We have recently conducted a pilot and feasibility study of BEST. We are working on publication of these findings and aim to conduct a further evaluation with sufficient power to test BEST definitively.

Children made significant progress from baseline to outcome on language measures however we cannot be sure if this would have happened without intervention or if it is better than other intervention approaches.

Using the Robey and Shultz (1998) five-phase model of clinical outcome research we are at stage 2

PHASE
QUESTIONS
1. Identify a treatment protocol
Does therapy appear to work without doing harm?
2. Explore the interventions
Who does it appear to work for?
How should we measure outcomes?
How long should therapy be?
How should the therapy be delivered?
3. Test its efficacy
Does the therapy work in an ideal context?
4. Test effectiveness
Does it work in a clinical context?
5. Determine its cost effectiveness
Is it cost effective?
Do people want it/Like it?
Are people able to adhere to the treatment regimen?
In order to further develop our knowledge about how and when BEST works, we would appreciate hearing what you think about it. We have set up a discussion board for your comments and feedback about how you are applying it, who with, where, what would you change? This will help inform us as we aim to move to phases 3 and 4 of the evaluation.

We are making the BEST materials available for practitioners to purchase if they would like to try out BEST in their practice. If you do we would love for you to post comments and feedback about how you are applying it, who with, where, what would you change?

This will help inform us as we aim to move to phase 3.

If you would like to be express an interest in being a collaborator in future research please leave your contact details here.

Robey, R. R., & Schultz, M. C. (1998). A model for conducting clinical-outcome research: An adaptation of the standard protocol for use in aphasiology. Aphasiology, 12(9), 787-810.