A Comparison of Oral Motor and Production Training for Children with Speech Sound Disorders

ABSTRACT

Despite the many debates about the usefulness of nonspeech oral motor exercises (NSOMEs) in the treatment of speech disorders, few controlled experiments have evaluated their efficacy in the remediation of phonological/articulatory disorders (PADs). More importantly, the relative effect of NSOMEs compared with traditional production treatment (PT) has not been established. The current study employed an alternating treatment design to evaluate changes in production of sounds targeted by NSOMEs and PT in nine children with PAD. Each subject received treatment on two linguistically distinct sounds in which one sound was treated with NSOMEs and the second sound was targeted with PT. The difference in treatment efficacy, measured as the percentage change in target production for NSOMEs versus PT, was compared using a paired t test. Because NSOMEs typically are used to ready a child for subsequent PT, comparison of PT treatment accuracy was made between NSOME-first and PT-first sessions. Results demonstrated a statistically significant effect of treatment type with greater production gains with PT compared with NSOMEs. Further, no facilitative effect of NSOMEs on PT was noted; however, the choice of distinct treatment targets may have contributed to this null effect. Although additional investigation is warranted, the current investigation does not support the efficacy of NSOMEs in the treatment of PAD.

Phonological/articulatory disorders - nonspeech oral motor exercises - production treatment

REFERENCES

• 1 Lof G L. Logic, theory and evidence against the use of non-speech oral motor exercises to change speech sound productions. Paper presented at: annual convention of the American Speech Language Hearing Association November 2006 Miami Beach, FL;
• 2 Marshalla P R. Oral motor treatment vs non-speech oral motor exercises. Oral Motor Inst; 2008. Available at: http://www.oralmotorinstitute.org/mons/v2n2_marshalla.html Accessed July 8, 2008
• 3 Weismer G. Philosophy of research in motor speech disorders.  Clin Linguist Phon. 2006;  20(5) 315-349
• 4 Rosenfeld-Johnson S. Oral-Motor Exercises for Speech Clarity. Tucson, AZ; Talk Tools 2001
• 5 Chapman Bahr D, Hillis A E. Oral Motor Assessment and Treatment. Boston, MA; Allyn & Bacon 2001
• 6 Forrest K. Are oral-motor exercises useful in the treatment of phonological/articulatory disorders?.  Semin Speech Lang. 2002;  23 15-25
• 7 Clark H. Neuromuscular treatments for speech and swallowing: a tutorial.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2003;  12 400-415
• 8 Bahr D. A topical bibliography on oral motor assessment and treatment. Oral Motor Inst; 2008. http://Available at: www.oralmotorinstitute.org/mons/v2n1_bahr.html Accessed July 11, 2008
• 9 Strode R, Chamberlain C. Easy Does It for Articulation: An Oral Motor Approach. East Moline, IL; LinguiSystems 1997
• 10 Bunton K. Speech versus nonspeech: Different tasks, different neural organization.  Semin Speech Lang. 2008;  29 267-275
• 11 Clark H. The role of strength training in speech sound disorders.  Semin Speech Lang. 2008;  29 276-283
• 12 Adams J A. Historical review and appraisal of research on the learning, retention, and transfer of human motor skills.  Psychol Bull. 1987;  10 41-74
• 13 Naylor J C, Briggs G E. Effects of task complexity and task organization on the relative efficiency of part and whole training methods.  J Exp Psychol. 1963;  65 217-224
• 14 Wightman D, Lintern G. Part-task training for tracking and manual control.  Hum Fac. 1985;  27 267-283
• 15 Ruscello D M. Nonspeech oral motor treatment issues related to children with developmental speech sound disorders.  Lang Speech Hear in Schools. 2008;  39 380-391
• 16 Overstake C. Investigation of the efficacy of a treatment program for deviant swallowing and allied problems, part II.  Int J Myology. 1976;  2 1-6
• 17 Christensen M, Hanson M. An investigation of the efficacy of oral myofunctional therapy as a precursor to articulation therapy.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1981;  46 160-167
• 18 Guisti Braislin M A, Cascella P W. A preliminary investigation of the efficacy of oral motor exercises for children with mild articulation disorders.  Int J Rehabil Res. 2005;  28 263-266
• 19 Goldman R, Fristoe M. The Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation-2. Circle Pines, MN; American Guidance Service 2000
• 20 Lof G L, Watson M M. A nationwide survey of nonspeech oral motor exercise use: Implications for evidence-based practice.  Lang Speech Hear in Schools. 2008;  39 392-407
• 21 Dunn L M, Dunn L M. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. 3rd ed. Circle Pines, MN; American Guidance Service 1997
• 22 Dollaghan C, Campbell T F. Nonword repetition and child language impairment.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;  41 1136-1146
• 23 Wiig E, Secord W, Semel E. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool. San Antonio, TX; The Psychological Corp 1992
• 24 Pehde H, Geller A, Lechner B. The Complete Oral-Motor Program for Articulation. East Moline, IL; LinguiSystems 1996
• 25 Shriberg L D, Gruber F A, Kwiatkowski J. Developmental phonological disorders. III: Long-term speech-sound normalization.  J Speech Hear Res. 1994;  37 1151-1177
• 26 Gierut J A. Treatment efficacy: functional phonological disorders in children.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;  41 S85-S100
• 27 Rvachew S, Nowak M. The effect of target-selection strategy on phonological learning.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001;  44 610-623