A Comparison of Treatment lexicality (Real word, Nonword) in the SSR Intervention for Children with SSD

배경 및 목적: 상호작용적 이야기책 읽기를 활용한 조음중재를 바탕으로 하여 의미 자극어 및 무의미 자극어 훈련 방법을 실시하였을 때, 두 훈련 방법 중 아동의 조음 능력 향상에 더 효과적인 방법을 알아보고자 한다. 방법: 상호작용적 이야기책 읽기를 활용한 조음 중재 안에서 의미 자극어 훈련 방법과 무의미 자극어 훈련 방법을 교대로 실시한다. 결과: 중재 효과, 일반화, 유지에서 무의미 자극어 훈련 방법이 의미 자극어 훈련 방법보다 더 큰 효과를 나타냈다. 논의 및 결론: 첫째, 무의미 자극어 훈련 방법은 다양한 대상자 및 목표 음소에 따라 쉽게 변형하여 적용할 수 있으므로, 대상자의 특성 및 필요에 따라 적합한 중재 방법으로 적용할 수 있다. 둘째, 상호작용적 이야기책 읽기를 활용한 조음 중재는 치료의 중심을 아동에게 둔 중재 방법으로, 아동이 흥미를 갖는 이야기책을 사용하여 반복적으로 상호작용적 이야기책 읽기를 활용한 조음 중재를 한다면 아동이 활동에 흥미를 가지고 적극적으로 참여할 수 있을 것이다.

Objectives: This study focuses on finding out which of the two treatments (real word, nonword) is more effective in improving the percentage of consonants correct–revised (PCC-R) of the Children with Speech sound disorders (SSD). Methods: In this study, alternating treatments design (ATD) was used to compare the effect of two treatments. The subjects were 4 children with SSD (5;0-6;0). Subjects took tests about treated and untreated words in baseline, intervention, maintenance phases. In the intervention phase, each subject was trained twice a week for 20 sessions, and if a subject achieved 80% or higher target phoneme PCC-R ending for three consecutive sessions, the intervention program was completed. Additionally, a follow-up survey was carried out four weeks after the intervention program was completed by evaluating the treated and untreated words for three consecutive sessions to assess the maintenance effect. Results: All subjects were found to have a higher improvement in the target phoneme PCC-R in nonword treatment. In the generalization of untreated words, all subjects indicated an intervention improvement rate difference (IRD) in which the nonword treatment was better than the real word treatment. Comparing the effect of treatments in the maintenance phase, three subjects were found to have same effect size (1.00). and participant 2 indicated that the nonword treatment was more effective in maintaining the intervention effect. Conclusion: When the effectiveness of real word and nonword treatment was compared, in intervention effect, generalization and maintenance, the nonword treatment indicated greater effect than the real word treatment.