What speech pathologists are doing with people with PIMD in the UK

Professor Juliet Goldbart, from Manchester Metropolitan University, presented the following paper at ISAAC in Barcelona. Below is the extended abstract.
I haven’t included the references – give me a yell if you want them too.

Significant impairments in language and communication are a core feature of profound intellectual disability (PID, Arthur-Kelly, Bochner & Mok, 2007; Lacey & Ouvry, 1998). Many people with PID will have additional sensory or physical disabilities, complex health needs or mental health difficulties. Children and adults with profound intellectual disability can thus be seen as one of the most vulnerable groups in society. Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists’ (RCSLT) Clinical Guidelines state that speech and language therapy should be available to people with profound disability, however, the evidence base for assessment and intervention in this area is small and fragmented.
A recent review identified six intervention approaches for this client group for which evidence was available. These were direct approaches:
• utilising micro-switch technology (Lancioni, O’Reilly & Basili, 2001)
• Intensive Interaction (Watson, & Fisher, 1997)
• Objects of Reference (Jones, Pring & Grove, 2002) and
• creative arts therapy (Graham, 2004),
and indirect approaches:
• environmental modification (Vlaskamp, de Geeter, Huijsmans, & Smit, 2003) and
• staff and parent training (Bloomberg, West & Iacono, 2003).
The number of evaluations in all areas except microswitching and, to a lesser extent, intensive interaction, was very small. It was also unclear to what extent each of these approaches was being used in practice with children or adults with profound impairments.
Of these approaches, use of Objects of Reference and micro-switching can be seen as precursors to the introduction of more formal AAC. Of interest, was the extent of use of these approaches, and any others which might support the introduction of alternative and augmentative communication.
This study has explored the interventions used by speech and language therapists (SLTs) with this client group in the UK, together with the rationales for their clinical decisions, thus providing the “expert clinical opinion” component of evidence-based practice.
1. To investigate which communication intervention approaches are used most commonly by SLTs working with children and adults with profound intellectual disability.
2. To explore the rationales given by SLTs when deciding on communication assessment and intervention for clients with profound intellectual disability, with a focus on those approaches that might be seen as precursors to the introduction of more formal AAC.
Design: An exploratory investigation using a survey to gather information from SLTs about current practice and rationales for clinical decisions around communication assessment and intervention for children and adults with PID.
Survey Design & Piloting: The design of the survey was informed by discussion within the IASSID Profound Disability Special Interest Research Group, consultation with experienced speech and language therapists and the literature on survey design. The survey collected data about the published and unpublished assessments and interventions used by SLTs, the factors that influenced their choices and the reasons they gave for selecting them.
The survey, prior to distribution, was piloted by three experienced SLTs and refined for clarity and ease of use.
Participants, Sampling & Recruitment: Participants were SLTs who identified themselves as working with children and/or adults with PID in the United Kingdom. Multiple, non-probability sampling techniques were used to maximise response rate, these included purposive, snowball and convenience sampling.
Data Collection: The RCSLT circulated the survey to Special Interest Groups (SIG) and advertised it in their Bulletin and CPD Newsletter. An introductory letter, information sheet, consent form and a copy of the survey were sent to those asking to take part. Anonymity, confidentiality, voluntary participation and data protection were assured. Participants returned the survey and consent forms via email or post. Surveys were coded and data was entered into SPSS.
Fifty-five SLTs responded to the survey, 25 worked exclusively with adults, 20 with children and 10 with both. In total 35 SLTs worked with adults with PID and 29 worked with children with PID.
Data Analysis: Descriptive and content analyses were employed to explore the quantitative and qualitative data respectively (Wilkinson, 2003).
Objects of Reference are one of the most commonly reported intervention approaches, cited by 73% of SLTs working with children and 77% of those working with adults, despite very limited evidence for its effectiveness.
In contrast, the approach with the most evidential support, microswitching, appears within “Cause and Effect”, but was reported as used by only 10.9% of respondents (with children: 14%, with adult: 7%).
Although people with profound intellectual impairment might be seen as presymbolic, or at very early stages of symbolic development, symbolic approaches were used by 29% of respondents, though this was far more frequent with children (41%) than with adults (23%).
Reasons given for using Objects of Reference were primarily to develop the user’s ability to understand and predict events. Specific reference to working towards AAC was made by only one respondent (<2%).
Microswitching was regarded as important in developing cause and effect relationships and the beginning of intentional communication. Specific reference to AAC was again made by only one respondent.
There is a mismatch between the approaches reported as used by SLTs with people with PID, and those evaluated in published research. It could be argued both that further research is required to evaluate commonly used, but relatively unevaluated approaches such as Objects of Reference. Also, there is a need for in-service education to alert SLTs to the evidence base supporting certain under-used approaches.
Communication interventions used with this client group do not typically seem to be viewed as leading towards more formal AAC approaches. This issue would benefit from further discussion.

I wonder if similar studies have been done in OT, Physio, education, or other areas?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *