A Comparison of Outcome Measures Following Electropalatography (EPG) Therapy in Children with Down's Syndrome
Date
2016
Authors
Citation
(2016) A Comparison of Outcome Measures Following
Electropalatography (EPG) Therapy in Children with
Down's Syndrome, no. 171.
Abstract
Background
Electropalatography (EPG) therapy has shown to remediate speech sound errors that
have been intractable through traditional speech therapy. In more recent years, EPG
therapy has been explored as an intervention technique for children with Down's
syndrome. There are a variety of ways to measure progress following EPG therapy.
However, at present, too much reliance is placed on subjective measures to analyse
EPG patterns and this does not promote consistency within research addressing the
clinical effectiveness of EPG therapy.
Aims
The principle aim of this project is to compare outcome measures post EPG therapy
and identify if a change seen in one outcome measure is also reflected in other outcome
measures, and if not then why not? A secondary aim of this project is to explore the
possibility of quantifying EPG patterns by developing a classification scheme that
provides a set of criteria associated with a target phoneme's idealized articulatory
pattern.
Methodology
Three children with DS were selected from a larger study. Each child received EPG
therapy from the school learning assistant with the aim for therapy to be carried out
daily in schools over the course of twelve weeks. Each child had an individualized word
list which contained phonemes considered most problematic at pre-therapy recordings.
The word lists presented target phonemes in word initial and word final position. Four
analyses were carried out; a percent consonant correct analysis, an EPG pattern
analysis, a property analysis and analysis of intelligibility measures. A classification
scheme designed by the author was implemented to enable quantitative results from the
EPG pattern analysis. Results from these outcome measures were compared.
Results
Participants showed variability between different outcome measures and within the
results from the same outcome measure, suggesting that the clinical effectiveness of
EPG therapy was reflected differently depending on the outcome measure that was
used. Intelligibility measures did not provide enough evidence to capture progress about
therapy goals and inform intervention.
Conclusions
This project highlighted questions surrounding the ability of EPG patterns to be
quantified and demonstrated how sensitive these patterns can be when analysed in a
quantitative manner. The devised classification scheme was binary (tongue palate
contact patterns were measured as acceptable or unacceptable) and was therefore
unable to measure and recognize incremental change within EPG patterns from pre to
post-therapy. Speech and language therapists should give closer consideration to well
written therapy goals with carefully designed outcome measures that reflect those
therapy goals.