CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 51Language Development and DisordersVoice and Speech DisordersPhonetics and Phonology Research

Service delivery and intervention intensity for phonology‐based speech sound disorders

Open access
Sugden, Eleanor, Baker, Elise, Munro, Natalie, Williams, A. Lynn, Trivette, Carol M.·2018·International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
DOI 10.1111/1460-6984.12399
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: When planning evidence‐based intervention services for children with phonology‐based speech sound disorders (SSD), speech and language therapists (SLTs) need to integrate research evidence regarding service delivery and intervention intensity within their clinical practice. However, relatively little is known about the optimal intensity of phonological interventions and whether SLTs’ services align with the research evidence. Aims: The aims are twofold. First, to review external evidence (i.e., empirical research evidence external to day‐to‐day clinical practice) regarding service delivery and intervention intensity for phonological interventions. Second, to investigate SLTs’ clinical practice with children with phonology‐based SSD in Australia, focusing on service delivery and intensity. By considering these complementary sources of evidence, SLTs and researchers will be better placed to understand the state of the external evidence regarding the delivery of phonological interventions and appreciate the challenges facing SLTs in providing evidence‐based services. Methods & Procedures: Two studies are presented. The first is a review of phonological intervention research published between 1979 and 2016. Details regarding service delivery and intervention intensity were extracted from the 199 papers that met inclusion criteria identified through a systematic search. The second study was an online survey of 288 SLTs working in Australia, focused on the service delivery and intensity of intervention provided in clinical practice. Main Contributions: There is a gap between the external evidence regarding service delivery and intervention intensity and the internal evidence from clinical practice. Most published intervention research has reported to provide intervention two to three times per week in individual sessions delivered by an SLT in a university clinic, in sessions lasting 30–60 min comprising 100 production trials. SLTs reported providing services at intensities below that found in the literature. Further, they reported workplace, client and clinician factors that influenced the intensity of intervention they were able to provide to children with phonology‐based SSD. Conclusions & Implications: Insufficient detail in the reporting of intervention intensity within published research coupled with service delivery constraints may affect the implementation of empirical evidence into everyday clinical practice. Research investigating innovative solutions to service delivery challenges is needed to provide SLTs with evidence that is relevant and feasible for clinical practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1460-6984.12399

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Better support for reaching the recommended session duration would increase the likelihood that dose reaches and surpasses the recommended minimum level of 50 production efforts per session.

    “Even though better support for reaching the recommended session duration does not allow control of the number of ‘production efforts’ per session, it would increase the likelihood that dose reaches and surpasses the recommended minimum level of 50 per session (Sugden et al. 2018).”

    From Self‐Supervised App‐Based Speech Training for Children With Speech Sound Disorder—A Single‐Case Experimental Design Study (2026) · cites this paper as Sugden et al. 2018

    The Discussion of Study 2 (p. 24) identifies 50–99 production trials per session as the recommended benchmark, and the review reports that 100 trials were typically delivered in 30–45-minute sessions (p. 12). The paper does not establish that better support for reaching a recommended session duration would increase the likelihood of meeting that dose; that is the citing authors’ inference. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Sugden et al. (2018) recommend treatment should be individual, occur 2-3 times per week, each session lasting 30-60 min, and include at least 50-100 production efforts per treatment session.

    “Based on their systematic review of phonological intervention, Sugden and colleagues (2018) outline recommendations that treatment should be individual, occur 2–3 times per week, each session lasting for 30–60 min, and including at least 50–100 ‘production efforts’ per treatment session”

    From Self‐Supervised App‐Based Speech Training for Children With Speech Sound Disorder—A Single‐Case Experimental Design Study (2026) · cites this paper as Sugden et al. 2018

  • High-enough dose and dose frequency are important ingredients of intervention delivery.

    “An important ingredient of intervention delivery is high‐enough dose, involving the child producing target sounds many times during a training session, and high‐enough dose frequency, that is, involving regular scheduling of training sessions (Sugden et al. 2018).”

    From Self‐Supervised App‐Based Speech Training for Children With Speech Sound Disorder—A Single‐Case Experimental Design Study (2026) · cites this paper as Sugden et al. 2018

  • The observed dose of 7 to 14 production efforts per session in the present study is remarkably lower than recommended levels of 50-100 production efforts per session suggested by Sugden and colleagues (2018).

    “Regarding dose, the observed dose of 7 to 14 production efforts per session in the present study is remarkably lower than recommended levels of 50–100 ‘production efforts’ per session, as suggested by Sugden and colleagues (2018) in their review.”

    From Self‐Supervised App‐Based Speech Training for Children With Speech Sound Disorder—A Single‐Case Experimental Design Study (2026) · cites this paper as Sugden et al. 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 93

  1. ALLEN, M. M. 2013, Intervention efficacy and intensity for children with speech sound disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 865-877.
  2. BAKER, E. 2012, Optimal intervention intensity. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14, 401-409.
  3. BAKER, E. and MCLEOD, S. 2011, Evidence-based practice for children with speech sound disorders: Part 1 narrative review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 102-139.
  4. BOWEN, C. and CUPPLES, L. 1999, Parents and children together (PACT): A collaborative approach to phonological therapy. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 34, 35-55.
  5. JOFFE, V. and PRING, T. 2008, Children with phonological problems: A survey of clinical practice. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 43, 154-164.
  6. LOF, G. L. 2011, Science-based practice and the speech-language pathologist. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13, 189-196.
  7. LUDEMANN, A., POWER, E. and HOFFMANN, T. C. 2017, Investigating the adequacy of intervention descriptions in recent speech-language pathology literature: Is evidence from randomized trials useable? American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1-13.
  8. MCCORMACK, J., HARRISON, L. J., MCLEOD, S. and MCALLISTER, L. 2011, A nationally representative study of the association between communication impairment at 4-5 years and children's life activities at 7-9 years. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54, 1328-1348.
  9. MCCURTIN, A. and CLIFFORD, A. M. 2015, What are the primary influences on treatment decisions? How does this reflect on evidence-based practice? Indications from the discipline of speech and language therapy. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 21, 1178-1189.
  10. MURDOCH, B. E., GOOZEE, J., WHELAN, B. M. & DOCKING, K., eds. Proceedings of the 26th world congress of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, 2004 Brisbane. University of Queensland.
  11. MCLEOD, S., PRESS, F. and PHELAN, C. 2010, The (in)visibility of children with communication impairment in Australian health, education, and disability legislation and policies. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing, 13, 67-75.
  12. O'CONNOR, S. and PETTIGREW, C. M. 2009, The barriers perceived to prevent the successful implementation of evidence-based practice by speech and language therapists. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 44, 1018-1035.
  13. PAMPLONA, M. C., YSUNZA, A. and MORALES, S. 2014, Strategies for treating compensatory articulation in patients with cleft palate. International Journal of Biomedical Science, 10, 43-51.
  14. PODSAKOFF, P.M., MACKENZIE, S.B., and PODSAKOFF, N.P. 2012, Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569.
  15. ABRAHAM, S. 1993. Differential treatment of phonological disability in children with impaired hearing who were trained orally. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20, 23-30.
  16. ALLEN, M. M. 2013. Intervention efficacy and intensity for children with speech sound disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 865-877.
  17. BAKER, E. and MCLEOD, S. 2011. Evidence-based practice for children with speech sound disorders: Part 1 narrative review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 102-139.
  18. BELLON-HARN, M. L., CREDEUR-PAMPOLINA, M. E. and LEBOEUF, L. 2013. Scaffolded-language intervention: Speech production outcomes. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 34, 120-132.
  19. BERNHARDT, B. and MAJOR, E. M. 2005. Speech, language and literacy skills 3 years late: A follow-up study of early phonological and metaphonological intervention. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 40, 1-27.
  20. BLACHE, S. E., PARSONS, C. L. and HUMPHREYS, J. M. 1981. A minimal-word-pair model for teaching the linguistic significance of distinctive feature properties. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 291-296.
  21. BOWEN, C. and CUPPLES, L. 1999a. Parents and children together (PACT): A collaborative approach to phonological therapy. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 34, 35-55.
  22. BOWEN, C. and CUPPLES, L. 1999b. A phonological therapy in depth: A reply to commentaries. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 34, 65- 83.
  23. BROEN, P. A. and WESTMAN, M. J. 1990. Project parent: A preschool speech program implemented through parents. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 495- 502.
  24. BROOMFIELD, J. and DODD, B. 2011. Is speech and language therapy effective for children with primary speech and language impairment? Report of a randomized control trial. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 46, 628-640.
  25. BRYAN, A. and HOWARD, D. 1992. Frozen phonology thawed: The analysis and remediation of a developmental disorder of real word phonology. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 27, 343-365.
  26. CAMARATA, S. M. 1993. The application of naturalistic conversation training to speech production in children with speech disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 173-182.
  27. GIERUT, J. A. 1989. Maximal opposition approach to phonological treatment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 9-19.
  28. GIERUT, J. A. 1990. Differential learning of phonological oppositions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 540-549.
  29. GIERUT, J. A. 1992. The conditions and course of clinically induced phonological change. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 1049-1063.
  30. GIERUT, J. A. 1996. An experimental test of phonemic cyclicity. Journal of Child Language, 23, 81-102.
  31. GIERUT, J. A. 1999. Syllable onsets: Clusters and adjuncts in acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 708-726.
  32. GIERUT, J. A. and CHAMPION, A. H. 2001. Syllable onsets II: Three-element clusters in phonological treatment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 886-904.
  33. GIERUT, J. A., ELBERT, M. and DINNSEN, D. A. 1987. A functional analysis of phonological knowledge and generalisation learning in misarticulating children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 462-479.
  34. GIERUT, J. A. and MORRISETTE, M. L. 2012b. Density, frequency and the expressive phonology of children with phonological delay. Journal of Child Language, 39, 804- 834.
  35. GIERUT, J. A. and MORRISETTE, M. L. 2015. Dense neighborhoods and mechanisms of learning: evidence from children with phonological delay. Journal of Child Language, 42, 1036-72.
  36. GIERUT, J. A., MORRISETTE, M. L. and CHAMPION, A. H. 1999. Lexical constraints in phonological acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 26, 261-294.
  37. GIERUT, J. A., MORRISETTE, M. L. and ZIEMER, S. M. 2010. Nonwords and generalization in children with phonological disorders. American Journal of Speech- Language Pathology, 19, 167-177.
  38. GILDERSLEEVE-NEUMANN, C. and GOLDSTEIN, B. A. 2015. Cross-linguistic generalization in the treatment of two sequential Spanish-English bilingual children with speech sound disorders. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 26-40.
  39. GIROLAMETTO, L., PEARCE, P. S. and WEITZMAN, E. 1997. Effects of lexical intervention on the phonology of late talkers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 338-348.
  40. GLASPEY, A. and STOEL-GAMMON, C. 2007. A dynamic approach to phonological assessment. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 286-296.
  41. GLOGOWSKA, M., ROULSTONE, S., ENDERBY, P. and PETERS, T. J. 2000. Randomised controlled trial of community based speech and language therapy in preschool children. British Medical Journal, 321, 1-5.
  42. GOLDSTEIN, B. A. 1996. The role of stimulability in the assessment and treatment of spanish-speaking children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 29, 299-314.
  43. GORDON-BRANNAN, M., HODSON, B. W. and WYNNE, M. K. 1992. Remediating unintelligible utterances of a child with a mild hearing loss. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1, 28-38.
  44. GRAWBURG, M. and RVACHEW, S. 2007. Phonological awareness intervention for children with speech sound disorders. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 31, 19-26.
  45. LANCASTER, G., KEUSCH, S., LEVIN, A., PRING, T. and MARTIN, S. 2010. Treating children with phonological problems: Does an eclectic approach to therapy work? International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45, 174-181.
  46. LAW, J., GARRETT, Z. and NYE, C. 2004. The efficacy of treatment for children with developmental speech and language delay/disorder: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 924-943.
  47. LOUSADA, M., JESUS, L. M. T., CAPELAS, S., MARGACA, C., SIMOES, D., VALENTE, A., HALL, A. and JOFFE, V. L. 2013. Phonological and articulation treatment approaches in Portuguese children with speech and language impairments: A randomized controlled intervention study. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48, 172-87.
  48. LOUSADA, M., JESUS, L. M. T., HALL, A. and JOFFE, V. 2014. Intelligibility as a clinical outcome measure following intervention with children with phonologically based speech-sound disorders. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 49, 584-601.
  49. MAJOR, E. M. and BERNHARDT, B. 1998. Metaphonological skills of children with phonological disorders before and after phonological and metaphonological intervention. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 33, 413-444.
  50. MCKEAN, K., PHILLIPS, B. and THOMPSON, A. 2012. A family-centred model of care in paediatric speech-language pathology. International Journal of Speech- Language Pathology, 14, 235-246.
  51. MECROW, C., BECKWITH, J. and KLEE, T. 2010. An exploratory trial of the effectiveness of an enhanced consultative approach to delivering speech and language intervention in schools. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45, 354-367.
  52. MICCIO, A. W. and ELBERT, M. 1996. Enhancing stimulability: A treatment program. Journal of Communication Disorders, 29, 335-351.
  53. MICCIO, A. W., ELBERT, M. and FORREST, K. 1999. The relationship between stimulability and phonological acquisition in children with normally developing and disordered phonologies. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 347-363.
  54. MICCIO, A. W. and INGRISANO, D. R. 2000. The acquisition of fricatives and affricates: Evidence from a disordered phonological system. American Journal of Speech- Language Pathology, 9, 214-229.
  55. MORRISETTE, M. L. and GIERUT, J. A. 2002. Lexical organization and phonological change in treatment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 143- 59.
  56. NELSON, H. D., NYGREN, P., WALKER, M. and PANOSCHA, R. 2006. Screening for speech and language delay in preschool children: Systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Pediatrics, 117, e298-319.
  57. PAGE, F., PERTILE, J.-A., TORRESI, K. and HUDSON, C. 1994. Alternative service delivery options: The effectiveness of intensive group treatment with pre-school children. Australian Journal of Human Communication Disorders, 22, 61-72.
  58. PAMPLONA, M. C., YSUNZA, A. and ESPINOSA, J. 1999. A comparative trial of two modalities of speech intervention for compensatory articulation in cleft palate children, phonologic approach versus articulatory approach. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 29, 21-26.
  59. PAMPLONA, M. C., YSUNZA, A. and MORALES, S. 2014. Strategies for treating compensatory articulation in patients with cleft palate. International Journal of Biomedical Science, 10, 43-51.
  60. PAMPLONA, M. C., YSUNZA, A. and RAMıREZ, P. 2004. Naturalistic intervention in cleft palate children. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 68, 75-81.
  61. PASCOE, M., STACKHOUSE, J. and WELLS, B. 2005. Phonological therapy within a psycholinguistic framework: Promoting change in a child with persisting speech difficulties. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 40, 189-220.
  62. PIERETTI, R. A., KAUL, S. D., ZARCHY, R. M. and O'HANLON, L. M. 2015. Using a multimodal approach to facilitate articulation, phonemic awareness, and literacy in young children. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 36, 131-141.
  63. POWELL, T. W. 1991. Planning for phonological generalisation: An approach to treatment target selection. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1, 21-27.
  64. POWELL, T. W. and ELBERT, M. 1984. Generalisation following the remediation of early-and later-developing consonant clusters. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 211-218.
  65. POWELL, T. W., ELBERT, M. and DINNSEN, D. A. 1991. Stimulability as a factor in the phonological generalisation of misarticulating preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1318-1328.
  66. RAY, J. 2002. Treating phonological disorders in a multilingual child: A case study. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 305-315.
  67. RUDOLPH, J. M. and WENDT, O. 2014. The efficacy of the cycles approach: A multiple baseline design. Journal of Communication Disorders, 47, 1-16.
  68. RUSCELLO, D. M., CARTWRIGHT, L. R., HAINES, K. B. and SHUSTER, L. I. 1993. The use of different service delivery models for children with phonological disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders, 26, 193-203.
  69. RVACHEW, S. 1994. Speech perception training can facilitate sound production learning. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 347-357.
  70. RVACHEW, S. and BERNHARDT, B. M. 2010. Clinical implications of dynamic systems theory for phonological development. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 34-50.
  71. RVACHEW, S. and BROSSEAU-LAPRÉ, F. 2015. A randomized trial of 12-week interventions for the treatment of developmental phonological disorder in francophone children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24, 637-658.
  72. RVACHEW, S. and NOWAK, M. 2001. The effect of target-selection strategy on phonological learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 610-623.
  73. RVACHEW, S., NOWAK, M. and CLOUTIER, G. 2004. Effect of phonemic perception training on the speech production and phonological awareness skills of children with expressive phonological delay. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13, 250-263.
  74. RVACHEW, S., RAFAAT, S. and MARTIN, M. 1999. Stimulability, speech perception skills, and the treatment of phonological disorders. American Journal of Speech- Language Pathology, 8, 33-43.
  75. SABEN, C. B. and COSTELLO INGHAM, J. 1991. The effects of minimal pairs treatment on the speech-sound production of two children with phonologic disorders. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 1023-1040.
  76. SHILLER, D. M., RVACHEW, S. and BROSSEAU-LAPRÉ, F. 2010. Importance of the auditory perceptual target to the achievement of speech production accuracy. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 34.
  77. SHRIBERG, L. D. and KWIATKOWSKI, J. 1982. Phonological disorders II: A conceptual framework for management. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 242- 56.
  78. SHRIBERG, L. D., KWIATKOWSKI, J. and SNYDER, T. 1989. Tabletop versus microcomputer-assisted speech management: Stabilization phase. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 233-248.
  79. SHRIBERG, L. D., KWIATKOWSKI, J. and SNYDER, T. 1990. Tabletop versus microcompter assisted speech management: Response evocation phase. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 635-655.
  80. SMITH, J., DOWNS, M. and MOGFORD-BEVAN, K. 1998. Can phonological awareness training facilitation minimal pair therapy? International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 33, 463. preschoolers with co-occurring speech and language impairments. Topics in Language Disorders, 31, 128-144.
  81. TYLER, A. A., LEWIS, K. E., HASKILL, A. and TOLBERT, L. C. 2003a. Outcomes of different speech and language goal attack strategies. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1077-1094.
  82. TYLER, A. A., LEWIS, K. E. and WELCH, C. M. 2003b. Predictors of phonological change following intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 289-98.
  83. VAN BYSTERVELDT, A. K., GILLON, G. and FOSTER-COHEN, S. 2010. Integrated speech and phonological awareness intervention for pre-school children with Down syndrome. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45, 320-335.
  84. WATERS, D., HAWKES, C. and BURNETT, E. 1998. Targeting speech processing strengths to facilitate pronunciation change. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 33, 469-474.
  85. WEINER, F. 1981. Treatment of phonological disability using the method of meaningful minimal contrast: Two case studies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 97-103.
  86. WILLIAMS, A. L. 1991. Generalisation patterns associated with training least phonological knowledge. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 722-733.
  87. WILLIAMS, A. L. 1993. Phonological reorganization: A qualitative measure of phonological improvement. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2, 44-51.
  88. WILLIAMS, A. L. 2000. Multiple oppositions: Case studies of variables in phonological intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 289-299.
  89. WILLIAMS, A. L. 2012. Intensity in phonological intervention: Is there a prescribed amount? International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14, 456-461.
  90. WOLFE, V., PRESLEY, C. and MESARIS, J. 2003. The importance of sound identification training in phonological intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 282-288.
  91. WREN, Y. and ROULSTONE, S. 2008. A comparison between computer and tabletop delivery of phonology therapy. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 346-363.
  92. YODER, P., CAMARATA, S. and GARDNER, E. 2005. Treatment effects on speech intelligibility and length of utterance in children with specific language and intelligibility impairments. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 34-49.
  93. YODER, P., CAMARATA, S. and WOYNAROSKI, T. 2016. Treating speech comprehensibility in students with down syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59, 446-459.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sugden, E., Baker, E., Munro, N., Williams, A. L., & Trivette, C. M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • East Tennessee State University (US)
Corresponding author
Sugden, Eleanor
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-06-14
Volume
53
Issue
4
Pages
718-734
ISSN
  • 1368-2822 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-6984
DOI
10.1111/1460-6984.12399
OpenAlex
W2808569359
Cited by
51
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5
FWCI
0.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (acceptedVersion)
  • Cross Connect (Southern Cross University) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - East Tennessee State University (East Tennessee State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
phonological intervention, intervention intensity, service delivery, speech-language pathologists, evidence-based practice, clinical practice, children, intervention reporting, evidence-based practice implementation
MeSH terms
Child, Humans, Phonetics, Speech Therapy, Speech Sound Disorder

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review