Proven

Research demonstrates the efficacy of telepractice.

Telepractice is Proven

Telepractice is a relatively new way to deliver services; however, that doesn’t mean it’s untested! The emerging research shows telepractice and remote education can be effective. Learn more about the evidence that supports the use of telepractice in different areas below.

Contact Us!

When it comes to telepractice, one of the biggest questions on everyone’s minds is, “Does this work as well as onsite services?” That’s an important question to keep asking, but the more we do the more we find that the answer is “Yes!” Given the right tools and training, telespeech, tele-OT, telepsychology, and other services can be just as effective, and sometimes even more efficient. As the body of evidence grows, we are learning that administrators and parents can be confident that their child is being effectively served for even specific clinical needs like apraxia, stuttering, and visual motor skills. But don’t take our word for it! Learn more about some of the published research that supports the use of telepractice below.

Speech-Language Pathology

Articulation and Phonological Disorders

Assessment

Crutchley et al. (2010): Assessed using Goldman-Fristoe 2 (formal test) on children via telepractice and on-site. High correlation for raw scores.

Jessiman et al. (2003): Assessed two children with three standardized tests. “Correctness” vs. “Incorrectness” could be judged well through telepractice.

Waite et al. (2012): Assessed 20 children simultaneously by telepractice an an onsite clinician. They used the following measures:

  • Speech intelligibility: There was exact agreement between the two evaluators on 70% of measures and close agreements (within 5 points) on all measures.
  • Oral-Motor tasks: There was exact agreement between the two evaluators on 73% of measures and close agreements (within 5 points) on 96% of measures.

Intervention

Gabel et al. (2013): Compared therapy results of students receiving services through telepractice to peers in ASHA’s National Outcomes Measurement System (NOMS) database. For speech-sound disorders, telepractice caseload compared favorably to onsite caseload.

Grogan-Johnson et al. (2013): 14 students in on-site or telepractice for 5 weeks. Both groups made improvements. No significant difference between groups.

Grogan-Johnson et al. (2011): Speech therapy using computer-based interventions by on-site or telepractice. Both groups made significant improvements.

Grogan-Johnson et al. (2010): Two groups of 17 children received treatment on-site and via telepractice. Groups switched service delivery at 4 months. No significant difference in performance seen between groups.

  • Crutchley, S., Dudley, W., & Campbell, M. (2010). Articulation assessment through videoconferencing: A pilot study. Communications of Global Information Technology, 2, 12-23.
  • Gabel, R., Grogan-Johnson, S., Alvares, R., Bechstein, L., Taylor, J. (2013). A Field Study of Telepractice for School Intervention Using the ASHA NOMS K-12 Database. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 35:44.
  • Grogan-Johnson, S., Schmidt, A. M., Schenker, J., Alvares, R., Rowan, L. E., & Taylor, J. (2013). A Comparison of Speech Sound Intervention Delivered by Telepractice and Side-by-Side Service Delivery Models. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 34(4), 210-220.
  • Grogan-Johnson, S., Gabel, R., Taylor, J., Rowan, L., Alvares, R., & Schenker, J. (2011). A pilot exploration of speech sound disorder intervention delivered by telehealth to school-age children. International Journal of Telerehabilitation,3(1), 31-42.
  • Grogan-Johnson, S., Alvares, R., Rowan, L., & Creaghead, N. (2010). A pilot study comparing the effectiveness of speech language therapy provided by telemedicine with conventional on-site therapy. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 16, 134-139.
  • Jessiman SM. (2003). Speech and language services using telehealth technology in remote and underserviced areas. Journal of Speech-Language-Pathology and Audiology. 27 (1):45–51.
  • Waite, M.C., Theodoros, D.G., Russell, T.G., Cahill, L.M. (2012). Assessing childrens’ speech intelligibility and oral structures and functions via an internet-based telehealth system. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 18 (4): 198-203.

Childhood Apraxia of Speech

Assessment

Hill et al. (2009): This study was performed on adults, but provides a base for looking at CAS. The Apraxia Battery for Adults-2 was used to assess 11 adults via telepractice and on-site. There were no significant differences found in telepractice and on-site scores.

  • Hill, A. J., Theodoros, D. G., Russell, T. G., & Ward, E. C. (2009). Using telerehabilitation to assess apraxia of speech in adults. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 44, 731–747.

Language

Assessment

Fairweather, Parkin and Roza (2004): Assessed 13 school-aged children via telepractice and on-site using standardized articulation and language tests and language sample analysis. Range of agreement on severity of the disorder was (69% - 92%). Complete agreement reached for 69% of participants. No significant difference in on-site and telepractice ratings.

Waite et al. (2010): Compared standard language test (CELF-4) administration in onsite and telepractice settings. No significant differences found between total raw scores and scaled scores.

Intervention

Hall et al. (2014): Case study of 7-year-old AAC (assistive technology) user. Received 4 weeks of on-site and 4 weeks of telepractice therapy targeting grammar. Student outcomes were similar in both on-site and telepractice conditions.

Scheideman-Miller et al. (2002): Two year pilot study of a telepractice program in a school. Significant improvements across domains. Two students exited from SLP services.

  • Fairweather, C.; Parkin, M.; Roza, M. (2004). Speech and language assessment in school-aged children via videoconferencing. Paper presented at the 26th World Congress of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, Brisbane, Australia.
  • Hall, N., Boisvert, M., Jellison, H., Andianopoulos, M. (2014). Language intervention via text-based tele- AAC: A case study comparing on-site and telepractice services. Perspectives on Telepractice, 4, 61-70.
  • Scheideman-Miller, C., Clark, P. G., Smeltzer, S. S., Cloud, A., Carpenter, J., Hodge, B., & Prouty, D. (2002). Two year results of a pilot study delivering speech therapy to students in a rural Oklahoma school via telemedicine. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Retrieved from www.hicss.hawaii.edu/HICSS_35/HICSSpapers/PDFdocuments/HCTMD06.pdf.
  • Waite, M., Theodoros, D. G., Russell, T., & Cahill, L. (2010). Internet-based telehealth assessment of language using the CELF-4. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 445-458.

Fluency

Intervention

Bridgman (2014): Compared 49 preschoolers: 24 receiving fluency intervention onsite and 25 through telepractice. No differences between on-site and telepractice in (1) therapy hours to achieve benchmark in program, (2) reduction in stuttering behaviors.

Carey et al. (2010): Compared fluency intervention with 20 subjects on-site and 20 through telepractice. No significant difference in outcomes.

Irani et al. (2009): Case study of 1 fluency client. Received intensive, on-site treatment for 3-weeks and 12-months of telepractice follow-up. Client made progress in on-site segment. Progress continued through telepractice follow-up.

Lewis et al. (2008): Lidcombe Program administered for 9 months to 8 children by telepractice. Treatment group made significant progress through telepractice intervention.

O’Brian et al. (2014): Three preschoolers participated in Lidcombe program via webcam. Each made and maintained progress.

Sicotte et al. (2003): Six clients received treatment through telepractice. Each made significant progress and maintained progress.

  • Bridgman, K. (2014.) Webcam Delivery of the Lidcombe program for preschool children who stutter: A randomised controlled trial. Unpublished thesis. The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Retrieved from: http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/11658.
  • Carey, B., O’Brian, S., Onslow, M., Block, S., Jones, M., Packman, A. (2010). Randomized controlled noninferiority trial of telehealth treatment for chronic stuttering: The Camperdown program. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 45, 108– 120.
  • Irani, F., Gabel, R., Swartz, E., Palasik, S. (2009.) Intensive stuttering therapy with telepractice follow-up: Evaluating effectiveness. Poster presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language- Hearing Association, 2009. New Orleans, Louisiana.
  • Lewis, C., Packman, A., Onslow, M., Simpson, J.A. & Jones, M. (2008). A phase 1 trial of telehealth delivery of the Lidcombe Program of Early Stuttering Intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 139-149.
  • O’Brian, S.; Smith, K.; Onslow, M. (2014) Webcam Delivery of the Lidcombe Program for Early Stuttering: A Phase I Clinical Trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, June 2014, Vol. 57, 825-830.
  • Sicotte, C. Lehoux, P. Fortier-Blanc, J. Leblanc, Y. (2003). Feasibility and outcome evaluation of a telemedicine application in speech-language pathology. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 9, 253–258.

Occupational Therapy

Assessment & Intervention

Criss et al. (2013): In this pilot study, eight school-age children with fine motor and visual motor concerns were evaluated online, provided six remote intervention sessions to address handwriting, and re-assessed. Most students showed improvement in handwriting and all participants reported high satisfaction.

Savard et al. (2003): The authors describe a telerehabilitation program in which 117 encounters occurred remotely, 38 of which were neurologic in nature. Clinician consistently rated that the remote sessions were effective.

Sanford et al. (2007): 32 participants who used mobility devices were assessed for six mobility and transfer tasks and provided intervention for four weeks. Half of the participants received traditional in-home services and half were seen through telerehabilitation technology. There were no significant difference in the number of problems identified, recommendations made, or recommendations implemented for five of the six tasks.

  • Criss, Melanie Joy. “School-Based Telerehabilitation in Occupational Therapy: Using Telerehabilitation Technologies to Promote Improvements in Student Performance.” International Journal of Telerehabilitation 5.1 (2013): 39–46.PMC. Web. 21 June 2016.
  • Savard, L., Borstad, A., Tkachuck, J., Lauderdale, D., & Conroy, B. (2003). Telerehabilitation consultations for clients with neurologic diagnoses: Cases from rural Minnesota and American Samoa. NeuroRehabilitation, 18, 93–102.
  • Sanford, J., Hoenig, H., Griffiths, P., Butterfield, T., Richardson, P., & Hargraves, K. (2007). A comparison of televideo and traditional in-home rehabilitation in mobility impaired older adults. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 25, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/J148v25n03_01.

School Psychology

Assessment

Wright (2016): 240 students were randomly assigned to receive cognitive and achievement testing (Woodcock-Johnson) through either remote or traditional onsite administration. No significant differences was found in results between the two conditions.

  • Wright, A.J. (2016). Equivalence of Remote, Online Administration and Traditional, Face-to-Face Administration of Woodcock-Johnson IV Cognitive and Achievement Tests. Unpublished Manuscript. Empire State College, SUNY, Saratoga Springs, NY.

Contact Us

Phone:
Special Ed Director Name:
(CTRL+Click for multiple states)
Comments: