Contrasts of Phonological Therapy

¶ … Phonological Therapy

Dodd, B., Crosbie, S., McIntosh, B., Holm, A., Harvey, C., Liddy, M., Fontyne, K., Pinchin, B., & Rigby, H. (2008). The impact of selecting different contrasts in phonological therapy. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(5): 334-345.

The purpose of the study was to determine how different contrasts in phonological therapy affected children who had phonological disorders. The authors were interested in the question because it affects a significant number of children and slows down their ability to learn to read and speak correctly. The more that can be discovered about the disorder, the easier it will be to determine how to help these children make better strides in reading and comprehension. The authors created a hypothesis regarding the study's outcome that was the traditional minimal-pairs approach and a non-traditional approach that did not use minimal pairs would provide different results in how well they allowed children to process language and how they improve the children's ability to read, comprehend, and speak clearly when it came to words that had similar sound patterns.

2. The participants and subjects of the study were 19 children who were already part of the caseloads of eight speech-language pathologists who were interested in the study. They were grouped randomly, with some children chosen for one group and some chosen for the other . There were 9 subjects in the traditional, minimal-pair group, and 10 children in the group that used non-traditional techniques that did not focus on minimal pairs. These were the only subjects in the study, which was performed on a small scale but still provides valid information for those interested in how phonological concepts are affected by different types of contrasts.

3. The main features of the methodology and procedures used were the criteria the children had to meet for inclusion. Additionally, some of the children had already been through phonological help and others had not. That made for a group that was more representative of what would be seen in society, allowing for a more realistic and measurable outcome for the study. The data that was collected was a pre-test of the child's speech and language skills, and a post-test with the same information after the study had been conducted. This was done in order to see how much difference there was for each student and each group, in order to determine the value of both of the different types of methods used to help students improve their speech and reading abilities.

4. The main findings of the study were that the children all made a great deal of progress in their therapy in terms of the accuracy of their speech and the ways in which they were able to adjust and avoid patterns of errors that were previously common for them to make. The two groups were interesting in the fact that there was no difference seen between them. One type of therapy did not prove to be better or worse than another type of therapy for the value the children received from it. Both types of therapy were valuable, however, because both groups of children showed significant improvement. This would appear to indicate that, within reason, any type of related therapy would be beneficial for children in this capacity.

5. The results of the study answered the questions and addressed the hypothesis through showing that the researchers were incorrect in their assumption that one type of therapy would be better suited to helping the children than another type of therapy. There were weaknesses and limitations of the study discussed by the authors, including the small sample size of the children and the use of only two different kinds of therapy. There were also suggestions for further research. Particularly, the researchers suggested that there may be child-specific errors that will more easily lend themselves to the benefit of one type of therapy over another. This should be more carefully explored in the future, in order to provide children with phonological issues all the best help possible.

6. The information in the article has important implications for clinical work, because it has long been believed that the traditional, minimal-pair style of therapy was the best choice for children who had phonological issues. That meant that type of therapy was the one that was used, and that others were generally avoided. This is important, since some children may have benefitted just as much from other types of therapy that could have been used on them, instead of being focused only on one choice. Other therapists that were qualified in other methods and/or interested in those methods may have been able to provide added benefits for these children and provide them with the opportunity to speak and read better. The evidence from this study has a big effect on clinical decision-mainly due to the unexpected outcome that both types of therapy studied were just as valuable to the children, and that there did not appear to be differences in the value these children received.