American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Vol.20 47-59 February 2011. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0106)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
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 Muttiah, N.
Right arrow Articles by Brackenbury, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Muttiah, N.
Right arrow Articles by Brackenbury, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Research Article

Clinical and Research Perspectives on Nonspeech Oral Motor Treatments and Evidence-Based Practice

Nimisha Muttiah
Katie Georges
Tim Brackenbury
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH

Contact author: Tim Brackenbury, Bowling Green State University, Communication Disorders, 200 Health Center Building, Bowling Green, OH 43403. E-mail: tbracke{at}bgsu.edu.

Purpose: Evidence-based practice (EBP) involves the incorporation of research evidence, clinical expertise, and client values in clinical decision making. One case in which these factors conflict is the use of nonspeech oral motor treatments (NSOMTs) for children with developmental speech sound disorders. Critical reviews of the research evidence suggest that NSOMTs are not valid, yet they are widely used by clinicians based on their expertise/experience. This investigation presents detailed descriptions of clinicians' and researchers' views and opinions on NSOMTs and EBP.

Method: Individual interviews with 11 clinicians who use NSOMTs and 11 researchers in child phonology were conducted. The interviews were transcribed and organized into themes, following a phenomenological research design.

Results: Five themes were identified: (a) NSOMTs are effective, (b) EBP is useful, (c) there is no published research supporting NSOMTs, (d) research evidence may change clinical use of NSOMTs, and (e) researchers and clinicians have separate but shared roles in clinical decision making.

Conclusions: The participants' responses provided detailed and complex insights into each group's decisions regarding NSOMTs. These responses also suggested questions that should be considered when making decisions about approaches that are not fully supported by EBP.

Key Words: clinical practice, speech therapy, qualitative research, controversial therapies


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?