JCPSLP Vol 20 No 2 July 2018

The intelligibility scale rating responses as completed by the two speech-language pathologists are shown in Figure 1, with ratings ranging from “somewhat intelligible” to “completely intelligible”. The intelligibility scale rating responses as completed by the parents/carers are shown in Figure 2, with ratings ranging from “mostly unintelligible” to completely intelligible”. The measures completed by the participants and their parents/carers regarding how they felt about their (or their child’s) talking are depicted in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Only “neutral” and “happy” ratings were recorded.

12

10

8

6

4

2

Number of participants

0

Sad

Neutral

Happy

16 14 12 10

Child (pre)

Child (post)

Figure 3. Child ratings: “How do you feel about your talking?”

16 14 12 10

8 6 4 2 0

Number of participants

8 6 4 2 0

Mostly

Mostly

Number of participants

intelligible

intelligible

Somewhat

Completely

Completely

unintelligble

unintelligible

unintelligible

Not answered

Speech-language pathologists (pre) Speech-language pathologists (post)

Sad

Neutral

Happy

Parent/carer (pre)

Parent/carer (post)

Figure 1. Speech-language pathologist pre and post-assessment ratings of intelligibility

Post-intervention assessment Following the period of intervention, 5 of the 17 remaining participants were no longer diagnosed with a functional speech disorder (PCC of 100), 11 were diagnosed with a mild functional speech disorder (PCC ranging from 88 to 98), and 1 was diagnosed as having a mild–moderate functional speech disorder (PCC of 79) (see Table 2). These are positive results generally for all participants regardless of allocation to the treatment or control groups. There was no significant difference between the end point PCC of the treatment group compared to the control group ( p > 0.054). However, further comparison of pre and post PCC scores showed that for participants older than 9 years there was a significant difference between the treatment group and the control group for the PCC recorded at pre-assessment and the PCC recorded at post-assessment. There was also progressive increase in the significance of the outcomes as the participants became older. The intelligibility scale rating responses post-intervention, as completed by the two speech-language pathologists, are shown in Figure 1, with ratings ranging again from “somewhat intelligible” to “completely intelligible” but with an increase in the number of children now considered completely intelligible. The intelligibility scale rating responses, as completed by parents/carers post- intervention, are shown in Figure 2 with ratings now ranging from “mostly intelligible” to completely intelligible”. Participants’ and parents’/carers’responses regarding how they felt about their (or their child’s) talking following intervention are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Again, only Figure 4. Parent/carer ratings: “How do you feel about your child’s talking?”

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

Number of participants

0

Mostly

Mostly

intelligible

intelligible

Somewhat

Completely

Completely

unintelligble

unintelligible

unintelligible

Not answered Parent/carer (pre)

Parent/carer (post)

Mid-point review assessment By mid-review assessment, of the 20 original participants, one had been excluded from the project due to not meeting the criteria for language performance. Two more had left the project as they had difficulty attending appointments. Seventeen participants therefore remained in the project. At the mid review assessment the percentage of target words produced correctly ranged from 67.5% to 87.5% in the treatment groups, and 0% to 57.5% in the control groups (see Table 2). Figure 2. Parent/carer pre and post-assessment ratings of intelligibility

79

JCPSLP Volume 20, Number 2 2018

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au