Perspective-Taking for Neurotypicals

Stephanie_SandersSanders_FILTER

By Stephanie D. Sanders, MA, CCC-SLP, author of The FILTER Approach: Social Communication Skills for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders

While creating The FILTER Approach, I took exhaustive measures to help students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD’s) identify, comprehend, and explain essential social skills, while putting them into practice.  As I implemented this curriculum, it began a personal perspective-taking opportunity for me.  I noticed weaknesses within my own communication skills in specific situations. A perfect example is my inability to Listen to my family with technology distractions in view (thank you, Pinterest).  Demonstrating social errors as a neurotypical Speech-Language Pathologist (SLP) could likely justify a new DSM-5 diagnosis of “social skills hypocrite.”

The truth is that most of us have room for improvement socially and in considering the perspectives of those with social impairments.  Perspective-taking tasks usually present a challenge to individuals with ASD, due to Theory of Mind.  I’ve frequently referenced the idiom “put yourself in my shoes” with students during these activities. However, SLP’s can also struggle with taking perspective when driven by accountability for pragmatic language goals printed on a report. I become frustrated when my student resists the educationally relevant IEP goals that will undoubtedly transform him or her into a social skills superhero.  An epiphany soon occurred with a hint of witty wordplay.  My mission: try taking a new perspective on perspective-taking.

I began investigating:

  • How do those with social impairments perceive conversation?

I asked students individually, “Why are conversations important?”  The same response was consistently given, “To find out information.”  This perspective came across as task-driven, lacking any element of enjoyment.  Some interrogation sessions I’ve witnessed appear to be information-seeking at its finest.  In other instances, my students feel obligated to be the source of information.  They lecture peers regarding topics of interest, rather than seeking to find out information.  We’ve discussed how obsessive interests and “conversation hog” habits will cause one to miss the Target, socially.  I’ve also taught this concept in the middle school gifted-student classroom during monthly F.I.L.T.E.R. lessons.  Luckily, the “conversation hog” reference hasn’t triggered any speeches about swine or guinea pig fixations!

Other questions on my mind:

  • How are common rules of social language perceived?
  • What are the most stressful things about social situations?

My little brother Zach was diagnosed with an ASD at the age of thirteen and was my primary inspiration for “The FILTER Approach.” As part of this perspective-taking endeavor, I knew it would be beneficial to get Zach’s viewpoint on social rules.  I asked him to speak freely, without concern of giving a wrong answer.

Me: What do you think the expression, “Put yourself in his/her shoes” means?

Zach: It means you should consider the other person’s feelings.

Me: Exactly.  I want to put myself in your shoes to find out what conversation is like for you, having an ASD.  I want to know your perspective about some social rules in conversation.

Zach: Okay.

Me:  What do I mean when I tell you to “use your filter” in conversation?

Zach: It’s what you should or should NOT say in conversation.  If you always say what you’re thinking, then you could look bad as an employee, lose respect, and look unconcerned about feelings.

Me: Great explanation!  Now I want your perspective on some social rules from my book.  How do you feel about making eye contact and looking for Facial clues?

Zach: A little uncomfortable.  A symptom of people with Autism is sometimes having a hard time with eye contact.  I don’t want to give too much and it’s hard for me to know.

Me: Very true.  We’ve talked about glancing, which works.  You’ve done a nice job of avoiding inappropriate topics in person.  However, you and many other people might post strong opinions on Facebook.  Why do you think that is?

Zach: On Facebook, it’s virtual and like your own little world, so it’s not as real.  It’s uncomfortable in person because you’re actually with them.

Me:  I see what you’re saying.  Do you think it’s hard to Listen during a conversation with someone and why or why not?

Zach: It can be a lot of work. Sometimes I run out of things to say or my mind is off-topic while I’m trying to listen.  The conversation gets stressful if it’s too long and boring.  Sometimes, I think about something totally unrelated, like a conversation with someone earlier.

Me:  Staying focused probably does feel like a lot of work. Why do you think we should try to “hit the Target” socially and what did we talk about for your target?

Zach: We should make goals to be successful. I need to close my conversations with “See you later” and ask about someone else’s interests.

Me: Excellent. Is it awkward for you to End conversations with people at places like church or work?

Zach: Yes, because I run out of things to say.  It’s also difficult to end things at work when my shift is over.  I want to tell my manager I’m ready to leave, but he’s usually busy.  If I just leave, I might look disrespectful like I’m trying to get out of my job.

Me:  Later, we’ll make a plan for leaving work.  Is it difficult for you to Repair conversation mistakes you’ve made and have you used some of the Repair tools we’ve talked about?

Zach: I’ve used some.  Apologizing can be hard and it’s hard to admit you’re wrong.  I’ve asked, “Should I stop now?” when the person was being quiet. I also messaged, “Did I say something wrong?” two times to someone on Facebook who quit talking to me.  He never responded, so I didn’t ask anymore.

Me: I’m so proud of you for trying to Repair social mistakes.  You made a good choice to quit asking when the person on Facebook never responded.  At least you tried.

Me: Overall, what are the most stressful things for you in social situations?

Zach:  It’s stressful because:

  • I don’t know what the other person is thinking.
  • I don’t know if I’ve said something wrong.
  • I don’t know what will happen to that friendship (in the future).
  • It’s tough to start new friendships as an adult.
  • Losing a childhood friendship is discouraging and can’t be replaced.
  • I’ve become shy as an adult.

Me:  Thanks for sharing, Zach.  Therapists need to consider what it’s like for someone with ASD to follow these rules.  It has really helped me to hear your perspective.

From Zach’s outlook, it must be draining to worry about confusing social cues and potential negative outcomes.  If someone repeatedly struggles to use verbal and nonverbal social behaviors in conversation, then it could become a losing battle.  Isn’t it easier to retreat into a virtual world where at least all of the nonverbal challenges are removed?  Many of our students/clients with ASD’s could perceive communication as a lot of effort with little worth.

The challenge is to find pragmatic goals that are realistic, beneficial, and meaningful for our students/clients.  The perspectives of these individuals are usually disregarded as wrong with an immediate need for change. If I truly listen to the individual’s perspective, I can not only set an example of showing interest, but also ensure my therapy approach remains individualized.  I can clearly and personally define the advantages of practicing good social habits now in order to make future social success a possibility. Taking the student’s perspective increases my chances of enlisting him or her in therapy, which will result in a more socially responsible individual. Early investment in the views of my students could allow the opportunity to become an influence in rewriting a lifelong story filled with social struggles and disappointments.

Speech-Language Pathologists Climbing the Steps to Mastery

Lydia_Kopel

Speech-Language Pathologists Climbing the Steps to Mastery
By Lydia Kopel
Co-author of IEP Goal Writing for Speech-Language Pathologists: Utilizing State Standards

Facing the mountain
As a speech-language pathologist (SLP), you are forever tackling a huge mountain called language. There are peaks at the top that you are trying to help your students/clients reach. Do you ever find yourself working on a skill with a student/client who does not seem to be making progress? That peak didn’t seem so far away, but along the way, you encounter twists and turns, making it around one corner only to face an obstacle around the next bend. Frustrating, right? On the inside you’re screaming, “Why can’t he get this? How can I approach this in a different way? What am I doing wrong?”

You’ve set your goal(s) for this individual carefully choosing the target skill(s). But, did you think about prerequisite skills? Prerequisite skills are all the skills that lead up to the targeted skill; the building blocks. Every skill has several prerequisite skills; each prerequisite skill has prerequisite skills. With language learning there is a great deal of scaffolding – one skill builds upon another skill, builds upon another skill, and so on. Let’s look at an example related to the skill of the main idea.

To be able to identify the main idea when it is not stated in a text, one has to have success with many other language skills. These include being able to answer factual questions, determine important details from unimportant details, determine how the details go together in the sequence of events, and be able to draw inferences. Of course, each one of these skills has even more prerequisite skills! And it doesn’t end there!

Each target skill also has several steps to mastery. With the same example of the main idea, we probably shouldn’t expect that a 6th grade student will learn the prerequisite skills outlined above and be able to identify the main idea and supporting details from a grade level text in one year. It is more likely that additional scaffolding and instruction will be needed at various steps. The student may first need to identify a supporting detail when given a choice of three and given the main idea in a 5th grade text. Maybe then you can move them to identifying three details that support a given main idea in a 5th grade text. With further scaffolding, this student may move toward identifying the details in a 6th grade text when the main idea is unknown. Going through these prerequisite skills and steps to mastery can increase an individual’s success and decrease therapist and client frustration—making for a much smoother climb up that language mountain.

Peaks and valleys
We all encounter those individuals who have splinter skills.   They have some of the language skills in the developmental continuum but are missing others. There may be no specific order, no rhyme or reason, to what they can and cannot do. If we can tap into the skills that haven’t fully developed, we can help increase performance on the target skills that are lacking.

Let’s look at the semantic skill of compare/contrast. Perhaps you have a client who can label pictures of nouns and verbs. He can tell you the color, size, and shape of single pictured items. He may be able to use comparatives and superlatives. However, he can’t sort items by attribute, identify things that do not belong, or state category labels. His describing skills are limited because he breaks down when more than one item is pictured together in a scene and more than two descriptors are expected.  Would it be reasonable to expect this client to state how two or more items are the same or different? It seems like there may be numerous gaps in his semantic skills that would be imperative to the skill of compare/contrast.

Reaching the peak
As an SLP, do you have students/clients who are lacking some of the necessary prerequisite skills? Taking the time to figure out what prerequisite skills are needed can lead to success with the target skill(s).   Take a step back and work on the missing skills. Sometimes we need to go backward in order to move forward.

When setting goals, consider the amount of prerequisite skills needed and how fast you anticipate the student to progress. Is your anticipated target skill too high? Maybe you need to aim for a smaller peak. Maybe the goal needs to be one of the prerequisite skills. Take it one step at a time and you’ll soon find the individual standing at the peak.

Prerequisite skills, goal writing, and much more are discussed and outlined in the book IEP Goal Writing for Speech-Language Pathologists:  Utilizing State Standards. Check it out!

Please visit our blog Living the Speech Life and feel free to contact us at livingthespeechlife@gmail.com

Lydia Kopel and Elissa Kilduff

Living the Speech Life

Nasal Emission Terminology Should be Evidence Based and Consistent with Physiology and Perceptual-Acoustic Characteristics

Nasal Emission Terminology Should be Evidence Based and Consistent with Physiology and Perceptual-Acoustic Characteristics (1)David J. Zajac, PhD, CCC-SLP, ASHA Fellow

Coauthor of Evaluation and Management of Cleft Lip and Palate: A Developmental Perspective

The term “cleft palate speech” has often been used to refer to hypernasality, nasal air emission, reduced oral air pressure, and compensatory articulations of speakers who exhibit velopharyngeal inadequacy (VPI). Hypernasality is defined as excessive resonance of the nasal cavity during production of vowels and voiced consonants. Nasal air emission refers to the audible escape of air during the production of high-pressure oral consonants, especially voiceless consonants. Reduced oral air pressure is the flip side of nasal air emission. When air escapes through the nose, some oral air pressure is lost. Thus, oral pressure consonantsespecially voiceless ones—may be produced with reduced oral air pressure and perceived as weak or reduced in intensity. Compensatory articulations are maladaptive gestures that are produced at the glottis or in the pharynx as a way to circumvent a faulty velopharyngeal valve. The use of glottal stops to replace oral stops is a classic example of a compensatory articulation. Hypernasality, nasal air emission, and reduced oral air pressure are passive (or obligatory) symptoms of VPI. This means that the symptoms occur as a direct consequence of incomplete velopharyngeal closure. Compensatory articulations, however, are active (or learned) behaviors and may not occur in every individual.

Although obligatory nasal air emission is a core characteristic of VPI, many confusing, overlapping, and inaccurate terms have been used to describe its perceptual manifestation. The literature is replete with terms such as audible nasal air emission, nasal turbulence, nasal rustle, and passive nasal frication. Because the velopharynx and nasal passage are complex anatomical structures— which may be significantly altered due to both congenital defects and surgical interventions associated with cleft lip and palate—the variety of terms used to describe nasal air emission should not be too surprising. Numerous other terms have been used to describe nasal air emission that is part of active (or learned) nasal fricatives and will not be discussed here. The reader is referred to Zajac (2015) for a discussion of active nasal fricatives as an articulatory error. Rather, this article will focus on terminology used to describe passive or obligatory nasal air escape.

A Brief History of Current Terminology

McWilliams, Morris, and Shelton in the first and second editions of Cleft Palate Speech (1984, 1990) described nasal air emission as occurring along a continuum. First, it could be visible but inaudible, detectable only by holding a mirror under the nostrils of a speaker to see fogging as a result of the air emission. In such a case, the nasal airflow is laminar, moving in relatively smooth fashion, and does not become turbulent, or noise producing. Clinically, visible nasal air emission typically occurs in speakers who have adequate but not complete velopharyngeal closure and normal resonance. Although visible nasal air emission should be noted when it occurs in a speaker, there are no treatment implications. Continue reading

Auditory-Verbal Therapy- Hearing, Listening, Talking, Thinking

Warren_Estabrooks

 

 

By Warren Estabrooks, M.Ed., Dip. Ed. Deaf, LSLS Cert. AVT, co-author of Auditory-Verbal Therapy: For Young Children with Hearing Loss and Their Families, and the Practitioners Who Guide Them

 

 

Globally, there is a great shift towards listening and spoken language for children who are deaf and hard of hearing.

Amazing auditory options, state-of-the-art hearing aids, and a variety of implantable hearing devices and the pursuit of excellent (re)habilitation by highly qualified practitioners working in partnerships with families, will hopefully become the standard of international health care and educational intervention for children with hearing loss around the world.

It is the work of therapists, teachers, audiologists, surgeons, social workers, and allied practitioners in health care and education to guide, navigate, and coach parents on their search for the treasure chest of spoken communication—to help them help their children discover the valued jewels of hearing, listening, and spoken conversation.  Practitioners everywhere form alliances of hope and trust with parents, and together we polish these precious gems until they sparkle and dance with life.

Why would one ever consider compromising when so much is possible?

We hope that one day we will look back and see an abundance of evidence-based outcomes, all barriers to equitable service gone, and a global focus on literacy with a deep understanding of powerful auditory access to the brain provided by state-of-the-art hearing technologies.

Renaissance man and mentor of many of today’s auditory-verbal practitioners, Dr. Daniel Ling, wrote that “auditory-verbal therapy… developed as a result of the natural outcomes of advances in knowledge, skills and technology.  As such advances occurred, new treatment strategies were devised to maximize their applications”.

Auditory-Verbal Therapy is now widely accepted because more children are acquiring, or have already acquired, the abilities to use spoken language, to interact more freely with other members of society, to obtain higher levels of academic education, and to have a more extensive range of careers, a greater security of employment and fewer limitations on the personal and social aspects of their lives” (Estabrooks, 2006).

Continue reading

2016 Awards and Honors

We are thrilled to announce the winners of the 2016 Plural Publishing Research Awards given in honor of the late Dr. Sadanand Singh, Plural’s founder. These two scholarships are awarded by the Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders and the honorees and their faculty sponsors will be acknowledged at the annual CAPCSD meeting award banquet, in San Antonio, TX on March 31.

At the MS/AuD level, the award went to Chelsea Hull of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Working with advisor Dr. Sherri Jones, Chelsea is researching the impact of Sound Field Amplification (SFA) devices, specifically the REDCAT amplification system, on student academic outcomes and teacher perspectives of this amplification system on academic improvement.

CAPCSD Scholarship Chelsea Hull

Chelsea Hull                                                         Au.D. Student                                             University of Nebraska-Lincoln

At the PhD level, the award was given to Nancy Quick of the University of North Carolina. Under advisor Dr. Melody Harrison, the focus of Nancy’s research is on investigating the impact of underlying linguistic sources of knowledge on spelling among children with hearing aids, cochlear implants and normal hearing, utilizing a multilinguistic analytic approach.

CAPCSD Scholarship Nancy Quick

Nancy Quick, M.S. CCC-SLP               University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill PhD Candidate in Speech and Hearing Sciences, Class of 2017

Congratulations Chelsea and Nancy on your achievements!


Continue reading

Healing Voices

Healing Voices (1)By Leda Scearce, MM, MS, CCC-SLP author of Manual of Singing Voice Rehabilitation: A Practical Approach to Vocal Health and Wellness

Singing is a part of virtually every culture and is fundamental to our human experience. In the United States, singing is enormously popular, as evidenced by the vast number of people engaged in all kinds of singing activities. Over 30 million Americans participate in choral singing alone (Chorus America, 2009). Shows such as The Voice, America’s Got Talent, and American Idol illustrate how passionate we are about singing. From the amateur recreational singer to the elite celebrity, we sing as soloists and in ensembles, with instruments and a cappella, in classical and contemporary styles, on stage, in concert, and in the shower.

Every person’s voice is unique and identifiable, and our voices can be a big part of our identity and how we see ourselves in the world. This is especially true for singers, for whom the voice is not only intricately tied to self-image and self-esteem but also may be a source of income and livelihood, creative expression, spiritual engagement, and quality of life. For a singer, a voice injury represents a crisis. Because of the specialized needs of singers, it takes a team—including a laryngologist, speech-language pathologist, and singing voice rehabilitation specialist—to get a singer back on track following an injury or voice disorder. Singing voice rehabilitation is a hybrid profession, requiring in-depth clinical and scientific knowledge married with excellence in teaching singing.

Voice problems are rarely isolated in etiology—usually multiple factors converge to create an injury. These factors may include poor vocal hygiene, inadequate vocal technique, an imbalance in vocal load and medical problems (allergies and reflux are common in singers, but thyroid, pulmonary, neurologic, and rheumatologic conditions are among the illnesses that may affect the voice). The singing voice rehabilitation process must encompass all elements that may be contributing to the problem: medical factors, vocal hygiene, vocal coordination and conditioning, vocal pacing, and emotional factors. Continue reading

The Changing Indications for Cochlear Implantation

Theodore R. McRackan, MD Otology, Neurotology, and Skull Base Surgery

By Ted McRackan, MD, co-editor of Otology, Neurotology, and Skull Base Surgery: Clinical Reference Guide

Cochlear implantation is the gold standard for treatment of severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Cochlear implants (CIs) were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1985 and have been suggested to be the most successful neural prosthesis created to date. Over 300,000 cochlear implants have been performed worldwide, with over 50,000 performed in the past year alone. Cochlear implantation involves a surgical procedure whereby an electrode array is placed in the cochlea of the inner ear, which is organized in a tonotopic fashion with decreasing characteristic frequency along its length. Modern CIs contain between 12 and 22 electrodes, which are spaced with the intention of each electrode stimulating a unique area of the spiral ganglia of the auditory nerve. Cochlear implants work by having an external microphone and an external processor convert an acoustic signal to an electrical signal. It is then sent to a speech processor, which is designed to enhance the signal and reduce noise before sending the information to the spiral ganglion through the CI electrode array.

Cochlear implantation is currently at an exciting time point due to the combination of improving technology and proven outcomes that has led to rapid expansion of its indications. The FDA approved the first single-channel CI electrode for adults in 1984, followed by the multichannel electrode in 1987. Cochlear implants were then approved in 1990 for children older than 2 years, in 1998 for children over 18 months, and ultimately in 2000 for children older than 12 months. There has been a recent push to implant children younger than 12 months due to evidence that children implanted at this age are more likely to catch up to normal-hearing peers at an earlier time point. Three major obstacles have hampered this movement. First, obtaining accurate hearing diagnostic testing in a timely manner can often be difficult in those less than 12 months. Second, there is a slight increased risk of surgical complications due to the low blood volume in this age group. Third, it can be extremely difficult to perform cochlear implant programming in this age group. Nonetheless, the clear benefits of early implantation likely outweigh these risks. Pediatricians, audiologists, and otolaryngologists are encouraged to identify infants with hearing loss as soon as possible for hearing rehabilitation. The earlier this is performed, the earlier children with profound hearing loss can be identified, and the earlier they can be implanted, leading to better CI outcomes.

Use of cochlear implantation in patients with residual hearing has been another area of rapid expansion. It was initially thought that all hearing would be lost with cochlear implantation and that if hearing was preserved, patients would not be able to process electrical and acoustic hearing. However, through the trials of the Cochlear Hybrid electrode and the MED-EL EAS electrode, it appears that both are possible. Through these and other trials, most patients had preserved residual hearing after cochlear implantation. Additionally, these patients showed improved hearing outcomes compared to patients without residual hearing. At the present time, it is not clear whether this preserved hearing is sustainable over time. This is an active area of investigation and will continue to be studied for years. Nevertheless, this technology has greatly expanded the indications for cochlear implantation beyond traditional candidacy.

As discussed above, it was previously thought that individuals would not be able to process combined electrical and acoustic hearing. However, cochlear implantation in patients with residual hearing proved this incorrect. This has led to the more widespread use of CIs in individuals with single-sided deafness. Current standard treatment for single-sided deafness includes devices that essentially ignore the deafened ear. However, with cochlear implantation, hearing can be restored to that ear. This was initially performed in patients with severe tinnitus in the deafened ear but is now being more commonly performed in the absence of tinnitus. Further work is certainly needed to develop a more comprehensive understanding of cochlear implantation in this population, but preliminary data show decreased head shadow effect and improvement in binaural summation, spatial release from masking, and potentially sound localization.

Beyond cochlear implantation, the use of auditory brainstem implants (ABIs) in children is another area of expansion. Although this has been performed in Europe for years, it is only more recently being performed in the non-neurofibromatosis type II population in the United States. Several centers have active clinical trials to perform ABIs in children unlikely to benefit from cochlear implantation due to either absent cochlear nerves or cochlear malformations. This is an unfortunate population as they have limited hearing rehabilitation options. Auditory brainstem implants provide an opportunity for hearing in this population, and the neurotology community is excited to hear the results of these trials.

We have come a long way since Bill House developed the first single-channel CI. As outcomes and technology continue to improve, the indications for cochlear implantation will grow. The audiology and otology communities are eager to see what the future holds for cochlear implantation.

About the Author
Dr. Theodore R. McRackan is an assistant professor of otolaryngology at the Medical University of South Carolina. He received his medical degree from the Medical University of South Carolina and completed his otolaryngology residency at Vanderbilt University. Dr. McRackan then completed his fellowship in neurotology-skull base surgery at the House Ear Clinic. His professional interests include neurotologic outcomes and quality of life research. Dr. McRackan and Derald E. Brackmann, MD co-edited Otology, Neurotology, and Skull Base Surgery, which serves as both a study resource for qualifying exams and a portable clinical reference guide. This text features a concise and approachable outline format, contributions by leaders in the field, and key topics such as anatomy and embryology, hearing loss, cochlear implantation, skull base tumors, vestibular disorders, and pediatric otology. View sample pages and place your order at www.PluralPublishing.com.

Attacking Social Interaction Problems Across the Lifespan

Autism: Attacking Social Interaction Problems

Autism: Attacking Social Interaction Problems by Betholyn F. Gentry, Pamela Wiley, and Jamie Torres-Feliciano

By Pamela Wiley, Ph.D., co-author of Autism: Attacking Social Interaction Problems

In my private practice, we are often asked by our funding sources when our children with ASD will no longer need social skills instruction. I often feel a sense of “indirect or subtle” pressure to discontinue our service and declare that a child is socially competent and basically cured of what is essentially the hallmark feature of ASD: impaired social interaction. However, given what I know and have observed with this population it is difficult both ethically and morally to do so.

As professionals we know that social skills are the foundation for getting along with others. We also know that there are social skills milestones which develop along a continuum. For example, one of the early skills focused on for our young children is “how” to make friends and join groups. Many are successful and with parental support during the preschool years engage in playdates and develop friendships with their typically developing peers. However, around 8 or 9 years of age the terrain shifts and children reportedly become more discriminating and scrutinizing as they select their friends. Labels such as nerd, cool and loser become important in the selection process. Our children with ASD often fall into the category of nerd.

As a result, many of them experience rejection and bullying and are left confused and hurt when their only friends abandon them. Social skills continue but our focus evolves to include discussions and skill steps to facilitate their understanding of “who” should be their friend and “how” our friends make us feel and accepting loss and changes in life. The need for social skills training into middle school and beyond can have a profound effect on the quality of life for these children.

High school brings yet another level of complex social interactions and negotiations especially when dealing with the opposite sex, changes in hormone levels, sexual maturation, and peer pressure.

The final phase is the transition process from high school to college and the world of work. The need for continued social skills training is essential and should address core clusters of skills critical for promoting independence and fulfilling lives: vocational, independent, and personal development. Social skills taught may include relationships and how to discriminate between a friend, a colleague, and an acquaintance, the importance of good hygiene, executive functioning, workplace conversation, nonverbal communication, unwritten social rules, and workplace idioms such as “hit the ground running” to name a few.

Based on decades of working with this population and the long-term relationships experienced with many of the children and families in my practice and more importantly the positive outcomes we have achieved, in response to the question, how long should children with ASD continue with social skills treatment, my short answer is, “Across the Lifespan.”

That having been said, based on the positive comments and requests from our colleagues following several ASHA presentations on social skills, my colleague and I have developed a series of social skills workbooks, Autism: Attacking Social Interaction Problems to cover the lifespan of children with ASD from 4 years to adulthood.

Our books contain clear and concise objectives and instructions on how to introduce and implement the lessons. Our approach is fun yet structured and each unit builds on previously learned skills to assist in the generalization of information across boundaries and contexts which include home, school, and the community while incorporating parent and teacher input.

Our newest additions are the teen and prevocational books which are fresh and relevant to today’s youth and include the use of social media and issues facing young people today such as sexting, texting, and TMI. The goal is to assist our students to develop a full range of interpersonal social competencies that can help them ultimately achieve acceptance in the workplace and develop a meaningful existence.

To learn more about our series of workbooks, visit Plural Publishing at www.pluralpublishing.com or our website www.speakla.com.

Tinnitus: In the Brain of the Beholder

Marc_Fagelson    Baguley_PTINN    David_Baguley

 

By: Marc Fagelson, BA, MS, PhD and David M. Baguley, BSc, MSc, MBA, PhD

Co-editors of Tinnitus: Clinical and Research Perspectives

Most audiologists and patients understand tinnitus to be the perception of a sound that is not connected in any way to an environmental event. For some patients, the sound produces minimal discomfort and is noticeable only a fraction of the time. Other patients are not so fortunate, and their tinnitus may persist and prove distracting when they are in the presence of other sounds or when they try to communicate. A relatively small proportion of patients with tinnitus, still probably more than 10 million people worldwide, have bothersome tinnitus that consistently reduces their quality of life and affects most routine activities. Such patients often respond to tinnitus as though its presence merits the attention and concern consistent with that demanded by a sound that is recognized as a threat. These patients illustrate some of the more confounding elements of tinnitus: it is a sound experience that may produce, or be associated with, powerful emotions and physiologic responses consistent with those demonstrated in fear-avoidance research.

A person’s experience with tinnitus may be complex and multi-faceted. Some patients link tinnitus to traumatic events, perhaps those that triggered the tinnitus onset. Other patients report psychological conditions such as anxiety and depression appear to exacerbate tinnitus and may be reinforced by tinnitus-related negative associations. Often, tinnitus severity is dictated not by the sound, but by the patient’s interpretation of and response to the sound. In this regard, the power of tinnitus to exert influence over a person’s life is in the eye, or ear, of the beholder.

Tinnitus interventions, then, may be viewed as proceeding along parallel tracks: abolishing or attenuating the sound may be the target of a treatment strategy, or the patient’s response to tinnitus may be the target of a management strategy. Both approaches are considered in detail, and with many examples, in Tinnitus: Clinical and Research Perspectives. Continue reading

The Ineffectiveness of Checklists in Diagnosing Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS)

Margaret_Fish  Fish_HHTCASE2E_low res

By Margaret Fish, MS, CCC-SLP, author of Here’s How to Treat Childhood Apraxia of Speech, Second Edition

Sorting through evaluation findings for young children with complex speech sound disorders can be confusing and challenging. As SLPs we strive to complete thorough evaluations and make sense of our evaluation findings to achieve an accurate diagnosis; however, many of the characteristics of CAS overlap with other types of speech sound disorders. Certain key characteristics from a CAS checklist such as inconsistency, atypical prosody, groping, or vowel errors may raise red flags for a diagnosis of CAS, but these characteristics alone should not predetermine the diagnosis until a thorough analysis of the child’s speech productions is completed.

Following are case studies of two children recently seen for consultations. Both children had an incoming diagnosis of CAS, but only one child was given a definitive diagnosis of CAS at the conclusion of the consultation. The other child demonstrated a number of characteristics commonly associated with CAS, but after careful examination of the child’s speech, the underlying nature of the challenges was not consistent with the core impairment of CAS that ASHA (2007) describes as the “planning and/or programming (of) spatiotemporal parameters of movement sequences.”

Case Study 1.

Mark, age 3 years, 7 months, had recently received a diagnosis of CAS by a diagnostic team at a local hospital. The diagnosis was based primarily on the following factors:

  • Reduced speech intelligibility (judged to be 50% intelligible)
  • A nearly complete repertoire of consonants and vowels
  • Inconsistent productions of the same word
  • Occasional vowel errors
  • Atypical speech prosody

Because of Mark’s limited speech intelligibility, inconsistency, vowel errors, and prosody differences, it was understandable how a diagnosis of CAS was made, as these characteristics often are associated with a positive diagnosis of CAS. Indeed, the use of a checklist of CAS characteristics alone could lead a clinician to conclude that Mark had CAS.

Continue reading