Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33789063›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2021

A Systematic Review of Augmented Input Interventions and Exploratory Analysis of Moderators.

Kate T Chazin, Jennifer R Ledford, Natalie S Pak

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kate T ChazinDepartment of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Jennifer R LedfordDepartment of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Natalie S PakDepartment of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Google (United States) · US

Funding

Overall: Eunice Kennedy Shriver Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center at VanderbiltP50HD103537 · NICHD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Lea K Davis · 2020 to 2026
$10.3M
NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD103537
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose Augmented input is the act of concurrently modeling language verbally and on a communication device, and is one strategy for teaching individuals to effectively use aided modes of communication. The purpose of this literature review is to assess the efficacy of augmented input for increasing communication and to identify intervention components, participant characteristics, and instructional contexts related to therapeutic outcomes. Method We double screened all potential sources and double coded all included sources. Database, forward, and backward searches yielded 99 single case designs in 26 sources. We coded characteristics of participants, instructional contexts, independent variables, and dependent variables. We also coded quality/rigor and primary outcomes for each design or comparison. Results Across high-quality studies, two thirds of designs indicated that augmented input was effective compared to baseline conditions and alternative interventions, and exploratory analyses indicated that receptive language skills, age, and diagnoses may moderate intervention efficacy. Most augmented input interventions included additional components that may serve as "active ingredients" (e.g., systematic prompting, contextual reinforcement). Most studies also did not report participant characteristics hypothesized to moderate intervention efficacy (e.g., joint attention skills, imitation repertoire). Results also indicated high risk of publication bias, with peer-reviewed sources twice as likely to include positive effects than dissertations and theses. Conclusions Across high-quality studies, augmented input was inconsistently effective as a stand-alone intervention. Packaged interventions that included augmented input were typically more effective than augmented input in isolation, particularly for individuals who were young, had strong receptive language skills, or had no comorbid diagnoses.

Indexed as

CommunicationLanguageHumans

Identifiers

PMID33789063
PMCPMC10110354
OpenAlexW3139723473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.