The COVID-19 crisis has forced speech-language pathologists to migrate from in-person delivery of speech treatment services to remote delivery via telepractice. This study will compare the efficacy of visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment versus non-biofeedback treatment in this setting. Specifically, participants will receive both visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment and non-biofeedback treatment via telepractice (Zoom call with screen-sharing) in a single-case randomization design. The hypothesis of interest is that sessions featuring visual-acoustic biofeedback will be associated with larger short-term gains than sessions featuring non-biofeedback treatment. To test this hypothesis, the study team will recruit up to 8 participants who will receive an initial treatment orientation followed by an equal dose of both types of treatment (10 sessions of visual-acoustic biofeedback and 10 sessions of non-biofeedback treatment). Participants will complete approximately two sessions per week via telepractice; each week will feature one session of each type, randomly ordered. They will also complete 4 pre-treatment baseline sessions and 3 post-treatment maintenance sessions to evaluate the overall magnitude of change over the course of treatment.
This study aims to evaluate the relative efficacy of biofeedback and traditional treatment for residual speech errors when both are delivered via telepractice. In a single-case randomization design, up to eight children with RSE will receive both visual-acoustic biofeedback and traditional treatment via telepractice. Acoustic measures of within-session change will be compared across sessions randomly assigned to each condition. It is hypothesized that participants will exhibit a clinically significant overall treatment response and that short-term measures of change will indicate that biofeedback is associated with larger increments of progress than traditional treatment.