Therapeutic efficacy analysis of three contrastive approach phonological models

Pro Fono. Oct-Dec 2009;21(4):297-302. doi: 10.1590/s0104-56872009000400006.

Abstract

Background: Phonological therapy in subjects with phonological disorders.

Aim: To compare the efficacy of three contrastive approach models in three different severities of phonological disorder.

Method: Participants of the study were nine subjects with phonological disorders, with ages ranging between 4:2 and 6:6 years. All subjects were evaluated prior to and after phonological therapy. Three groups, with three subjects each, were determined for treatment. Each group presented one individual with severe, one with moderate-severe and one with mild-moderate phonological disorder. Each group was treated using a different therapy model--Minimal Opposition, Maximal Oppositions/Empty Set and Multiple Opposition. Results were analyzed according to the Friedman Test, considering p < 0.05; a descriptive analysis was also performed among the models.

Results: There was no statistical difference among the models considering the severity of phonological disorder. The Minimal and Maximal Oppositions/Empty Set approaches favored a greater number of sound acquisitions in the phonetic inventory of subjects with severe and moderate-severe disorder. On the other hand, the Multiple Oppositions approach favored a better performance of sound acquisition in the phonological system and a decrease in the impaired distinctive features in severe and moderate-severe disorder.

Conclusion: The models of therapy were effective in the treatment of different severities of phonological disorders observing the best performance in children with severe and moderate-severe disorder.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Child
  • Child, Preschool
  • Data Interpretation, Statistical
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Phonetics*
  • Severity of Illness Index
  • Speech Disorders / therapy*
  • Speech Therapy / methods
  • Speech Therapy / standards*