Zeng Biao, Law James, Lindsay Geoff
Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2012 Oct;14(5):471-7. doi: 10.3109/17549507.2012.720281.
Although Warren, Fey and Yoder (2007) have described the key components of "dosage", one needs to go beyond description if one is to understand "optimal" dosage, specifically one needs to relate the characteristics of the intervention to the size of the intervention effect. This study examines the association between dose, intensity, and effect size in 20 randomized controlled studies taken from a few systematic reviews focusing on interventions aiming to ameliorate vocabulary, phonology, and syntax. Reporting of dosage characteristics is an important issue. Our analysis shows that "teaching episodes" and "dose form" are rarely reported in the included studies. The other dosage characteristics are present but not always reported in a transparent fashion. Session length and cumulative intervention intensity is lower for phonology interventions than it is for vocabulary intervention. Dosage, however defined, is not directly associated with outcome, although the level of association varies across the three interventions, for example appearing stronger for vocabulary and phonology than syntax. Taking the three interventions together the dosage components are related to the intervention effects size, but the sample is small and the association is not statistically significant. This study concludes that, while the framework suggested by Baker (2012) and adapted from Warren et al. (2007) is useful but without reference to the effect size of a study, it can only ever tell half the story. One needs to be able to relate dosage to outcome, asking questions about the relationship between the different dosage characteristics and the intervention effect size. Given the available data, it is not, at this stage, possible to make recommendations about optimal dosage.
尽管沃伦、费伊和约德(2007年)已经描述了“剂量”的关键组成部分,但如果想要理解“最佳”剂量,就需要超越描述层面,具体而言,需要将干预措施的特征与干预效果的大小联系起来。本研究考察了从一些系统评价中选取的20项随机对照研究中剂量、强度与效应大小之间的关联,这些研究聚焦于旨在改善词汇、语音和句法的干预措施。剂量特征的报告是一个重要问题。我们的分析表明,纳入研究中很少报告“教学课时”和“剂型”。其他剂量特征存在,但报告方式并不总是透明的。语音干预的课时长度和累积干预强度低于词汇干预。然而,无论如何定义剂量,它与结果并无直接关联,尽管这种关联程度在三种干预措施中有所不同,例如在词汇和语音方面似乎比句法方面更强。综合这三种干预措施来看,剂量组成部分与干预效应大小相关,但样本量较小,且这种关联无统计学意义。本研究得出结论,虽然贝克(2012年)提出并改编自沃伦等人(2007年)的框架很有用,但如果不参考研究的效应大小,它只能说明部分情况。人们需要能够将剂量与结果联系起来,询问不同剂量特征与干预效应大小之间的关系。鉴于现有数据,现阶段还无法就最佳剂量提出建议。