文章摘要
陈毅克,王月,陈翠蓉,等.音乐疗法及构音训练对自闭症儿童言语功能及自闭症评定量表评分的影响[J].安徽医药,2022,26(1):61-65.
音乐疗法及构音训练对自闭症儿童言语功能及自闭症评定量表评分的影响
Effects of music therapy and vocal training on verbal function and CARS score in children with autism
  
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1009-6469.2022.01.014
中文关键词: 自闭症  音乐疗法  构音训练  言语功能  儿童
英文关键词: Autism  Music therapy  Articulation training  Speech function  Child
基金项目:
作者单位
陈毅克 贵港市人民医院儿内科广西壮族自治区贵港 537100 
王月 南宁市武鸣区妇幼保健院儿童康复科广西壮族自治区南宁 530100 
陈翠蓉 贵港市人民医院儿内科广西壮族自治区贵港 537100 
郑舒琪 贵港市人民医院儿内科广西壮族自治区贵港 537100 
摘要点击次数: 111
全文下载次数: 59
中文摘要:
      目的探讨音乐疗法及构音训练对自闭症儿童言语功能及自闭症评定量表( CARS)评分的影响。方法选取 2017年 12月至 2019年 5月贵港市人民医院接诊的自闭症儿童 60例,依据建档顺序分组,各 20例。 A组采取音乐疗法, B组采取构音训练, C组联合采取音乐疗法及构音训练。统计三组干预前后自闭症儿童自闭症发育障碍心理教育量表( C-PEP)评分、自闭症治疗评估量表( ATEC)、行为检查量表( ABC)、 CARS、格塞尔婴幼儿发展量表( Gesell)评分。结果干预后 C组模仿、口语认知、认知表现、粗动作、精细动作、感知评分[( 6.06±1.13)分、(5.09±1.10)分、(7.44±1.12)分、(9.55±1.22)分、(9.02±2.01)分、(6.35±1.05)分]高于 A组[( 3.53±1.10)分、(3.28±0.98)分、(4.48±1.09)分、(6.86±1.02)分、(6.69±1.89)分、(3.98±0.90)分]、 B组[( 3.49±1.08)分、(3.39±1.02)分、(4.51±1.08)分、(6.71±1.05)分、(6.81±1.95)分、(4.02±0.87)分](P<0.05); C组干预后社会、感知、社交、语言评分[( 15.01±5.81)分、(14.71±3.98)分、(14.38±3.36)分、(19.91±4.01)分]低于 A组[( 18.99±5.15)分、(18.51± 4.04)分、(19.15±4.03)分、(20.02±3.95)分]、 B组[(19.12±5.30)分、(18.62±4.20)分、(18.93±4.20)分、(19.91±4.01)分](P<0.05);干预后 C组语言、生活自理、交往、运动、感觉评分[( 15.18±2.51)分、(8.32±1.23)分、(11.10±2.28)分、(9.61±2.01)分、(6.96± 1.18)分]低于 A组[( 18.64±2.10)分、(11.01±1.54)分、(14.91±1.89)分、(12.97±1.88)分、(8.98±1.28)分]、 B组[( 18.19±2.66)分、(10.79±1.71)分、(14.69±2.01)分、(13.11±1.96)分、(8.81±1.35)分](P<0.05);干预后 C组 CARS评分( 29.21±3.35)分低于 A组(33.93±3.98)分、 B组( 34.09±4.01)分,语言能力( 48.34±6.23)分、个人社交评分( 43.13±5.91)分高于 A组[( 42.21±5.80)分、(38.90±4.94)分]、 B组[(41.97±5.69)分、(39.66±5.13)分](P<0.05)。结论联合采取音乐疗法及构音训练对自闭症儿童实施干预,可调节其心理状态及行为状况,提高疾病治疗疗效,改善言语功能。
英文摘要:
      Objective To explore the effects of music therapy and articulation training on the speech function of children with au-tism and the children's autism rating scale (CARS) score.Methods A total of 60 children with autism who were admitted to GuigangPeople's Hospital from December 2017 to May 2019 were selected and assigned into three group according to the order of file creation,with 20 cases in each group. Group A taken music therapy, group B taken articulation training, and group C taken a combination of mu-sic therapy and articulation training. Statistics of the three groups before and after the intervention were the children psycho-education-al profile (C-PEP) scores, the autistic treatment evaluation scale (ATEC), and the behavioral examinations. Table (behavior check scale,ABC), CARS, Gesell developmental schedules (gesell developmental schedules, Gesell) scores.Results After the intervention, imita-tion, oral cognition, cognitive performance, coarse movements, fine movements, perception scores of group C [(6.06±1.13), (5.09±1.10),(7.44±1.12), (9.55±1.22), (9.02± 2.01), (6.35±1.05) points] were higher than those of group A [(3.53±1.10), (3.28±0.98), (4.48±1.09),(6.86±1.02), (6.69±1.89), (3.98±0.90) Points] and group B [(3.49±1.08), (3.39±1.02), (4.51±1.08), (6.71±1.05), (6.81±1.95), (4.02±0.87) points] (P<0.05). After the intervention, the social, perception, social and language scores [(15.01±5.81), (14.71±3.98), (14.38±3.36), (19.91±4.01) points] of group C were lower than those of group A [(18.99±5.15), (18.51±4.04), (19.15±4.03), (20.02±3.95) points]and group B [(19.12±5.30), (18.62±4.20), (18.93±4.20), (19.91±4.01) points] (P<0.05 ). After the intervention, the language, self-care,communication, movement, sensory scores of group C [(15.18±2.51), (8.32±1.23), (11.10±2.28), (9.61±2.01), (6.96±1.18) points] were lower those of group A [(18.64±2.10), (11.01±1.54), (14.91±1.89), (12.97±1.88), (8.98±1.28 points)] and group B [(18.19±2.66), (10.79±1.71), (14.69±2.01), (13.11±1.96), (8.81±1.35) points] (P<0.05). After the intervention, the CARS score of group C (29.21±3.35) waslower than that of group A [(33.93±3.98) points] and group B [(34.09±4.01) points], language ability [(48.34±6.23) points], personal so-cial score [(43.13±5.91)] points of group C were higher than those of group A [(42.21±5.80), (38.90±4.94) points] and group B [(41.97±5.69), (39.66±5.13) points] (P<0.05).Conclusion The combined use of music therapy and articulation training to intervene in chil-dren with autism can adjust their mental and behavioral status, improve the efficacy of disease treatment, and improve speech function.
查看全文   查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器
关闭

分享按钮