Tagged "ASHA Convention"


"Functional Assessment of Feeding Challenges in Children with Ankyloglossia"

Posted by Deborah Grauzam on

This poster was presented at the 2017 annual American Speech-Language & Hearing Association, Saturday, November 11, 11 a.m.-12:30 p.m.

"Functional Assessment of Feeding Challenges in Children with Ankyloglossia"

Authors: Robyn Merkel-Walsh, MA, CCC-SLPLori Overland, MS, CCC-SLP, C/NDT, CLC

TalkTools | TOTs poster

Click here to view the full poster

Introduction:

Presentation explores 1) current classification systems for ankyloglossia; 2) functional assessment of ankyloglossia; 3) oral sensory-motor feeding challenges associated with ankyloglossia and 4) implications for treatment.

Discussion:

Ankyloglossia is not a newly discovered condition, and about 3% of infants are born with a tongue-tie (Amir, James, & Donath, 2006). The International Association of Tongue-Tie Professionals (IATP) adds that tongue-tie is an embryological remnant of tissue in the mid-line between the under-surface of the tongue and the floor of the mouth that restricts normal tongue movement (IATP, 2016). Three terms are being used synonymously to identify this condition: 1) Ankyloglossia 2) Tongue-Tie and 3) Tethering of Oral Tissues (TOTS). Tethering of Oral Tissues (TOTS) is a fairly new term that was coined by Kevin Boyd, DDS at the International Association of Tongue-tie Professionals at their annual conference in Quebec, Montreal Canada in October of 2014. TOTS as a term is more inclusive of tissue restriction of the tongue, lips and buccal frena (Boyd, 2014). The terms do not seem to be committed to one field of specialty, but the ICD10 coding system introduced in October 2015 is still only using one label for this condition, ankyloglossia (ASHA, 2015).

Over the past few years, this topic has been more frequently discussed in the fields of lactation, speech pathology, oral surgery, orofacial myology and otolaryngology. In a clinical study, lactation consultations, otolaryngologists, speech pathologists and pediatricians were surveyed on their beliefs regarding the impact of ankyloglossia on feeding. 69 percent of lactation consultants, but a minority of physician respondents, believe tongue-tie is frequently associated with oral feeding problems (Messner & Lalakea, 2000).

TalkTools | TOTs pictures

There have been several professionals who have published tongue-tie classification tools such as: Alison Hazelbaker, Lawrence Kotlow and Carmen Fernando. The International Affiliation of Tongue-Tie Professionals (IATP) cautions that classification can never substitute for assessment because classification develops categories based on broad, general criteria whereas assessment uses specific, detailed criteria for the purpose of accuracy and thoroughness (IATP, 2016). Researchers are collecting evidence on the histological characteristics of the frenulum (de Castro Martinelli, Marchesan, Gusmao, de Castro Rodrigues & Berretin-Felix, 2014); however, many professionals cannot agree on a classification system or diagnostic protocol to uniformly label the anomaly.

Despite these classifications systems, there does not seem to be a comprehensive assessment protocol to date that specifically task analyzes function for all stages of feeding skills. The Lingual Frenulum Protocol for Infants provides quick functional assessments for infants who breast and/or bottle feed. The Lingual Frenulum Protocol provides a general functional assessment of feeding and speech skills. These tools assist in determining whether or not a frenulum release is warranted, but do give clinical implications for treatment (Martinelli, Marchesan & Berretin-Felix, 2012).

TalkTools | TOTs diagram

Functional assessment of ankyloglossia considers not only the structure, but the impact on lingual range of motion specifically for the pre-feeding skills required for all stages of feeding. Range of motion observations should include: lip closure as it relates to cup drinking and spoon feeding; lip protrusion as it relates to the breast, bottle and spoon; lip rounding as it relates to straw drinking; lingual retraction as it relates to oral transport of a
liquid or bolus; intraoral lateralization as it relates to chewing; and transporting a bolus and tongue tip elevation as it relates to swallowing (Overland & Merkel-Walsh, 2013). Assessment strategies will be dependent on the age of the child, cognitive ability and motor planning ability.

TalkTools | TOTs table

Conclusion:

In summary, the assessment of ankyloglossia should not be limited to appearance alone. Oral motor skills including pre-feeding and feeding should be task analyzed. Since there is conflicting views on whether or not ankyloglossia should be surgically corrected, assessment must clearly consider the functional impact of the tongue-tie on feeding challenges (AABM, 2016; Ferres-Amat, Pastor-Vera, Ferres-Amat, Mareque-Bueno, Prats-Armengol & Ferres-Padro, 2016; Francis, Chinnadurai, Morad, Epstein, Kohanim, Krishnaswami, Sathe & McPheeters, 2015; Kummer, 2016; Merdad & Mascarenhas, 2010;
Sethi, Smith, Kortequee, Ward & Clarke, 2013).

References:

American Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine (AABM). (2016). Protocol # 11: Guidelines for the evaluation and management of neonatal ankyloglossia and its complications in the breastfeeding dyad. Retrieved from: http://www.bfmed.org/Media/Files/Protocols/ankyloglossia.pdf

Amir, L.H., James, J.P. & Donath, S.M. (2006). Reliability of the Hazelbaker assessment tool for lingual frenulum function. International Breastfeeding Journal, 1(3).

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2015). ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Codes for Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Preparing for Implementation. Retrieved from: http://www.asha.org/Practice/reimbursement/coding/ICD-10/

Boyd, K. (2014). Impact of tongue-tie over a lifetime: an anthropological perspective. Presentation at the IATP 2nd World Summit. Montreal, Quebec.

de Castro Martinelli, R.L., Marchesan, I.Q., Gusmao, R.J., de Castro Rodrigues, A. & Berretin-Felix, G. (2014). Histological characteristics of altered human lingual frenulum. International Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health, 2, 5-9.

Ferres-Amat, E., Pastor-Vera, T., Ferres-Amat, E., Mareque-Bueno, J., Prats-Armengol, J. & Ferres-Padro, E. (2016). Multidisciplinary management of ankyloglossia in childhood. Treatment of 101 cases. A protocol. Journal of Oral Medicine and Pathology, 1:21 (1):39-47

Francis, D.O., Chinnadurai, S., Morad, A., Epstein, R.A., Kohanim, S., Krishnaswami, S., Sathe, N.A. & McPheeters, M.L. (2015). Treatments for ankyloglossia and ankyloglossia with concomitant lip-tie. Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 149. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK299120/.

International Affiliation of Tongue-Tie Professionals (2016). Classification. Retrieved from: http://tonguetieprofessionals.org/about/assessment/classification/

Kummer, A. (2016). To clip or not to clip? That’s the question. Presented at the annual convention of The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Philadelphia, PA.

Martinelli, R.L., Marchesan, I.Q., & Berretin-Felix, G. (2012). Lingual Frenulum Protocol with Scores for Infants. International Journal of Orofacial Myology, 38, 104-113.

Merdad, H. & Mascarenhas, A.K. (2010). Ankyloglossia may cause breastfeeding, tongue mobility, and speech difficulties, with inconclusive results on treatment choices. Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice, 10(3):152-3.

Messner, A.H. & Lalakea, M.L. (2000). Ankyloglossia: controversies in management. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 54(2):123-31.

Overland, L. & Merkel-Walsh, R. (2013). A sensory-motor approach to feeding. Charleston, SC: TalkTools.

Sethi N., Smith D., Kortequee S., Ward V.M. & Clarke S. (2013). Benefits of frenulotomy in infants with ankyloglossia. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 77(5): 762-5.

Read more →

Tongue Ties and Speech Sound Disorders: What Are We Overlooking?

Posted by Deborah Grauzam on

“The conversation for tongue tie in the speech pathology community is growing louder among some groups of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) (ASHA Leader, 2015). An ASHA literature search has suggested a correlation between tongue ties and difficulty producing lingual alveolar phonemes (Merkel-Walsh & Jahn, 2014). Furthermore, Eschler, Klein, and Overby (2010) indicated that SLPs’ diagnostic criteria, treatment, goals, and discharge criteria for ankyloglossia differ depending on comorbid behavior (i.e., SSDs or feeding/swallowing difficulty).

Recently, there is a rise in the identification of posterior tongue ties in infants who are having trouble feeding and toddlers/adolescents who are exhibiting continuous speech sound errors despite years of speech-language pathology services. Posterior ankyloglossia is characterized by a thickened frenulum (Type III) or a submucosal frenulum visualized as a flat, broad mound absent of any typical protruding frenular tissue, and restricts movement at base of tongue (Type IV) (Kutlow, 2011).”

Meaux, A., Savage, M., & Gonsoulin, C. presented the poster “Tongue Ties and Speech Sound Disorders: What Are We Overlooking?” at the 2016 Annual ASHA Convention, November 17-19 in Philadelphia, PA.

View the full poster here

Authors: Ashley Meaux, PhD, CCC-SLP, Meghan Savage, PhD, CCC-SLP, & Courtney Gonsoulin, MA, CCC-SLP

TalkTools | Tongue Ties and Speech Sound Disorders

Read more →

Preventing Vocal Burnout in Future Teachers: An Education & Prevention Program

Posted by Deborah Grauzam on

Did you know that 51.2% of Teachers sought medical care for voice disorders? That $2.5 billion was spent annually on sick leave and treatment of voice disorders of teachers?

Hume & Wegman elaborate on this subject on their poster "Preventing Vocal Burnout in Future Teachers: An Education & Prevention Program," that was presented at the 2016 Annual ASHA Convention, November 17-19 in Philadelphia, PA.

View the full poster here

Authors: Sue B. Hume, PhD, CCC-SLP & Allison Wegman, MS, CCC-SLP, The University of Tennesse, 2016.

hume-wegmans-2016-asha-poster

Read more →

Diet-Shaping for Self-Limited Diets in Children With a Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder

Posted by Deborah Grauzam on

This article was initially presented at the 2016 Annual ASHA Convention, Thursday, November 17, 2016, 4:30-5:30 PM. It is available in video in full on Facebook: Part 1 / Part 2

Authors:

Robyn Merkel-Walsh MA, CCC-SLP

Lori Overland MS, CCC-SLP/C-NDT

Learner Outcomes:

1. Participants will have an improved understanding of the etiology of a self-limited.

2. Participants will be able to demonstrate understanding of a home-based diet.

3. Participants will be able to comprehend the concept of diet-shaping.

Discussion of Topic:

The CDC (2015) reports, that Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) impacts 1 in 68 children in the United States. In “cluster” states such as New Jersey, as many as 1 in 28 boys are affected.

Children with ASD often present with comorbid feeding issues. There is empirical evidence and an overall scientific consensus supporting an association between food selectivity and ASD (Marí-Bauset Zazpe, Mari-Sanchis, Llopis-González & Morales-Suárez-Varela, 2014). Problems with eating often occur before the actual diagnosis of ASD, and clinicians may often be alerted to the disorder when eating problems, nutritional concerns and gastrointestinal problems occur (Beckman & Cole-Clark, 2015).

Studies show that up to seventy percent of children with ASD are selective eaters and up to ninety percent have feeding problems (Volkert & M Vaz, 2010). Children with ASD are significantly more likely to refuse foods based on texture/consistency (77.4% vs 36.2%), taste/smell (49.1% vs 5.2%), mixtures (45.3% vs 25.9%), brand (15.1% vs 1.7%), and shape(11.3% vs 1.7%), (Hubbard, Anderson, Curtin, Must & Bandini,2014). Researchers at Marcus Autism Center and the Department of Pediatrics at Emory University School of Medicine conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of published, peer-reviewed research relating to feeding problems and autism. Examination of dietary nutrients showed significantly lower intake of calcium and protein and a higher number of nutritional deficits overall among children with ASD (Korschun & Edwards, 2013). Feeding challenges in the Speech-language pathologists receive referrals for feeding issues in ASD both before and after diagnosis (Keen. 2008).

Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) has the most empirical research in treating ASD to date. Behavior analysis is a scientifically validated approach to understanding behavior and how it is affected by the environment (Lovaas & Smith, 1989). It has been endorsed by a number of state and federal agencies, including the U.S. Surgeon General and the New York State Department of Health (Iovannone, Dunlap, Huber, & Kincaid, 2003). Research has shown that ABA therapy is effective at increasing appropriate behaviors and decreasing inappropriate behaviors (Kodak & Piazza, 2008). Therefore, it is reasonable to believe the principles on which ABA techniques are based can help with feeding issues (Volkert & M Vaz, 2010). The problem is that behavioral therapies however, do not often take into account the complexity of the sensory-motor system or medical issues, and how they relate to self-limited diets in children with ASD. Behavioral components may be essential in a feeding program; however, they should be implemented in conjunction with a sensory-motor approach to prove the most positive outcomes.

An infant’s first “job” in life is self-regulation and modulating arousal. These hard-wired synergies impact the sensory-motor system and oral-motor development (Overland & Merkel-Walsh, 2013). Many children with autism have significant issues with arousal and self-regulation which drives behavioral responses (Barthels, 2014.) Many children with autism also have qualitative differences in motor skills, especially with posture and alignment. (Teitelbaum, 1998). These differences in motor skills may also impact the motor skills for safely handling food. Therefore, when an individual with autism is referred to a speech-language pathologist (SLP) for self-limited diet, a comprehensive feeding assessment is required, including: review of child’s medical status; gross, fine, and oral-motor development; nutritional status; and sensory processing (Arvedson & Brodsky, 2001). For example, 59 percent of autistic children who were undergoing endoscopy for GI symptoms had carbohydrate digestive abnormalities, compared with only 11 percent in unaffected children undergoing endoscopy for GI symptoms (Beckman & Cole-Clark, 2015). Issues that affect the variety in the diet may not be behavioral. Since the sensory and motor systems cannot be separated (Morris & Klein, 2000), it is very important to task analyze the child’s motor skills and how they relate to feeding before assuming that a self-limited diet is purely behavioral (Beckman & Cole-Clark, 2015; Merkel-Walsh & Overland, 2016).

Sensory processing issues can also contribute to feeding disorders (Twachtman-Reilly, Amaral, & Zebrowski, 2008). Sensory processing refers to the ability to receive messages from the senses, interpret and organize the information in order to turn it in to an appropriate motor or behavioral response. Not all children with sensory processing disorders have autism but more than ¾ or as many as 90% of children with a diagnosis of autism have some degree of sensory processing disorder (Schoen, Miller, Brett-Green & Nielsen, 2009). Children with sensory regulation disorder may not be able to organize themselves for feeding. Those with oral sensory issues may not feel the food in their mouths, or they may be overly sensitive to the feeling of the food in their mouths. They may not feel hunger or satiation. Sensory defensiveness produces a neurochemical reaction of fear that quickly becomes a hardwired automatic response. The nervous system triggers a “fright-flight-fight” response even if it is irrational (Merkel-Walsh & Overland, 2016). In addition, once a behavior is inadvertently reinforced, the behavior will reoccur (Brophy, 2013). Children with autism are at a higher risk for these problems, because many children with autism engage in ritualistic behaviors. Seemingly well-meaning parents and therapists may not realize that by reacting to food refusals they are actually increasing the chance for this behavior to reoccur (Brophy, 2013; Merkel-Walsh & Overland, 2016).

In clinical practice the speech-language pathologist needs to look at how the child with ASD reacts to touch of the extremities, the face, and oral cavity as well as oral habits such as teeth grinding, mouthing objects and eating items other than foods. A diet analysis is needed to assess if the child has intolerances to certain tastes, temperatures and textures. This will establish the child’s home base and provide a starting point for diet expansion. The therapist must look at the underlying oral sensory-motor skills to support safe, effective nutritive feeding (Merkel-Walsh & Overland, 2016).

In conclusion, children with ASD are prone to self-limited diets. In order for a speech and language pathologist to thoroughly assess and treat this disorder, the therapist must be in tune to the sensory-motor system and design a treatment plan based on the home base, and systematically and sequentially via diet- shaping.

References:

Arvedson, J. C. & Brodksy, L. (2001). Pediatric swallowing and feeding: Assessment and management (2nd Ed.). Albany, NY: Singular.

Barthels, K. (2014). There is always a reason for behavior: is it sensory or is it behavior? (Live presentation), New York, NY.

Beckman, D. & Cole-Clark, M. (2015). Diet texture transition for individuals with autism. American Speech Language Hearing Association, Denver, CO. Retrievable: http://www.beckmanoralmotor.com/media/Diet-Texture-Progression-for-Individuals-with-Autism-ASHA.pptx

Brophy, N. (2013). Behavior plan implementation in the classroom. (Power point slides), Ridgefield, NJ.

Center for Disease Control (2015). Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

Fisher, A. G., Murray, E. A., & Bundy, A. C. (1991). Sensory integration: Theory and practice. Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis.

Gisel, E. G. (1994). Oral-motor skills following sensorimotor intervention in the moderately eating impaired child with cerebral palsy. Dysphagia, 9, 180-192.

Hubbard, K.L., Anderson, S.E., Curtin, C. Must, A. & Bandini, L.G. (2014). A comparison of food refusal related to characteristics of food in children with autism spectrum disorder and typically developing children, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Vol.114 (12), pp.1981-1987.

Iovannone, R. et al. (2003). Effective educational practices for students with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on autism and other developmental disabilities, 10883576,18,3.

Keen, D.V. (2008). Childhood autism, feeding problems and failure to thrive in early infancy, European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol.17 (4), pp.209-216.

Korschun, H., & Edwards, C. (2013.) Retrieved from http://www.news.emory.edu/stories/2013/02/autism_nutritional_deficits/

Kodak, T. & Piazza, C.C. (2008). Assessment and behavioral treatment of feeding and sleeping disorders in children with autism spectrum disorder. Behavior Modification, 33: 520-536.

Lovaas, O. I. & Smith, T. (1989). A comprehensive behavioral theory of autistic children: Paradigm for research and treatment. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 20, 17-29

Marí-Bauset, S., Zazpe, I., Mari-Sanchis, A., Llopis-González, A. & Morales-Suárez-Varela, M. (2014). Food selectivity in autism spectrum disorders, Journal of Child Neurology, 2014, Vol.29 (11), pp.1554-1561.

Merkel-Walsh, R. & Overland, L.L. (2016). Self-limited diets in children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Oral Motor Institute. Vol 5, Monograph 7. Retrieved from: http://www.oralmotorinstitute.org/mons/v5n1_walsh.html

Morris, S. E., & Klein, M. D. (2000). Pre-feeding skills: A comprehensive resource for mealtime development. San Antonio, TX: Therapy Skill Builders.

Overland, L.F. & Merkel-Walsh, R. (2013). A sensory-motor approach to feeding. Charleston, SC. TalkTools.

Schoen, S., Miller, L.J., Brett-Green, B.A. & Nielsen, D.M. (2009). Physiological and behavioral differences in sensory processing: a comparison of children with autistic spectrum disorder and sensory modulation disorders, Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, Vol. 3, Article 29, 1-11

Teitelbaum, P., Teitelbaum, O., Nye, J., Fryman, J.& Mauer, R. (1998). Movement analysis in infancy may be useful for early diagnosis of autism. Psychology, 95:23, 13982-13987

Twachtman-Reilly, J., Amaral, S.C. & Zebrowski, P. P. (2008). Addressing feeding disorders in children on the autistic spectrum in school based settings: Physiological and behavioral issues. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 261-272.

Volkert, V.M. & M Vaz, P.C. (2010). Recent studies on feeding problems in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 43 (1), 155-159.

Read more →

A Modern Look at Van Riper's Phonetic Placement Approach

Posted by Deborah Grauzam on

by Robyn Merkel-Walsh, MA, CCC-SLP

This poster was presented at the 2016 annual ASHA Connect Convention, Poster Session #PS02.

Download the poster here  

ABSTRACT

Presentation explores 1) traditional versus phonological therapy, 2) the sensory-motor system as it relates to speech, 3) the importance of tactile and proprioception in articulation therapy, 4) shaping placement of the articulators to improve speech clarity.  

LEARNER OUTCOMES

1. Participants will be able to differentiate phonological versus traditional articulation therapy.  

2. Participants will be able to define the three stages of Van Riper’s Phonetic Placement Approach.  

3. Participants will be able to use at least three oral placement cues in order to facilitate speech movements.  

DISCUSSION

Two widely used models of articulation therapy include the traditional and phonological models (Bowen, 2005). While studies suggest that the phonological model may prove more positive results than the traditional model (Klein, 1996), Van Riper’s Phonetic Placement Approach (PPA) may be more useful for individuals who are not be able to achieve placement cues (Van Riper, 1978). In 1958, Van Riper stated:

"Every available device should be used to make the student understand clearly the positions of the tongue, jaw, and lips to be assumed."

Placement cues are based on the more traditional models of therapy, and rely on the concept that an individual can copy the motor plan suggested by the therapist, such as “place your tongue tip to the spot.” Therapists, however, often struggle with a population of individuals who do not respond well to “look at me and say what I say,” and those who require a tactile-kinesthetic approach to treatment (Bahr & Rosenfeld-Johnson, 2010). Individuals with dysarthria, dyspraxia and/or myofunctional disorders may make slow progress, or no progress at all, without the assistance of tactile cues. Even though therapists have heard the debate on oral motor therapy (Bowen, 2006; Lof, 2006; Lof, 2007; Lof, 2009), clinicians are still widely using the techniques because they yield positive treatment outcomes (Bahr, 2008).

Clinicians, who represent the Board of Directors for the Oral Motor Institute, have struggled with distinguishing “oral motor therapy” from the form of “Non Speech Oral Motor Exercises” (NSOME) presented by Gregory Lof (Lof, 2008). The term “Oral Placement Disorder” (OPD) was coined by Diane Bahr and Sara Rosenfeld-Johnson in 2010 (Bahr & Rosenfeld-Johnson, 2010). Children with OPD cannot imitate targeted speech sounds using auditory and visual stimuli (i.e., “Look, listen, and say what I say”). They also cannot follow specific instructions to produce targeted speech sounds (e.g., “Put your lips together and say m”). Although the term OPD is new, the concepts surrounding the term have been discussed by a number of authors and clinicians (Bahr, 2010; Hodge, 2012; Marshalla, 2007).

There has been question, and ongoing confusion, as to what is a NSOME, versus what is an oral placement technique (OPT) (Bahr & Rosenfeld-Johnson, 2010). Oral Placement Therapy (OPT) is a tactile teaching technique used for children and adults with Oral Placement Disorders (e.g., dysarthria), who cannot learn standard speech sound production using auditory and visual teaching methods alone. OPT facilitates the pre-requisite skills in muscle control to develop dissociation and grading in the muscles of the abdomen, velum, jaw, lips and tongue for clients who cannot approximate the standard speech sounds using the instructions. If the client can produce standard speech using adequate placement and duration using only auditory and visual cueing, OPT would not be included in that client’s program plan.

Gregory Lof’s research has even stated that the methods used in Van Riper’s Phonetic Placement Approach are not in fact considered NSOME (Lof, 2009). This is why it is important to explore current clinical techniques to determine what activities are considered unrelated to speech production, as opposed to those activities that in fact are an extension of Phonetic Placement Therapy (Marshalla, 2007).

OPT IS A MODERN EXTENSION OF PHONETIC PLACEMENT THERAPY

(Van Riper, 1954) and The Feedback Model (Mysak, 1971).

It is based on a very common sequence (Bahr, 2001; Green, Moore & Reilly, 2000; Marshalla, 2007; Young and Hawk, 1955):

1. Facilitate speech movement with the assistance of a therapy tool (ex. horn, tongue depressor) or a tactile-kinesthetic facilitation technique (ex. PROMPT facial cue); use every available device (Marshalla, 2012);

2. Facilitate speech movement without the therapy tool and/or tactile-kinesthetic technique (cue fading);

3. Immediately transition movement into speech with and without therapy tools and/or tactile kinesthetic techniques.

TalkTools | Pam Marshalla

PHONETIC PLACEMENT THERAPY TOOLS

TalkTools | Van Riper tools

MODERN ORAL PLACEMENT THERAPY TOOLS

TalkTools | Van Riper new tools

REFERENCES

Bahr, D. (2008). The oral motor debate: Where do we go from here? Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Chicago, IL. (Full handout at http://convention.asha.org/handouts.cfm)

Bahr, D. (2001). Oral motor assessment and treatment: Ages and stages. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bahr, D. & Rosenfeld-Johnson, S. (2010). Treatment of Children With Speech Oral Placement Disorders (OPDs): A Paradigm Emerges. Communication Disorders Quarterly, XX(X), 108.

Bowen, C. (2005). What is the evidence for oral motor therapy? ACQuiring Knowledge in Speech, Language and Hearing, Speech Pathology Australia, 7, 3, 144-147.

Green, R., Moore, C. A., & Reilly, K. J. (2000). The sequential development of jaw and lip control for speech. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 45, 66-79.

Hodge, M. M. (2002). Non-speech oral motor treatment approaches for dysarthria: Perspectives on a controversial clinical practices. Perspectives in Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech Disorders, 12 (4), 22-28.

Klein, E. S. (1996). Phonological/traditional approaches to articulation therapy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, Vol. 27, 314-323.

Lof, G. L. (2007). Reasons why non-speech oral motor exercises should not be used for speech sound disorders. Presentation at the ASHA Annual Convention, Boston, MA, Nov. 17.

Lof, G. L. (2009). Nonspeech oral motor exercises: an update on the controversy. Presentation at ASHA Annual Convention, New Orleans, LA.

Lof, G. L. (2006). Logic, theory and evidence against the use of non-speech oral-motor exercises to change speech sound productions. Invited presentation at the ASHA Annual Convention, Miami, FL, Nov. 17.

Lof, G. L. & Watson, M. (2005). Survey of universities’ teaching: oral motor exercises and other procedures. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, San Diego, CA.

Lof, G. L. (2004). Ask the Expert: A response by Gregory L. Lof, PhD., CCC-SLP. The Apraxia-Kids Monthly, 5 (1).

Lof, G. L. & Watson, M. (2004). Speech-language pathologist’s use of non-speech oral-motor drills: National survey results. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Philadelphia, PA.

Lof, G. L. (2003). Oral motor exercises and treatment outcomes. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 10 (1), 7-11.

Marshalla, P. (2007). Oral motor techniques are not new. Oral Motor Institute, 1(1). Available at www.oralmotorinstitute.org.

Marshalla, P. (2012). Horns, whistles, bite blocks, and straws: A review of tools/objects used in articulation therapy by Van Riper and other traditional therapists. Oral Motor Institute, 4 (2). Available at www.oralmotorinstitute.org.

Mysak, E. (1971). Speech pathology and feedback therapy. Charles C. Thompson Publisher.

Van Riper, C. (1958, 1954, 1947). Speech Correction: Principles and Methods. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Young, E. H. & Hawk, S. S. (1955). Moto-kinesthetic speech training. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Read more →
script type="text/javascript" src="//downloads.mailchimp.com/js/signup-forms/popup/unique-methods/embed.js" data-dojo-config="usePlainJson: true, isDebug: false">