Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2021.19.2.447

Literature Analysis on PROMPT Treatment (1984-2020)  

Kim, Wha-soo (Department of speech language pathology, Daegu University)
Lee, Rio (Department of speech language pathology, Daegu University)
Lee, Ji-woo (Department of Music and Culture, Dong-A University)
Publication Information
Journal of Digital Convergence / v.19, no.2, 2021 , pp. 447-456 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study analyzed 28 domestic and foreign studies related Prompts for Restructuring Oral Muscular Phonetic Targets treatment techniques from 1984 to 2020 to prepare basic data for the development of PROMPT intervention programs and examination tools. According to the analysis, continuous research has been conducted since 1984 when the prompt study was first started, and the method of research was 16 intervention studies, with the highest number of speech disorders, and the target age being 3 to 5 years old, the most frequently conducted for infancy. The treatment was the most frequent in the 16th sessions, and the activities were based on the Motor Speech Hierarchy(MSH), except for the subjects of the non-verbal autism spectrum disorder. According to the analysis of the dependent variables, 'speech production' was the most common, followed by 'speech motor control', 'articulation', and 'speech intelligibility' were highest. Combined with all these studies, it suggests that PROMPT, which are directly useful for exercise spoken word production, are effectively being used outside the country and that it is necessary to develop a PROMPT program that can be applied domestically, in Korea.
Keywords
PROMPT; Speech production; Treatment program; Speech motor control; Literature analysis;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Z. Zhian, (2017). Tracking Visible Features of Speech for Computer-Based Speech Therapy for Childhood Apraxia of Speech. Master thesis. York University. Toronto.
2 V. Yu, D. Kadis, A. Oh, D. Goshulak., A. Namasivayam, M. Pukonen. & E. Pang. (2014). Changes in voice onset time and motor speech measures in children with motor speech disorders after PROMPT therapy. Clinical Linguistic and Phonetics, 28(6), 396-412.   DOI
3 D. Kadis, D. Goshulak, A. Namasivayam, M. Pukonen, R. Kroll, L. Nil. & J. Lerch, (2014). Cortical thickness in children receiving intensive therapy for idiopathic apraxia of speech. Brain Topography, 27(2), 240-247.   DOI
4 A. Bose, P. Square, R. Schlosser. & P. Lieshout. (2001). Effects of PROMPT therapy on speech motor function in a person with aphasia and apraxia of speech. Aphasiology, 15(8), 767-785.   DOI
5 E. Ko, (2018). Educating Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children : Hakjisa
6 J. A. Bauman-Waengler, (2000) Articulatory and phonological impairments: a clinical focus. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
7 K. H Kang. (2000). Improvement of alveolar sound production through speech therapy. Master thesis. Dankook University. Yongin.
8 S. Rogers, D. Hayden, S. Hepburn, R. Charlifue-Smith, T. Hall. & A .Hayes. (2006). Teaching young nonverbal children with autism useful speech: A pilot study of the Denver Model and PROMPT interventions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(8),1007-1024.   DOI
9 D. Hayden, & I Stockman. (2004). PROMPT: A tactually grounded treatment approach to speech production disorders. Movement and action in learning and development: Clinical implications for pervasive developmental disorders, 255-297
10 G. T. Baranek. (2002). Efficacy of sensory and motor interventions for children with autism. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 32(5), 397-422.   DOI
11 D. Hayden. (2006). The PROMPT model: Use and application for children with mixed phonological-motor impairment. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 8(3), 265-281.   DOI
12 D. Hayden, & P. Square. (1994). Motor speech treatment hierarchy: A systems approach. Clinics in Communication Disorders, 4(3), 162-174.
13 D. Hayden, & P. Square. (1999). VMPAC: Verbal motor production assessment for children. San Antonio; The Psychological Corporation.
14 V. Yu, D. Kadis, D. Goshulak, A. Namasivayam, M. Pukonen, R. Kroll, L. Nil. & E. Pang, (2018) Impact of Motor Speech Intervention on Neural Activity in Children with Speech Sound Disorders: Use of Magnetoencephalography. Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science, 8, 415-429.   DOI
15 R. Ward, S. Leitao. & G. Strauss. (2014). An evaluation of the effectiveness of PROMPT therapy in improving speech production accuracy in six children with cerebral palsy. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(4), 355-371.   DOI
16 M. Grigos, D. Hayden, & J. Eigen, (2010). Perceptual and articulatory changes in speech production following PROMPT treatment. Journal of Medical Speech Pathology, 18(4), 46-53.
17 P. McCauley. & E. Strand, (2008). A review of standardized tests of nonverbal oral and speech motor performance in children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 181-91.
18 R. Mercado, K. Simpson. & K. Bellom-Rohrbacher. (2019). Effect of Prompts for Restructuring Oral Muscular Phonetic Targets (PROMPT) on Compensatory Articulation in Children With Cleft Palate/Lip. Global Pediatric Health.
19 R. O. Lee (2019). The Influence of Communication Mediation Program Using the In this study, communication mediation using the PROMPT. Master thesis. Daegu University. Daegu.
20 L. Shriberg. (2002). Classification and misclassification of child speech sound disorders. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Speech Language and Hearing Association. Atlanta, GA: Nov.
21 J. Gierut. (1998). Treatment efficacy: functional phonological disorders in children. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research. 42, 85-100.
22 R. Waring. & R. Knight. (2013). How should children with speech sound disorders be classified? A review and critical evaluation of current classification systems. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. 48, 25-40.   DOI
23 A. Namasivayam, M. Pukonen, D. Goshulak, V. Yu,, D. Kadis, R. Kroll. & L. Nil. (2013). Changes in speech intelligibility following motor speech treatment in children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 46(3), 264-80.   DOI
24 M. J. Shin et al. (2018). Speech Mechanism Screening Test for Children : An Evaluation of Performance in 3- to 12-Year-Old Normal Developing Children. Communication Sciences and Disorders. 23(1).180-197.   DOI
25 E. T. Kim et al (2018). Validity and reliability analyses for the development of urimal test of articulation and phonology-2. Communication Sciences and Disorders. 23(4). 959-970.   DOI