Concurrent task sequencing in single-phoneme phonologic treatment and generalization

• Published in: Journal of communication disorders Vol. 37; no. 2; pp. 131 - 155
• Main Author: Skelton, Steven L.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 01.03.2004; Elsevier; Elsevier Science
• Subjects: Articulation; Articulation Disorders - therapy; Articulation Impairments; Articulation treatment; Biological and medical sciences; Child; Children; Concurrent Treatment; Cross-Sectional Studies; Difficulty Level; Female; Generalization; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Outcomes of Treatment; Phonemes; Phonetics; Phonological treatment; Phonology; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychopathology. Psychiatry; Special education. Orthophony; Speech Instruction; Speech Pathology; Speech Production Measurement; Speech Therapy; Speech Therapy - methods; Task sequencing; Teaching Methods; Treatment Outcome; Treatments; Young Children; Articulation treatment; Children; Task sequencing; Phonological treatment; Concurrent Treatment; Human; Treatment efficiency; Generalization; Language disorder; Articulation; Communication disorder; English; Orthophony; School age; Concurrent task; Phonology; Child; Sequencing
• ISSN: 0021-9924; 1873-7994
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2003.08.002

Phonologic treatments have traditionally been designed to teach a target speech sound starting with presumed easy teaching tasks and progressing to harder tasks. This investigation evaluated the effects on single-phoneme acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of Concurrent Treatment, which randomly intermixed presumed easy and hard teaching tasks were utilized. A multiple-baseline-across-subjects design was used with 4- to 7-year-old participants with /s/ misarticulations. All four participants rapidly acquired /s/ and showed generalization to untaught exemplars ranging from syllables to connected speech. Two participants showed generalization to within-clinic conversations and across settings. Results suggested that an easy-to-hard task sequence may be unnecessary for successful treatment outcomes and that the concurrent sequence may be beneficial. Implications for treatment design and future research are discussed. (1) As a result of this activity, the participant will be able to explain the difference between incremental and concurrent task sequence. (2) As a result of this activity, the participant will be able to explain the procedures of Concurrent Treatment. (3) As a result of this activity, the participant will be able to explain the results of the experimental investigation of Concurrent Treatment.