A Comparison of Speech Training Methods With Deaf Adolescents Spectrographic Versus Noninstrumental Instruction Research Article
Research Article  |   December 01, 2000
A Comparison of Speech Training Methods With Deaf Adolescents
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • David J. Ertmer
    Audiology and Speech Sciences Purdue University West Lafayette, IN
  • Jean E. Maki
    Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Loma Linda University Loma Linda, CA
  • Corresponding author: e-mail: dertmer@purdue.edu
  • Contact author: David J. Ertmer, PhD, Audiology and Speech Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. Email: dertmer@purdue.edu
    Contact author: David J. Ertmer, PhD, Audiology and Speech Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. Email: dertmer@purdue.edu×
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Hearing Disorders / Audiologic / Aural Rehabilitation / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Speech / Research Articles
Research Article   |   December 01, 2000
A Comparison of Speech Training Methods With Deaf Adolescents
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 2000, Vol. 43, 1509-1523. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4306.1509
History: Received February 21, 1999 , Accepted April 11, 2000
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 2000, Vol. 43, 1509-1523. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4306.1509
History: Received February 21, 1999; Accepted April 11, 2000

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.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the subjects, their families, and the administration and staff of CSDR for their participation and support. The efforts of Jennifer Mellon, Laura Kraft, Julie Leedy, and Kathleen Porcaro in making perceptual judgments are recognized and appreciated. The comments and suggestions of Maureen Higgins, Janis Costello Ingham, Monica McHenry, and anonymous reviewers are also acknowledged and appreciated. Data collection was funded through a small business innovation research contract awarded to Language Vision, Inc. of Idaho Falls, ID, by the U.S. Department of Education (ED98PO3710).
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access