Iuzzini-Seigel, Jenya

Purpose: This exploratory study aimed to characterize motor speech impairments in a small sample of children with epilepsy, both with and without a known seizure etiology. A secondary aim was to evaluate the validity of the Profile for Childhood Apraxia of speech and Dysarthria (ProCAD), a newly developed tool for differential diagnosis of childhood apraxia of speech and dysarthria. Method: Thirteen children with seizure disorders completed a comprehensive speech and language assessment. Three expert speech-language pathologists rated the presence of auditory-perceptual features of motor speech impairment using the ProCAD. Motor speech features, diagnoses, and standardized test scores were compared between children with a known seizure etiology and children with idiopathic epilepsy. Results: Nine of the 13 children exhibited motor speech impairment; dysarthria was the most common diagnosis. Most children (11/13) exhibited language impairment. Group comparisons showed that children with a known seizure etiology had more atypical motor speech features and lower language scores than children with idiopathic seizures. Conclusion: These preliminary findings suggest a high rate of motor speech impairment among children with epilepsy.

Purpose: While there has been mounting research centered on the diagnosis of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS), little has focused on differentiating CAS from pediatric dysarthria. Because CAS and dysarthria share overlapping speech symptoms and some children have both motor speech disorders, differential diagnosis can be challenging. There is a need for clinical tools that facilitate assessment of both CAS and dysarthria symptoms in children. The goals of this tutorial are to (a) determine confidence levels of clinicians in differentially diagnosing dysarthria and CAS and (b) provide a systematic procedure for differentiating CAS and pediatric dysarthria in children. Method: Evidence related to differential diagnosis of CAS and dysarthria is reviewed. Next, a web-based survey of 359 pediatric speech-language pathologists is used to determine clinical confidence levels in diagnosing CAS and dysarthria. Finally, a checklist of pediatric auditory–perceptual motor speech features is presented along with a procedure to identify CAS and dysarthria in children with suspected motor speech impairments. Case studies illustrate application of this protocol, and treatment implications for complex cases are discussed. Results: The majority (60%) of clinician respondents reported low or no confidence in diagnosing dysarthria in children, and 40% reported they tend not to make this diagnosis as a result. Going forward, clinicians can use the feature checklist and protocol in this tutorial to support the differential diagnosis of CAS and dysarthria in clinical practice. Conclusions: Incorporating this diagnostic protocol into clinical practice should help increase confidence and accuracy in diagnosing motor speech disorders in children. Future research should test the sensitivity and specificity of this protocol in a large sample of children with varying speech sound disorders. Graduate programs and continuing education trainings should provide opportunities to practice rating speech features for children with dysarthria and CAS. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19709146