Preschoolers are being pulled out of classrooms to get
speech therapy to work on “artic.” Even toddlers are getting articulation
therapy in either clinics or one-on-one sessions at home or in child care. This
article debunks these atheoretical practices and proposes better help for
children and their caregivers.
Articulation is Developmental
Children cannot fully articulate spoken English until 7 or 8
years old. By age 4, children can be understood most of the time, even with
their articulation errors. Various
sources
report what research tells us about typical ages for the development of
different sounds. Shriberg (1993) classified the developmental sequence into
the Early 8, Middle 8, and Late 8 (EML):
- ·
Early 8: m, b, y, n, w, d, p, h
- ·
Middle 8: t, k, g, ng, f, v, ch, j
- ·
Late 8: sh, s, z, l, r, th
In early intervention for children under the age of three,
one would like to think articulation therapy was not occurring for the Middle
and Late 8s, but, unfortunately, that’s not the case. Furthermore, the range of
typical ages for pronouncing sounds is large, so why rush to therapy?
The problems with articulation therapy, as commonly found in
EI/ECSE programs are
- The need for the therapy is often faulty: The
child is not delayed in speech sound development;
- Methods used in articulation therapy were
developed for older children;
- The whole premise of one or two articulation
sessions a week for a child under the age of 6 denies how children learn;
- The service delivery method for articulation
therapy often involves a quiet space with no distractions, which is not a space
the child has to live in, so the context is irrelevant;
- Young children, especially if they also have a
developmental delay, don’t generalize well (e.g., from a distraction-free
therapy environment to real settings); and
- It misleads parents into how children learn to
speak intelligibly: They think it’s from short weekly or twice-weekly sessions,
instead of through their own efforts.
Later, in the section on arrows in a quiver, I discuss the
importance of SLPs; knowing about in vivo, naturalistic methods for (a)
coaching caregivers to (b) address speech sound disorders.
Articulation therapy is one of the most iatrogenic services
in EI/ECSE. As Ivan Illich noted in 1974, social
iatrogenisis
can occur with the medicalization (or speech-language pathologization) of life,
where professionals have a vested interest in sponsoring disability by creating
unrealistic articulation demands that require more therapy or by providing
therapy for non-problems that are part of child development, such as
undeveloped articulation. As cynical as it might sound, the supposed need for
articulation therapy serves the interest of the SLP profession, but the six
problems outlined above emphasize the dangers of allowing this iatrogenesis to
go unchallenged.
Confusion Between Articulation and Phonological Delays
SLPs know this difference but, presumably, they sometimes forget it, perhaps
because they realize lay people might not understand
phonology but they do understand
articulation. Articulation, simply, is the motor act of pronouncing
the sounds correctly. Phonology is how sounds are organized in a language.
Children with phonological delays are sometimes described as knowing what they
want to say but being unable to get the words out correctly. One can imagine
how different the intervention strategies should be for these two scenarios
carrying the same service (i.e., SLP). Phonological delays are much more likely
to occur in preschoolers than are articulation delays, yet we hear mostly about
“artic.” This makes me wonder if practitioners are aware of the difference.
Phonological awareness by the child and intervention by caregivers can happen
throughout the day, in regular routines. Articulation, as commonly practiced,
is often done just by an SLP in a specialized setting. I will argue that, even
if the child truly has an articulation delay/disorder, evidence-based
interventions can be carried out in ordinary places by ordinary people.
Even
if the child truly has an articulation delay/disorder, evidence-based
interventions can be carried out in ordinary places by ordinary people.
One SLP blogger,
Laura
Mize, makes the point that apraxia therapy can be done almost entirely in
the context of eliciting communicative behavior from the child, in fun
activities. This does not require taking the child to a segregated setting.
Context-Based Articulation Therapy
The past president of the Mississippi
Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Dr. Rachel Powell (2015),
has discussed context-based articulation therapy to help SLPs be accountable
for student success within the curriculum. This accountability became necessary
with the implementation of the Common Core State Standards in Mississippi. She
also cites research documenting the association between reading and SSD. She
reported on two students whose SSDs were addressed by the SLP during reading
time—a regular part of the curriculum. The SLP had used context-based reading
to target speech sound errors and targeted speech production with grade-level
text she selected. Here was the intervention: “As the student read, any words
containing the target sound were
–Acknowledged for correct sound production
–Corrected by the child following feedback from the SLP or self-corrected
–The SLP guided the child to a more correct production of
the word.” (Slide 20)
This is not rocket science. I would suggest that most any
teacher or parent could do these three interventions. The SLP would have been
needed to diagnose the errors, possibly, and probably to recommend which sounds
to target. But if she would engage in role release (Bruder, 1993)
with the teacher—and parent, for that matter—teaching them to conduct these
three steps in reading or even in conversation, the children would receive many
more interventions than just during SLP sessions. The idea of context-based
articulation therapy was a good one. It just didn’t go as far as it could have.
Speech Therapy Dosage Is Predicated on Incorrect Assumptions
The dosage of speech therapy is usually predicated on an
assumption that (a) children are learning speech sounds during therapy and (b)
one or two sessions a week make a difference. The problem is that we conflate
intervention with service. If we consider intervention to be what the child
receives, we realize that the greatest influence on children’s speech and language
comes from whoever spends the most time with the child. If we consider service
to be what the family receives, say, from an SLP, we realize that there is
little correspondence between this service and intervention. Furthermore,
service needs to consist of building caregivers’ capacity, rather than working
directly with the child.
A little-known fact is that the research on service delivery
models in SLP is not convincing about the usual ways therapy is provided. In a
review of 14 randomized control trials of speech-language interventions,
improvement was seen in a number of outcomes, including articulation,
phonology, and expressive and receptive language (Nelson, Nygren, Walker, & Panoscha, 2006). In other functional
outcomes, such as socialization and self-esteem, which were measured in four of
the studies, the results were mixed. None of the studies included long-term
effects. The authors concluded that the findings were limited and that
generalization effects were unknown. Therefore, the RCT literature reveals
underwhelming support for speech and language interventions.
All the Intervention Occurs Between Visits
A meta-analysis of efficacy studies of treatment for
children with developmental speech and language delay or disorder was conducted
with 13 studies meeting inclusion criteria. The analysis showed that “speech
and language therapy might be
effective for children with phonological or expressive vocabulary difficulties”
(p. 924; emphasis mine) (Law, Garrett, & Nye, 2004). For children with expressive
syntax difficulties, the evidence for effectiveness was mixed, and, for
children with receptive-language difficulties, the evidence was little. Most
important, “No significant differences
were found between interventions administered by trained parents and those
administered by clinicians” (p. 924).
The well-known Hanen Early Language Program refers to
children with CAS as having
suspected
motor speech disorder. Even with this disorder, the
Hanen
approach is to work with parents to provide a supportive, encouraging
communicative environment. When children have isolated expressive language
delay, they are best served through an service delivery approach that supports
parents as responsive communication partners.
ASHA (1996)
advocates for inclusive service delivery, meaning in the context where children
naturally are and in collaboration with the adults in those settings. Their
position statement includes a caveat that their interpretation of inclusive
practices can include direct intervention programming but it can also include
“classroom-based, community-based, and consultative intervention programming.”
The Association’s statement shows fear of “absolute terms,” meaning they want
all options to remain open, which gives those of us who understand how young
children learn the freedom to lean on classroom-based,
community-based, and consultative intervention programming with vigor.
Evidence for Indirect Therapy
Indirect therapy is the same as what I call consultative
therapy, where the SLP works with the adults in the child’s life (e.g.,
teachers) so they can apply speech and language interventions in the SLP’s
absence. In a Scottish study of 163 children with low language scores and
normal IQ, no differences were found among direct individual, direct group,
indirect individual, and indirect group
(Boyle, McCartney, Forbes, & O Hare, 2007). All these treatment groups
received 20 hours of therapy across 15 weeks. In a study of 2- and 3-year-olds
with 30 or fewer words, fortnightly group parent training sessions produced
statistically significant improvement in language skills
(Gibbard, 1994). No statistically significant differences were
found between the group of children receiving direct individual speech therapy
and those receiving indirect “parental training” in speech and language. This
latter group made more gains than did children receiving indirect parental
group training in general cognition (i.e., nonspecific therapy). Other studies
have documented the benefits of indirect versus direct SLP for young children.
Old ones were reported in a book called
Rethinking Pull-Out Services in Early
Intervention.
How Children Learn
Brain science has helped us understand how learning occurs,
even if it hasn’t given us any strategies behavioral research hadn’t already
provided.
Neuroplasticity
explains how the brain’s ability to change its structures because of internal
(i.e., genetic) and external (i.e., experiential) factors lead to learning
(Hodge).
Relevant areas of the brain cortex have improved synaptic connectivity brought
about through experiences induced by training. To best capitalize on brain
plasticity, we should (a) use child attention (e.g., to speech input), (b) give
the child opportunities to use the area of the brain where we want to see
increased plasticity (e.g., speaking, not nonspeech exercises, such as
oral-motor exercises), and (c) have the child learn skills in the contexts
where the skills are needed (e.g., everyday routines), because repetitive
exercises removed from context have had disappointing results.
As the key component of these
children’s environments, parents need to provide abundant social interactions
within the child’s daily routines, and within each, create multiple “mediated”
opportunities (“multiple doses”) to obtain the child’s attention and “tempt”
the child to produce “speech like” vocalizations, in fun and playful learning
activities….
It follows that a key role for
speech-language pathologists is to guide and support parents in developing the
necessary techniques, skills and confidence to foster the child’s communication
development and to maximize the child “speech learning” ecology through
education, and active modeling and coaching. (Hodge)
Apraxia is Not an Excuse for Atheoretical Service Delivery
The American Speech Hearing and Language Association’s
(ASHA) Technical Report on CAS “recommends treatment for CAS be frequent,
intensive, individualized, and naturalistic” (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2007b). Although some commonalities
in treatments exist, such as much practice, few treatment targets, homework,
and feedback, many differences also exist (Maas, Gildersleeve-Neumann, Jakielski, & Stoeckel, 2014). The research has not
unpackaged which components are actually the most effective. Therefore, the
claim that a child has apraxia is not a reason for using non-evidence-based
practices with him or her.
Confusion Between Apraxia and Phonology
Whereas apraxia therapy focuses on movement, therapy for
phonological disorder focuses on sound sequences. According to
Ruth
Stoeke, a researcher on childhood apraxia of speech (CAS), the most
empirical evidence is for integral stimulation or dynamic temporal and tactile
cuing (DTTC), involving the shaping of movement gestures for speech production,
using a systematic hierarchy of cues
(Smith, 2014).
But studies have no involved many children, and it can best be considered a
promising practice. DTTC, however, is hard to fit into everyday routines,
because it includes massed versus distributed practice (e.g., 100-200
repetitions of a skill during a traditional session). Stoeke said she never has
children doing “exercises,” but will have them doing “speech work.” In other
words, she has the child learning the movements by using speech, rather than
practicing nonspeech tasks such as chewing or blowing.
The problem is that the research on CAS is of insufficient
quality to justify using atheoretical practices, such as pulling a child out of
the classroom or using direct hands-on treatment instead of a
caregiver-mediated intervention. First, the diagnostic criteria for childhood
apraxia of speech (CAS) are controversial (Morgan & Vogel, 2008). In 2007, The American Speech
Hearing and Language Association (ASHA) found consensus that it consists of
three core impairments: (1) inconsistent error production on both consonants
and vowels across repeated productions of syllables or words, (2) lengthened
and impaired coarticulatory transitions between sounds and syllables, and (3)
inappropriate prosody. Second, in the Morgan and Vogel Cochrane review, 31
abstracts appeared to meet inclusion criteria, but they were all eventually
excluded for not meeting the research design criterion. Therefore, no review
was possible. In other words, a critical
lack of well controlled treatment studies obviates any claim that certain
practices have to be done because a child has CAS.
An Effective SLP Has Many Arrows in Her Quiver
The SLP who believes that all children with a certain
disorder should receive treatment in a particular way are limiting their
effectiveness. Of course, it could be argued that I believe that all children
should receive their speech therapy through collaborative consultation with
caregivers, which is true, but the actual interventions devised by the
SLP-caregiver team should be highly individualized to the child, the caregiver,
and the routine.
Miron (2012)
has written about the negative attitude that professionals used to have about
parents—that they were in denial and did not make appropriate adaptations for
their children with disabilities. We now know much more about the adaptations
that many families do make (Mas, Giné, & McWilliam, 2016). In Miron’s study, 11 parents
of children with CAS were interviewed in depth. The study found that parents
made a transition from helplessness to adaptation because of a positive
critical encounter with an individual professional plus a single significant
negative experience (i.e., [sic] misdiagnosis by the school) or a culmination
of minor negative experiences. This study highlighted the importance of support
from professionals to families (McWilliam, Tocci, & Harbin, 1998).
As mentioned earlier, SLPs cannot continue to sit down and
work with a toddler or a preschooler on articulation. In those quivers, they
need to have strategies they can teach to caregivers—strategies to teach the
child to produce sounds correctly and intelligibly. If the child is old enough!
Countering the Critics
“Only SLPs Can Address This Issue”
Not surprisingly, for children with apraxia ASHA has stated “Although home
practice is critical for optimal progress, it cannot take the place of
individual treatment provided by a speech-language pathologist who has
expertise in motor speech skill facilitation” (p. 30)
(American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2007a). It goes on to endorse
intensive therapy, such as five sessions a week. It recognizes that young
children might not tolerate more than 30 minutes a session. Unless SLPs plan on
adopting these children, they need to rethink their partnerships with
caregivers. Of course they advocate for intensive services. What else could
they do if they believe that only SLPs can help these children. They need to
concentrate on (a) interventions caregivers actually can carry out, in
collaboration with SLPs, and (b) teaching SLPs how to be collaborative
consultants to caregivers. Changing beliefs is hard—harder even than changing
stubborn behavior. So programs need to force therapists to acknowledge how
children learn by making them collaborate with caregivers. Some SLPs will leave,
but most will stay, and those who stay will change their beliefs about
caregiver competence. Just as important, the stayers will recognize that it’s
their responsibility to help caregivers gain competence and therefore
confidence. They need to stop assuming incompetence in caregivers, as ASHA
seems to, and ensure children actually get intensive interventions, which can
come only from their caregivers.
ASHA has produced a handout for parents, called
“Articulation and Speech Sound Development,” with sections on “Ways to help
your child pronounce sounds and words correctly” and “How can I help a child
pronounce words correctly?” (
http://www.sparta.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_956967/Image/articulation.pdf).
This is the same professional organization that elsewhere has said all the
intervention must come from a licensed SLP. But if they acknowledge that, in
fact, parents can help their children pronounce sounds and words correctly, the
argument for direct, hands-on articulation therapy are suspect. I’m sure they
meant that families can supplement what therapists do. Later, I will argue that
doesn’t go far enough, because valuable therapy time will be wasted with the
SLP communicating with the child instead of the adult. The only time therapists
should spend time with children during therapy sessions should be when
demonstrating strategies to the adult, if the adult wants or needs the
demonstration.
“What We’re Trained to Do”
Traditionally, SLPs were trained to work directly with
children for two reasons: First, they had to demonstrate competence in the
practice. Second, the training programs used to prepare practitioners to work
in rehabilitation centers, schools, and other places, where direct, hands-on
work might be appropriate. And then along came the little kids, those who could
not remember from one session to another, let alone 5 minutes after the
session. How on earth were we preparing SLPs to work with infants, toddlers,
and preschoolers? The two big flaws in the training many SLPs have had are (a)
lack of training in the pedagogy of very young children (i.e., how children
learn) and (b) lack of training in collaboration and consultation. So the
argument that SLPs alone should call the shots about service delivery doesn’t
hold up. Fortunately for all of us, a number of SLPs get it, and one can only
hope their influence is great and wide.
“Apraxia Is a Special Case”
A well-known method for practitioners to seek exception from
trends in service delivery they don’t like is for them to point to supposedly
special cases. In SLP, apraxia has become that scapegoat. In OT, it’s “sensory
kids.” In special education, it’s kids “on the spectrum.” As though these
situations obviated principles of child development, learning, and teaching. I
have dealt with the apraxia argument in an earlier section.
Administrators, forward-thinking SLPs, other team members,
and parents will encounter critics who want to work directly with young
children in isolated settings. They will use these arguments and others. We
should listen to them and weigh their arguments against the evidence, the
principles of our work (which should be rooted in research and theory), and the
moral imperative to give children the most learning opportunities possible,
while empowering their caregivers. When we do that, we will usually find that
SLPs aren’t the only people who can address the issue, they are not necessarily
trained in the requisite skills, and apraxia is not a reason for an exception.
Most studies show that an indirect approach is at least as
effective as direct, hands-on therapy and, of course, it has the advantage of
being theoretically sound and the right thing to do. We need to be careful not
to fall into the “Show me the money (research)!” trap. It’s more essential that
the theoretically unsound people show the evidence for what they want to do.
Routines-Based Model for Increasing Intervention to Children With SSD
A model exists for giving children with SSD intensive
interventions in a way that might actually help them: The Routines-Based Model
of Early Intervention for Children 0-5 and Their Families (McWilliam, 2010). In this model,
- The informal supports of the family are
identified and then used as appropriate, to meet family needs;
- Children’s engagement, independence, and social
relationships (including communication) are assessed through the Routines-Based
Interview;
- Families identify 10-12 goals for their child’s
functioning and their own family needs;
- Child learning goals are written to emphasize
the child’s participation in his or her routines;
- Family goals are on every plan, including
preschoolers’;
- A primary service provider (PSP) is identified
to be the family’s “key worker”;
- Home visits are done with “family consultation,”
in which parents and the PSP jointly develop strategies to meet child and
family goals;
- Other team members, from other disciplines,
serve the child through joint home visits with the PSP;
- Visits to children in child care are done with
collaborative consultation, with the teachers and the PSP jointly developing
strategies;
- Professionals’ training and performance are
carefully monitored with implementation fidelity checklists;
- Child progress is measured with functional items
organized by routines and by goal attainment scaling; and
- Family outcomes are measured with a measure of
family quality of life and goal attainment scaling.
In some locations around the world, including the U.S., a
PSP isn’t used or natural environments aren’t used. We have developed
strategies to accommodate both of these imperfect conditions.
In an article about how this model supports speech and
language, I have discussed the tenets of the model; how it works; how children
learn and how services work; the speech and language needs of young children
with disabilities; new roles for SLPs in an era of functional, family-centered
early intervention, and the future of speech-language therapy in Spanish early
intervention (McWilliam, in press). It applies to early intervention in other
countries too.
Conclusion
SLPs, with their expertise, are vital, valuable resources to
the early intervention (0-5) field. They have knowledge we need and a passion
for helping children communicate and have social relationships. Their
significance is enhanced when they acknowledge that articulation is
developmental, that the dosage of intervention by caregivers is more important
than the dosage of service by SLPs, that all the intervention occurs between
visits, that children learn throughout the day (not in one or two sessions a
week), that apraxia is not an excuse for atheoretical service delivery, that
the effective SLP has many arrows in her quiver, and that a model does exist
for providing services in an evidence-based, theoretically sound, and moral
manner. I obviously recommend adopting the Routines-Based Model—I developed
it!—but that’s because, as R. Buckminster Fuller said, “If you want to teach
people a new way of thinking, don’t bother trying to teach them. Instead, give
them a tool, the use of which will lead to new ways of thinking.”
References
American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1996). Inclusive practices for children and youths with communication
disorders [Position Statement]. Retrieved from www.asha.org/policy.
American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2007b). Childhood apraxia of speech: Technical report. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/policy.
Boyle, J., McCartney, E.,
Forbes, J., & O Hare, A. (2007). 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 (1366-5278). Retrieved from
Bruder, M. B. (1993). The
provision of early intervention and early childhood special education within
community early childhood programs: Characteristics of effective service
delivery. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 13, 19-37.
Gibbard, D. (1994).
Parental‐based intervention with pre‐school language‐delayed children. International Journal of Language &
Communication Disorders, 29, 131-150.
Law, J., Garrett, Z., &
Nye, C. (2004). The efficacy of treatment for children with developmental
speech and language delay/disordera meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 924-943.
Maas, E.,
Gildersleeve-Neumann, C., Jakielski, K. J., & Stoeckel, R. (2014).
Motor-based intervention protocols in treatment of childhood apraxia of speech
(CAS). Current developmental disorders
reports, 1, 197-206.
Mas, J. M., Giné, C., &
McWilliam, R. A. (2016). The adaptation process of families with children with
intellectual disabilities in Catalonia. . Infants
& Young Children, 29.
McWilliam, R. A. (2010). Routines-based early intervention.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.
McWilliam, R. A. (in press).
The routines-based model for supporting speech and language. Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología.
McWilliam, R. A., Tocci, L.,
& Harbin, G. L. (1998). Family-centered services: Service providers’
discourse and behavior. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 18, 206-221.
Miron, C. (2012). The parent
experience when a child is diagnosed with childhood apraxia of speech. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 33,
96-110.
Morgan, A. T., & Vogel,
A. P. (2008). Intervention for childhood apraxia of speech. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CDOO6278.pub2
Nelson, H., Nygren, P.,
Walker, M., & Panoscha, R. (2006). Systematic evidence review for the US
Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for speech and language delay in
preschool children. Pediatrics, 117,
e298-e319.
Powell, R. (2015). Context-based articulation therapy:
Articulation therapy for standards-based IEPs. Paper presented at the
Mississippi Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual Convention.
