Very useful site which lists many of the s/lt interventions used with children as well as their evidence base..

[moondog]

or lack of.

What works

I applaud the profession for getting this up and running but in many ways it makes depressing reading as so much of what is standard practice has no evidence.

SULP, for example, a widely used social skills programme. Yet when compared to 'lego therapy' the lego therapy kids had better outcomes.

It may help many of you have the courage to ask searching questions of the professionals who work with your child and come to decisions about what is really useful and what is quite simply nothing more than a time filler.

Perhaps this won't work. The Durham fish oil trial... on the other hand

Recently attended a talk about this. The vast majority of 'trials' in education are single - group treatment trials - take a group of kids, measure them in a particular area eg reading accuracy - then do the intervention and then re-test. It is very rare to include a non-treatment matched control group in part because I think people don't like to think you are deliberately excluding a group of children who you know have needs from an intervention programme. I agree with Moondog about not expecting teachers (in their jobs as they currently are) to do trials, but I DO expect the publishers to complete and publish evidence. Of course ideally you want independent research as well (This is what has always plagued ABA, they were reluctant for a long time to allow independent research), trainee psychologists do some of this but not in any sort of organised way, just whatever takes their fancy. FWIW I think teachers are quite well placed to do some of this research as I expect they have lots of data sitting around in cupboards from groups they have run, but need time and some organisation and guidance to use this data in any meaningful way.

polter - Agreed!

Maryeea. I don't think s/lts should have won that battle.
They have not had the training of psychologists for example and it irks me that they expect to be taken so seriously in the face of such a paucity of evidence for what they do.
Let's remind ourselves of this yet again.
?the existing research literature is insufficient to act as a base for a robust estimation of the costs and benefits of investment in services for children with speech, language and communication needs. Far more research is required to understand for whom and under what circumstances treatment is effective?
(Cochrane Review, 2009)

Polter, agree with you here
'Part of the issue, in my experience, is that degree courses do not teach students how to properly evaluate research.'

Same is true of s/lts.

There is no middle ground between full on peer reviewed journals that are largely incomprehensible to most and the utterly subjective 'Let's grab whatever we can from the cupboard approach'

Special needs has been traditionally a low prestige area so it has not attracted the best and brightest teachers or s/lts. That is changing however.

is it just me who is finding it difficult to locate the list of interventions and supporting data? Am I being thick?

Also I definitely agree with IE that SLTs should absolutely have an eye on the constantly emerging evidence surrounding what they should be doing, with whom, and in what way. Surely, surely, surely SLTs are obliged to be supervised and undertake CPD? Reading a journal does not take long. I absolutely expect this of SLTs as I would any professional, doctor, pharmacist, chemist, chiropodist, midwife.

Don't get me started on midwives

Handy, I linked in too late I think so go to 'Go back to what works' links and then register. Don't get too excited though.
I read something interesting recently (which I hadn't misplaced reference) that estimated a GP would have to read for 23 hours a day to keep up with latest findings.

What is unbelievable is that people don't even know about basic stuff. The five tenets of effective reading for example. Most teachers wouldn't know these and very few have a real understanding of what 'phonemic awareness' is. Thus you have numpties like Christine Blower of aptly named NUT sounding off about phonics when it is apparent she hasn't a clue.

-Phonemic awareness
? Phonics
? Fluency
? Vocabulary
? Comprehension

God Maryeaa, and midwives talking crap about breastfeeding which is an area of real interest to me.
There is such a range in every profession unfortunately, from stars like Pam Enderby who brought about that equal pay s/lt challenge (she deserves every penny and more) to the frankly vast swathe of barely acceptable folk.

Moondog, if you are an SLT, why do you belittle your profession on this thread?

(you said that SLTs don't deserve to be regarded as equal in pay terms with psychologists and pharmacists, then you contradict this in your last post by describing Pam Enderby as a 'star' who brought about the same 'equal pay' claim.

I'm confused.

ah moondog, don't fret, there must be loads of rubbish pharmacists too . And at least the SLTs have you snapping at their heels

The limits of evidence based practice

An alternative view

jabiru maybe because she has first hand experience of what actually goes on in the proffession and does not agree with it.

I thought it was pretty clear from her post that Pam Enderby was a star because she was a briliant SLT not because she brought about the equal pay case. Even your heroes can sometimes do thing you don't agree with..

Ah, Jabiru, aren't you the person who got yourself all worked up because the posters on this forum don't automatically thing that s/lts can walk on water and are beyond reproach? I'll remind you of the following.

'Research evidence can only be constructed as a threat
because it forces the scientist in us to engage, confronts
lazy and easy practice, and demands each clinician brings thinking to the process. If we accept that science is a way of thinking more than it is a body of facts (Sagan
1996), research evidence can be seen as a facilitator
enabling the profession to grow.

Embracing it indicates the profession?s commitment to best practice and keeps us bound to the scientific tradition. Plante (2004) argues that the increasing emphasis on evidence rather than intuition for guiding SLT practice signals disciplinary maturation. The use of non-scientific and pseudoscientific practices in our midst is surely sufficient reason to view research evidence as a valuable tool for a scientifically based profession. Ignoring the research literature keeps therapy, as Hubble et al. (1999) say ?trapped in a ?mythological world?.'

I have no doubt that you will of course have already read this in our profession's peer reviewed journal. I trained with Arlene. She's another star.

Interesting links Maryeea (as always)
I don't think anyone is denying that EBP involves clinical expertise and intimate knowledge of the individual in question. I've always been told that Sackett nailed it best and I often see this quote alongside a Venn diagram showing 1.) research evidence, 2.) own experience and expertise and 3.) client and situation.

'The conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients? (This) means integrating individual clinical experience with the best available external evidence from systematic research? (Sackett et al. 1996)

this is a very old thread! but just in case anyone comes across it, the comment about lego therapy being more effective than SULP actually isn't true. It was an interesting research study that found statistically significant progress for the children who followed SULP in the areas of communication and socialisation. The children who took part in lego therapy didn't do as well as those who followed SULP in these areas but they did improve in other areas. I have included the reference to the research paper in my film SULP: What Difference Does It make? on the link below

Interesting! And yes, a very old thread, but I’m impressed you’ve popped up.