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

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.

Effects of music therapy and vocal training on verbal function and CARS score in children with autism

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.