JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.43 1509-1523 December 2000.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ertmer, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Maki, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ertmer, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Maki, J. E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Comparison of Speech Training Methods With Deaf Adolescents

Spectrographic Versus Noninstrumental Instruction

David J. Ertmer 1
Jean E. Maki 2

1 Audiology and Speech Sciences Purdue University West Lafayette, IN
2 Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Loma Linda University Loma Linda, CA

dertmer{at}purdue.edu

The effects of speech training with real-time spectrographic displays (SDs) were examined and compared to the effects of noninstrumental (NI) instruction (i.e., training without computerized displays of speech) for deaf adolescents. A singlecase modified alternating-treatment experimental design with replication across subjects and speech targets was used to examine within-subject performance in establishing, maintaining, and generalizing target consonants. Comparisons between the two approaches were accomplished by determining how frequently each method resulted in improvement, maintenance of improvement, and generalization to untrained words. Each of the 4 subjects demonstrated improvement under both forms of instruction in a relatively short time. Maintenance of improvement was observed 6 weeks post-treatment for two NI-trained targets and one SD-trained target. Two subjects showed better generalization for their SDtrained target than their NI target. There was little difference in generalization scores for the remaining subjects. All subjects either regained their highest previous levels of acceptability or maintained high-level acceptability following brief, independent practice with SDs 10 weeks after training was discontinued. The expediency of independent practice with SDs was discussed.

KEY WORDS: speech training aids, deafness, adolescents, intervention, spectrographic displays

Submitted on February 21, 1999
Accepted on April 11, 2000


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2000 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.