Validity based on the response processes of the MMBGR Protocol Infants and Preschoolers: Instructional and Orofacial Myofuncional Clinical History.
Alexia Stéfanny Menezes da Conceição Dos Santos, Yasmim Dourado Goes, Herick Santos Assis and 7 others
PMID 38836823WHAT IT FOUND
Ten speech therapists found this infant history protocol easy to use and willing to adopt it in practice.
Half took longer than the estimated 45 minutes. Most agreed the instruction manual was useful, though some found it unnecessary before reading.
Key findings
01All ten speech therapists agreed the protocol was easy to apply and fill out, and stated they would use it in their professional practice.
02Half of the professionals took more than 45 minutes to complete the protocol, exceeding the estimated duration.
03While most found the instruction manual useful, 70% agreed prior reading was necessary, with some disagreeing because they found the protocol self-explanatory.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study involved only 10 speech therapists, which is a small sample size for validating a clinical instrument. Participants were predominantly female and highly experienced, which may not reflect the views of newer or male therapists. The study measured perceptions of usability and validity, not the clinical accuracy or diagnostic reliability of the information gathered. Half of the applications exceeded the estimated time, suggesting the protocol may be burdensome for shorter appointment slots.
Declared interests
The authors declared no financial support and no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the high agreement scores as evidence that this protocol improves patient outcomes or diagnostic accuracy. The study only confirms that therapists find the tool easy to use and willing to adopt it, not that it is clinically superior to other methods.