Is Speech Therapy via Telepractice Effective?
Does speech therapy via telepractice work? I know there are people skeptical about the efficacy of speech therapy via telepractice and I know that the abrupt shift from in person speech therapy services within the schools to speech therapy services via telepractice when schools went remote due to COVID-19 allowed little to no planning or training time for speech-language pathologists and may have given families a bad impression of speech therapy via telepractice. This is not to say that my speech-language pathologist colleagues did not rise to the occasion and adapt to the telepractice treatment modality like champions but I do acknowledge that it is difficult to be thrown into a different treatment modality, especially during a pandemic and while managing many moving parts. If your first impression of speech therapy via telepractice was when things were in crisis mode and it did not meet your expectations, I hope you give this treatment modality a second chance because there is scientific evidence that speech therapy via telepractice works.
Many speech-language pathologists, myself included, provided speech therapy via telepractice before the COVID-19 pandemic. We have personally experienced clinical success using telepractice and have helped our clients and students achieve their treatment goals to the point where some students were dismissed from speech therapy at school because their speech and language disability no longer had an adverse impact on their education! My clinical experiences with this treatment modality are only one part of the scientific research pyramid so without further delay, I would like to share the pilot studies and systematic literature reviews with you.
The Research
According to the American Speech-Language Hearing Association, “Telepractice is being used in the assessment and treatment of a wide range of speech and language disorders, including the following:
Aphasia (Macoir, Martel Sauvageau, Boissy, Tousignant, & Tousignant, 2017)
Articulation disorders (Crutchley, Dudley, & Campbell, 2010; Grogan-Johnson et al., 2013)
Autism (Higgins, Luczynski, Carroll, Fisher, & Mudford, 2017; Iacono et al., 2016; Parmanto, Pulantara, Schutte, Saptono, & McCue, 2013)
Dysarthria (Hill et al., 2006)
Dysphagia aka feeding/swallowing disorders (Cassel, 2016; Malandraki, McCullough, He, McWeeny, & Perlman, 2011; Perlman & Witthawaskul, 2002)
Fluency disorders aka stuttering (Carey, O’Brian, Lowe, & Onslow, 2014; Carey, O’Brian, Onslow, Packman, & Menzies, 2012; Lewis, Packman, Onslow, Simpson, & Jones, 2008)
Language and cognitive disorders (Brennan, Georgeadis, Baron, & Barker, 2004; Sutherland, Hodge, Trembath, Drevensek, & Roberts, 2016; Waite, Theodoros, Russell, & Cahill, 2010)
Neurodevelopmental disabilities (Simacek, Dimian, & McComas, 2017)
Voice disorders (Halpern et al., 2012; Mashima & Brown, 2011; Theodoros et al., 2006; Tindall, Huebner, Stemple, & Kleinert, 2008; Towey, 2012b)”
In case you do not have the time or desire to sift through the research or you want to but lack database access, I have read through some of the research and summarized a few journal articles and a systematic literature review below.
Short, Rea, Houston, Scott and Forducey studied “speech and language skills of 578 students in Oklahoma schools, grades PreK–12 over one of two school years/ and were rated using Functional Communication Measures (FCM) established by the American Speech Language and Hearing Association (ASHA). Our data show that 67–87% of the children advanced by one or more levels on three common FCM scales. These changes are similar to, or greater than, what was reported in a large sample of students compiled by ASHA's National Outcomes Measurement System (NOMS) with clinicians who worked onsite in schools. Average weekly treatment time was also less in our teletherapy practice than what was reported in the reference database. Therefore, the current study demonstrates that speech telepractice is an effective and efficient method of delivery for the school age population” (Short, Rea, Houston, Scott & Forducey, 2016)
In their 2011 journal article, A Pilot Exploration of Speech Sound Disorder Intervention Delivered by Telehealth to School Age Children, Grogan-Johnson, Gabel, Taylor, Rowan Alvares and Schenker compared and contrasted results of speech therapy via telepractice and speech therapy via traditional face to face methods when treating articulation and phonological disorders in Ohio schools. Student progress was measured using pre- and post- speech therapy treatment scores on the Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation-2 (Goldman & Fristoe, 2002). “Students in both service delivery models made significant improvements in speech sound production” (Grogan-Johnson, Gabel, Taylor, Rowan, Alvares and Schenker, 2011). Students who received speech therapy via telepractice “demonstrated greater mastery of their Individual Education Plan (IEP) goals. Live interactive videoconferencing thus appears to be a viable method for delivering intervention for speech sound disorders to children in a rural, public school setting” (Grogan-Johnson et al., 2011).
Wales, Skinner and Hayman conducted a literature review on the efficacy of speech therapy via telepractice for children in elementary school. The purpose of the literature review was to compare speech therapy via telepractice to in person speech therapy for elementary school students with speech and language difficulties. Wales, Skinner and Hayman (2017) concluded, “The evidence presented showed that telehealth is a promising service delivery method for delivering speech and language intervention services to this population. This alternative service delivery model has the potential to improve access to SLP services for children living in geographically remote areas, reducing travel time and alleviating the detrimental effects of communication difficulties on education, social participation and employment”.
To find more research articles on the subject, check out the American Speech-Language Hearing Association telepractice evidence map.
Are you ready to receive speech therapy via telepractice? Then I am ready to help. Please contact me for your speech therapy consultation.
Citations
Grogan-Johnson, S., Gabel, R. M., Taylor, J., Rowan, L. E., Alvares, R., & Schenker, J. (2011). A Pilot Investigation of Speech Sound Disorder Intervention Delivered by Telehealth to School-Age Children. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 3(1). doi:10.5195/ijt.2011.6064
Telepractice. (n.d.). Retrieved October 03, 2020, from https://www.asha.org/EvidenceMapLanding.aspx?id=8589944872
Telepractice. (n.d.). Retrieved October 03, 2020, from https://www.asha.org/PRPSpecificTopic.aspx?folderid=8589934956
Short, L., Rea, T., Houston, B., Scott, S., & Forducey, P. (2016). Positive Outcomes for Speech Telepractice as Evidence for Reimbursement Policy Change. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 1(18), 3-11. doi:10.1044/persp1.sig18.3
Wales, D., Skinner, L., & Hayman, M. (2017). The efficacy of telehealth-delivered speech and language intervention for primary school-age children: A systematic review. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 9(1), 55-70. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2017.6219