final

Question 1

Richard Mesmer

Answer 1

n Austrian physician who moved to Paris. He has a treatment for all kinds of problems (worked for “everything”). He thought that illness as caused by an imbalance of magnetic forces in the body. He had a magnetic wand that he would run over the body of a person to “reset” the magnetic forces of their body.

Question 2

etymology of mesmerized

Answer 2

The word mesmerized became popular because many people did get better. Mesmer treated Marie Antoinette and her friends. He became so popular that the King became jealous. Benjamin Franklin was the lead investigator. He sent up placebos and control groups and found that it did not work. He was later chased out of Paris.

Question 3

Bothwell and Podolsky 2016 “Emergence of Randomized Controlled Trial”

Answer 3

Reflects the transition in research methods and gradual adoption of alternate-allocation trials to verify the value of new therapies
This occurred as a part of a trend toward empiricism and systematization in medicine in response to the need for more rigorous assessment of an expanding array of experimental treatments

Question 4

Lof and Watson 2008 “Oral Motor Training”

Answer 4

a nationwide survey was conducted to determine if SLP’s use nonspeech oral motor exercises to address children’s speech sound problems- there is some data that challenge the use of NSOME’s in order to resolve speech sound problems – SLP’s need to follow the concepts from evidence based practice to determine if these exercises are effective in bringing about changes in speech productions

Question 5

Fey et al. 2008 “A Preliminary Eval of Fast for Word Language as an Adjuvant Treatment in Language Intervention”

Answer 5

Fast For Word Language is designed to enhance children’s processing of auditory-verbal signals and their ability to learn language. They examined the effects of a 5 week course of FFW-L as a treatment with a 5 week conventional narrative based language intervention that targeted narrative comprehension, production, and grammatical output
- Conclusions: This study provides no evidence to support the claim that FFW-L enhances children’s response to a conventional language intervention