In my quest to understand why some in our field express disdain for working with the mouth—and keep an open mind while doing it—I came across this article. At first, I thought, good; this’ll give me definitive information—a study that compares two types of therapy and oral motor is one of them. Then I read it.
PROOF: “Results indicate that tongue bracing [lateral margin stabilization] is both pervasive and active in running speech and essential in understanding tongue movement control.”
Lof and Watson wrote five specific references in their 2008 survey article (p. 393). They specifically listed THESE FIVE references as a base to their “NSOME” concerns and criticisms. So, I zeroed-in on those five documents and read them very carefully....
During the time when numerous anti-oral motor articles were being published and when Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) came into vogue, a comprehensive literature review of language intervention with children was done by Cirrin and Gillam in 2008. Although the article is almost 12 years old, I bet you’ve never heard of it--or the results.
Whether you’re pro or con, are you aware of how the oral motor controversy started? It’s important. Ultimately, the controversy was initiated with one journal article. Up to that time oral motor was at the “debate” level.
Have you ever worked with a child with a significant speech sound delay but was unsure if the child’s speech was apraxic or dysarthric but you knew something “motoric” was going on? Yes? You’re not alone.
Dr. Charles Van Riper is considered by most to be "the father of articulation." I consider him to be my professor and a great and wise man. Enjoy and ponder his words of wisdom.