| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Contact Us |  
Commun Sci Disord. 2020;25(4): 976-986.
Published online December 31, 2020.
doi: https://doi.org/10.12963/csd.20756
The Efficacy of Telepractice Intervention for Children & Adolescents with Speech, Language & Hearing Impairments: a Meta-Analysis
Sang-Im Junga ,b , Sunghee Lima ,c , Eunha Joa , Hyun Sub Sima , Jee Eun Sunga , and Young Tae Kima
aDepartment of Communication Disorders, Ewha Womans University, Korea
bDepartment of Speech Language Therapy and Aural Rehabilitation, Woosong University, Daejeon, Korea
cDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Korea
Corresponding Author: Young Tae Kim ,Tel: +82-2-3277-2120, Fax: +82-2-3277-2122, Email: youngtae@ewha.ac.kr
Received July 20, 2020  Revised: August 12, 2020   Accepted August 12, 2020
Share :  
Telepractice is the remote delivery of speech and language services via telecommunication systems. No meta-analysis has investigated the topic of treating children and adolescents with speech, language and hearing impairments via telepractice using a direct comparison of telepractice with face-to-face-service delivery. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to estimate the efficacy of telepractice in the treatment of speech, language & hearing impairments in children and adolescents.
10 studies which met the inclusive criteria were selected from 9 electronic databases (Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, Eric, PubMed, CINAHL PLUS, Google Scholar, RISS, DBpia, Kyobo Scholar). A systematic review of literature was carried out using meta-analysis (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2). Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges’ g.
The analysis of the difference of mean effect sizes between telepractice and FTF intervention according to disorder types reveal that the intervention effect of FTF intervention was significantly larger than that of telepractice in speech sound disorders. Whereas in hearing impairments and ASD, there was no significant difference between the intervention effect of telepractice and that of FTF intervention. Also, the analysis of the difference of mean effect sizes according to treatment types reveal that there was no significant difference in the intervention effects of telepractice and FTF intervention in indirect treatment.
When selecting a treatment method between telepractice and FTF intervention, the results of this meta-analysis suggests that the characteristics of participants such as age, type of speech-language disorders, severity of disorders and cognitive ability including attention should be considered comprehensively.
Keywords: Telepractice | Telerehab | Teleintervention | Teletherapy | Meta-analysis
Editorial office contact information
Department of Speech and Language Pathology
College of Health Sciences, Chosun University,
Hayang-Ro 13-13, Hayang-Eup, Gyeongsan-si, Gyeongbuk 38430, Republic of Korea
Tel: +82-502-196-1996   Fax: +82-53-359-6780   E-mail: kjcd@kasa1986.or.kr

Copyright © by Korean Academy of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. All right reserved.
About |  Browse Articles |  Current Issue |  For Authors and Reviewers
powerd by m2community