Innovative Service Delivery Models for Serving Children with Speech Sound Disorders

Abstract

Service delivery variables that may have an impact on the treatment outcomes of children with speech sound disorders include the number and duration of intervention sessions, distribution of the sessions over time, and the format (group intervention or individual intervention). In this article, we briefly review these variables and the recommendations for the most effective service delivery components for children with speech sound disorders. We then describe innovative, collaborative service delivery models for preschoolers and school-age children with speech sound disorder. The models include “Quick Articulation!” conducted in a local elementary school by clinical MS-SLP students from Purdue University, as well as Summer Speech and Literacy Laboratory, which takes place in the department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences at Purdue and involves participation from clinical and research faculty, and graduate and undergraduate students. The article provides useful information to help guide clinicians and clinical supervisors in implementing components of these models into their practice with children with speech sound disorder.

Keywords

speech sound disorders - speech therapy - service delivery models - treatment intensity - dose

Disclosures

Françoise Brosseau-Lapré receives a salary from Purdue University and her research is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Tamar Greenwell receives a salary from Purdue University. They have no relevant nonfinancial disclosures.

• References

• 1 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Schools Survey Report: Speech-Language Pathologists Caseload Characteristics Trends. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2014
• 2 Schooling TL. Lessons from the National Outcomes Measurement System (NOMS). Semin Speech Lang 2003; 24 (03) 245-256
• 3 Cirrin FM, Schooling TL, Nelson NW. , et al. Evidence-based systematic review: effects of different service delivery models on communication outcomes for elementary school-age children. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2010; 41 (03) 233-264
• 4 Baker E. Optimal intervention intensity. Int J Speech-Language Pathol 2012; 14 (05) 401-409
• 5 Warren SF, Fey ME, Yoder PJ. Differential treatment intensity research: a missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2007; 13 (01) 70-77
• 6 Togher L. Challenges inherent in optimizing speech-language pathology outcomes: it's not just about counting the hours. Int J Speech-Language Pathol 2012; 14 (05) 438-442
• 7 Brosseau-Lapré F, Rvachew S. Introduction to Speech Sound Disorders. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2019
• 8 Rvachew S, Brosseau-Lapré F. Developmental Phonological Disorders: Foundations of Clinical Practice, 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2018
• 9 Williams AL. Intensity in phonological intervention: is there a prescribed amount?. Int J Speech-Language Pathol 2012; 14 (05) 456-461
• 10 Murray E, McCabe P, Ballard KJ. A systematic review of treatment outcomes for children with childhood apraxia of speech. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2014; 23 (03) 486-504
• 11 Allen MM. Intervention efficacy and intensity for children with speech sound disorder. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013; 56 (03) 865-877
• 12 Williams AL. A systemic perspective for assessment and intervention: a case study. Adv Speech Lang Pathol 2006; 8: 245-256
• 13 Williams AL. Multiple oppositions intervention. In: Williams AL, McLeod S, McCauley RJ. , eds. Interventions for Speech Sound Disorders in Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing; 2010: 73-94
• 14 Jacoby GP, Levin L, Lee L, Creaghead NA, Kummer AW. The number of individual treatment units necessary to facilitate functional communication improvements in the speech and language of young children. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2002; 11: 370-390
• 15 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Pre-Kindergarten NOMS Fact Sheet: Does Treatment Time Affect SLP Outcomes in Preschoolers?. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2009
• 16 Brandel J, Frome Loeb D. Program intensity and service delivery models in the schools: SLP survey results. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2011; 42 (04) 461-490
• 17 Mullen R, Schooling T. The National Outcomes Measurement System for pediatric speech-language pathology. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2010; 41 (01) 44-60
• 18 American Speech-Language and Hearing Association. Pre-Kindergarten NOMS Fact Sheet: Does Service Delivery Model Influence SLP Outcomes in Preschoolers?. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2009
• 19 Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Willows DM, Schuster BV, Yaghoub-Zadeh Z, Shanahan T. Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Read Res Q 2001; 36 (03) 250-287
• 20 Goldstein H. PAth to Literacy. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing; 2016
• 21 Sheffield BB. The structured flexibility of Orton-Gillingham. Ann Dyslexia 1991; 41 (01) 41-54
• 22 Bloom F, Traub N. Recipe for Reading: Intervention Strategies for Struggling Readers. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service; 2002
• 23 Hund-Reid C, Schneider P. Effectiveness of phonological awareness intervention for Kindergarten children with language impairments. Can J Speech-Lang Pathol Aud 2013; 37: 6-25
• 24 Boyle J, McCartney E, Forbes J, O'Hare A. A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of direct versus indirect and individual versus group modes of speech and language therapy for children with primary language impairment. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11 (25) iii-iv , xi–xii, 1–139
• 25 Rvachew S, Brosseau-Lapré F. A randomized trial of twelve-week interventions for the treatment of developmental phonological disorder in francophone children. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2015; 24 (04) 637-658