Skip to main content
. 2023 Jan 9;32(1):18–36. doi: 10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00142

Table 2.

Summary of visual–acoustic biofeedback (VAB) studies in the context of speech sound disorder.

Study Year N Sex Ages Biofeedback type Dose frequency Total sessions No. of teaching episodes CII Effect size a (range)
McAllister Byun et al. 2016 9 M-6; F-3 6;8–13;3
(M = 10;0)
LPC 30 min 2× per week ~16 60 968 d2
−1.2 to 5.5
Benway et al. 2021 7 M-3; F-4 9;5–15;8
(M = 12;3)
LPC/ultrasound 101 min/2× per week 10 400 4000 d2
0–3.11
McAllister Byun 2017 7 M-5; F-2 9;0–15;0
(M = 12;3)
Traditional/LPC 30 min 2× per week 20 60 1200 d2
−5.3 to 9.87
McAllister Byun & Hitchcock 2012 11 M-10; F-1 6;0–11;9
(M = 9;0)
Traditional/LPC 30 min 2× per week 20 60 1200 d (group)
0.32
Shuster et al. 1995 2 M-1; F-1 10;0–14;0
(M = 12;0)
Traditional/spectrogram (a) 50 min 2× per week
(b) 60 min 1× per week
24 150
175
(a) 3600
(b) 1400
NR
Hitchcock et al. 2017 4 M-3; F-1 8;8–13;0
(M = 9;10)
LPC 60 min 2× per week 20 192 3840 d2
−1.63 to 18.92
McAllister Byun & Campbell 2016 11 M-7; F-4 9;3–15;10
(M = 11;3)
Traditional/LPC 2× per week b 20 60 1200 d2
−0.27 to 20.45
McAllister Byun et al. 2017 1 F-1 13;0 Traditional/LPC
(staRt app)
30 min 1× per week 20 60 1200 NR
Peterson et al. 2022 4 M-2; F-2 9;0–10;3
(M = 9;8)
LPC
(staRt app)/
telepractice
2–3× per week b 16 200 3200 d2
5.3–67.7

Note. CII = cumulative intervention intensity; M = male; F = female; LPC = linear predictive coding; NR = not reported.

a

Effect sizes were calculated for each individual by comparing /ɹ/ productions elicited in single-word probes administered during the true baseline phase (prior to the initiation of any treatment) and the posttreatment maintenance phase. Effect sizes were standardized using Busk and Serlin's (1992) d 2 statistic (Beeson & Robey, 2006), which pools SDs across baseline and maintenance periods to reduce the number of cases where effect size cannot be calculated due to zero variance at baseline.

b

Duration of session not reported.