By Dave DeFusco
At the recent Graduate Symposium on Science, Technology and Health, Sharon Matalon, a student in the M.S. in Speech-Language Pathology, presented findings that could reshape how clinicians approach articulation therapy for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Her research, “Maximizing Speech Outcomes in Children with ASD: Group vs. Individual Therapy,” tackles a vital question in speech-language pathology: Can group therapy be just as effective as individual therapy, and under what circumstances?
Autism Spectrum Disorder is frequently accompanied by speech sound disorders—articulation deficits that compromise a child’s ability to communicate effectively. These challenges can hinder social interactions, academic participation and emotional development. Traditionally, one-on-one therapy has been the gold standard for addressing speech sound production, offering customized interventions and immediate feedback. Yet, as Matalon’s research suggests, group therapy may hold untapped potential, especially for children with less severe deficits.
“Individual therapy is undeniably effective,” said Matalon, “but it’s also resource-intensive. Schools and clinics face mounting caseloads. If we can determine when group therapy is just as effective, we can serve more children efficiently without compromising quality.”
Matalon’s investigation began with a rigorous review of the literature. From hundreds of publications, she narrowed her focus to 18 peer-reviewed studies that met strict inclusion criteria.
“I wanted to find studies that clearly reported participant characteristics, therapy type and outcome measures related to speech sound accuracy,” she said. “That way, we could directly compare results based on both the format of therapy and the severity of the child’s speech deficits.”
Her synthesis revealed a striking pattern. Among children with mild articulation deficits, those in individual therapy improved their speech sound accuracy by 78%, while those in group settings improved by 75%—a negligible difference. Moderate cases showed a similar trend, with individual therapy yielding a 72% improvement and group therapy close behind at 70%. However, for children with severe articulation deficits, the gap widened considerably: 85% improvement in individual therapy compared to just 50% in group sessions.
“Sharon’s work highlights the need to tailor therapy not just to the diagnosis, but to the severity of the symptoms,” said Dr. Michaela Medved, Matalon’s advisor and clinical assistant professor of speech-language pathology. “It also shows us where we can safely broaden access through group therapy, which is more scalable and cost-effective.”
The implications for clinical and educational settings are significant. Group therapy allows therapists to reach more students in less time, reducing waitlists and easing clinician workloads. When used appropriately, it can increase access without sacrificing therapeutic gains, particularly in public schools where resources are stretched thin. But Matalon also noted important caveats.
“There’s a lot of variability in how group therapy is implemented,” she said. “Session structure, group size, clinician training and the presence or absence of peer modeling all affect outcomes. We need more standardized approaches if group therapy is going to be a reliable option across settings.”
Her research suggests several promising directions for future study, including integrating technology to personalize group experiences. “One avenue worth exploring is video modeling,” said Matalon. “This could provide individualized feedback in group environments, bridging the gap for children who might otherwise struggle.”
Dr. Medved emphasized the innovation behind Matalon’s approach. “This research is more than an academic exercise. It’s directly relevant to what’s happening in classrooms and clinics right now. Sharon has given us evidence to make smarter, more equitable decisions about care.”
