Africa. This issue is mainly related to the limited availability of educational programs in speech-language pathology. Although more and more universities are beginning to offer such educational programs, the number of available speech-language pathologists is still too low to meet the needs of all children with communication disorders. In addition, speech-language pathologists are often faced with different cultural and ethical obstacles when they provide intervention to East African children with communication disorders. These speech-language pathologists are therefore challenged to take a broader view of their role as a therapist. These alternative roles often include training of other individuals in the context of community-based rehabilitation. In the future, it will be important to carefully consider the development of sustainable learning opportunities in East African contexts. Initiatives, for example, "train-the-trainer" workshops, are needed to support the speechlanguage pathologists. Existing models like the communication disability model can aid to create holistic frameworks for the development of sustainable speech-language services in the East African countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Children born with a cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP ± L) are known to be at risk for speech–language disorders that impact educational and social–emotional growth. It is hypothesized that speech–language intervention delivered before the age of 3 years could decrease the impact of CP ± L on speech–language development. Infant sign training in combination with verbal input expands the natural communication of young children including multimodal speech–language input (i.e., verbal and manual input) via caregivers who act as co‐therapists. Aims: To determine the effectiveness of infant sign training in 1‐year‐old children with CP ± L by comparing different interventions. Methods & Procedures: This is a two‐centre, randomized, parallel‐group, longitudinal, controlled trial. Children are randomized to either an infant sign training group (IST group), a verbal training group (VT group) or no intervention control group (C group). Caregivers of children who are assigned to the IST group or VT group will participate in three caregiver training meetings to practise knowledge and skills to stimulate speech–language development. Outcome measures include a combination of questionnaires, language tests and observational analyses of communicative acts. Outcomes & Results: It is hypothesized that speech–language development of children with CP ± L will benefit more from IST compared with VT and no intervention. Additionally, the number and quality of communicative acts of both children and caregivers are expected to be higher after IST. Conclusions & Implications: This project will contribute to the development of evidence‐based clinical practice guidelines regarding early speech–language intervention in children with CP ± L under the age of 3 years. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Children with CP ± L are known to be at risk for speech–language delays that impact educational and social emotional growth. Given the limited scientific prove of the impact of early speech–language intervention, no standardized clinical practice guidelines are available yet for children with CP ± L under the age of 3 years. Early intervention in this population mostly focuses on improving verbal input via caregivers or professionals without including a multimodal language input. A growing scientific interest has been seen in the use of infant signs to support speech–language development and caregiver–child interaction in typically developing children and children with developmental delays. What this study adds to existing knowledge: No evidence is yet available for the effectiveness and feasibility of early intervention based on infant sign training in combination with verbal input to improve speech–language skills in young children with CP ± L. The current project will investigate the effect of infant sign training on the speech–language development in this population. Outcome measures are compared with those of two control groups: verbal training only and no intervention. It is hypothesized that infant signs may support the intelligibility of verbal utterances produced by children with CP ± L. Improving children's intelligibility may increase the opportunities for these children to engage in early, frequent and high‐quality interactions with their caregivers resulting in a richer social and linguistic environment. As a result, infant sign training may result in better speech–language skills compared with the control interventions. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: If providing early intervention based on infant sign training is effective, there is the potential for improved speech–language outcomes in early childhood, resulting in increased speech intelligibility, increased well‐being of the child and family and less need for speech–language therapy on the long‐term. This project will contribute to the development of evidence‐based clinical practice guidelines regarding early speech–language intervention in children with CP ± L under the age of 3 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasing attention is paid to the effectiveness of high‐intensity speech intervention in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP±L). It is, however, unknown if high‐intensity intervention is acceptable to the intervention recipients. Parents have an integral role in supporting their children with intervention highlighting the importance of intervention acceptability to parents. Aims: To compare the retrospective acceptability of high‐intensity speech intervention (10 1‐hr speech therapy sessions divided over 2 weeks) with the retrospective acceptability of low‐intensity speech intervention (10 1‐hr speech therapy sessions divided over 10 weeks) for children with a CP±L from the parents' point of view. Methods & Procedures: Twelve parents of 12 children, aged 6–0 years who received high‐intensity speech intervention (n = 6) or low‐intensity speech intervention (n = 6), were invited to participate in this study. Seven parents (n = 3 in the high‐intensity group and n = 4 in the low‐intensity group) agreed to participate (total response rate: 7/12, 58.33%). A qualitative study design using semi‐structured interviews was applied. To investigate the retrospective acceptability of the two intervention intensities, deductive coding according to the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) was used. Outcomes & Results: With regard to the TFA construct 'affective attitude', results demonstrated that parents had positive feelings about the provided speech intervention regardless of the intensity. Parents of children who received high‐intensity speech intervention reported two specific benefits related to the high intervention intensity: (1) it improved their relationship with the speech‐language pathologist and (2) it improved their child's ability to make self‐corrections in his/her speech. Even though both high‐intensive and low‐intensity speech intervention were considered burdensome (TFA construct 'burden'), parents were less likely to drop out of high‐intensity intervention because the total intervention period was kept short. Conclusions & Implications: In conclusion, high‐intensity speech intervention seemed acceptable to parents. More positive codes were identified for some of the TFA constructs in the high‐intensity intervention group than in the low‐intensity intervention group. Considering that some parents doubted their self‐efficacy to participate in high‐intensity speech intervention, speech‐language pathologists need to counsel them so that they can adhere to the high intervention intensity. Future studies should investigate whether high‐intensity speech intervention is also acceptable to the children who receive the intervention and to the speech‐language pathologists who deliver the intervention. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: Increasing attention is paid to the effectiveness of high‐intensity speech intervention in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP±L). Different quantitative studies have shown positive speech outcomes after high‐intensity cleft speech intervention. Despite this increasing attention to high‐intensity speech intervention, it is unknown whether high‐intensity intervention is also acceptable to the intervention recipients. This study compared the retrospective acceptability of high‐intensity speech intervention (10 1‐hour speech therapy sessions divided over 2 weeks) with the retrospective acceptability of low‐intensity speech intervention (10 1‐hour speech therapy sessions divided over 10 weeks) in children with a CP±L from the parents' point of view. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: More positive codes were identified for some of the TFA constructs in the high‐intensity intervention group than in the low‐intensity intervention group. Nevertheless, some parents doubted their self‐efficacy to participate in high‐intensity speech intervention. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: The findings of this study forces us to reconsider the traditional cleft speech intervention delivery models which usually consist of low‐intensity intervention. Speech‐language pathologists need to counsel parents and so that they can adhere to the high intervention intensity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the impact of living with a cleft lip and/or cleft palate (CL/P) on sociodemographic variables, quality of life, aesthetics, life satisfaction, and social distress in Dutch-speaking adolescents and adults. Design: Cross-sectional study. Participants: Thirty Dutch-speaking participants with a CL/P with a mean age of 26.93 years (SD = 11.69) and an age- and gender-matched control group of 30 participants (19 men and 11 women) without a CL/P with a mean age of 26.87 years (SD = 11.73). Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported outcomes of sociodemographics, quality of life, aesthetics, life satisfaction, social distress, and impact of cleft on well-being and functioning. Results: No significant differences in educational level, employment, monthly net income, marital status, and having children were found between participants with and without a CL/P. In addition, quality of life, overall aesthetics, life satisfaction, and social distress did not differ between the 2 groups. Among participants with CL/P, there were no gender differences in the influence of their CL/P on daily functioning, well-being, social contacts, family life, applying for a job, work, education, or leisure time. Conclusion: The findings revealed no differences between participants with and without a CL/P with regard to sociodemographics, quality of life, aesthetics, life satisfaction, or social distress. There were no gender differences in the influence of cleft on well-being and functioning. Longitudinal research can help determine possible fluctuations in the impact of living with a CL/P across the life span. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]