目的:对具有发育性语言障碍(结果:口头词汇)和语音障碍(结果:语音可理解性)特征的学龄前儿童的干预技术进行描述性比较和对比,并分析其有效性和理论。
方法:这是一个带有叙事综合的系统综述。这一进程得到了由相关专业人员和有经验的人组成的专家指导小组的支持。
方法:OvidEmcare,MEDLINE完成,CINAHL,APAPsycINFO,ERIC,和2012年1月的通信来源进行了搜索。相关研究来自最初发表的综述(截至2012年1月)。
方法:对患有特发性言语或语言需求的学龄前儿童(80%年龄为2:0-5:11岁)的干预措施;结果与口语词汇或言语可理解性有关。
方法:搜索于2023年1月27日进行。两名独立研究人员在摘要和全文水平进行了筛选。有关干预内容的数据(例如,技术)和格式/交付(例如,剂量,位置)被提取。根据Campbell等人的方法对数据进行叙述合成。
结果:包括24项研究:18项用于口语词汇,6项用于语音可理解性。有11项随机对照试验,2个队列研究和11个病例系列。相似性包括对输入相关技术和类似治疗活动的关注。言语研究更有可能是专业主导和临床主导,而不是在家里和通过父母。分析受到研究设计和术语异质性的限制,以及干预报告中的差距。缺少对专家指导小组重要的信息。
结论:已经确定并综合了口头词汇和语音可理解性干预技术之间的异同。然而,由于研究设计和研究中的异质性问题,有效性分析受到限制.这对该领域证据基础的发展有影响。
■CRD42022373931。
OBJECTIVE: To descriptively compare and contrast intervention techniques for preschool children with features of developmental language disorder (outcome: oral vocabulary) and speech sound disorder (outcome: speech comprehensibility) and analyse them in relation to effectiveness and theory.
METHODS: This is a systematic review with narrative synthesis. The process was supported by an expert steering group consisting of relevant professionals and people with lived experience.
METHODS: Ovid Emcare, MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, ERIC, and Communication Source from January 2012 were searched. Relevant studies were obtained from an initial published review (up to January 2012).
METHODS: Interventions for preschool children (80% aged 2:0-5:11 years) with idiopathic speech or language needs; outcomes relating to either oral vocabulary or speech comprehensibility.
METHODS: Searches were conducted on 27 January 2023. Two independent researchers screened at abstract and full-text levels. Data regarding intervention content (eg, techniques) and format/delivery (eg, dosage, location) were extracted. Data were synthesised narratively according to the methods of Campbell et al.
RESULTS: 24 studies were included: 18 for oral vocabulary and 6 for speech comprehensibility. There were 11 randomised controlled trials, 2 cohort studies and 11 case series. Similarities included a focus on input-related techniques and similar therapy activities. Speech studies were more likely to be professional-led and clinic-led, rather than at home and through a parent. Analysis was restricted by heterogeneity in study design and terminology, as well as gaps within intervention reporting. Information deemed important to the expert steering group was missing.
CONCLUSIONS: Similarities and differences between intervention techniques for oral vocabulary and speech comprehensibility have been identified and synthesised. However, analysis of effectiveness was limited due to issues with study design and heterogeneity within studies. This has implications for the progression of the evidence base within the field.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42022373931.