Stoeckel, Ruth

Purpose: There are multiple frameworks for goal writing that are applicable to the practice of speech-language pathology. Motor-based speech disorders are a subset of speech sound disorders that are thought to require specific elements of intervention that are typically not addressed in the traditional frameworks used in the clinical setting. The purpose of this tutorial is to review general approaches of goal writing and suggest additional elements that may be used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of treatment for childhood motor speech disorders, specifically childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Method: Existing models of goal writing were reviewed to ascertain elements common to most of these models. A basic framework was chosen and modified to include behaviors, conditions, and approaches to goal measurement tailored to the clinical needs of children with CAS. A resource for clinical decision making for children with CAS was developed to inform goal writing at the onset of treatment and adaptations that occur over the course of treatment. Case studies are presented to demonstrate how the presented framework can be applied to writing goals for motor-based treatment for two different children with CAS. Discussion: Children with CAS require a specialized approach to intervention, which requires goals to reflect the unique clinical needs of this population. This tutorial offers resources that use the best available research evidence and current understanding of effective treatment practices for CAS to guide clinical decision making for motor-based intervention and goal writing. This tutorial is intended to guide treatment planning across varied settings to facilitate progress and optimize treatment outcomes for children with CAS.

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: The purpose of this study was to investigate comorbidity prevalence and patterns in childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) and their relationship to severity. Method: In this retroactive cross-sectional study, medical records for 375 children with CAS ( M age = 4;9 [years;months], SD = 2;9) were examined for comorbid conditions. The total number of comorbid conditions and the number of communication-related comorbidities were regressed on CAS severity as rated by speech-language pathologists during diagnosis. The relationship between CAS severity and the presence of four common comorbid conditions was also examined using ordinal or multinomial regressions. Results: Overall, 83 children were classified with mild CAS; 35, with moderate CAS; and 257, with severe CAS. Only one child had no comorbidities. The average number of comorbid conditions was 8.4 ( SD = 3.4), and the average number of communication-related comorbidities was 5.6 ( SD = 2.2). Over 95% of children had comorbid expressive language impairment. Children with comorbid intellectual disability (78.1%), receptive language impairment (72.5%), and nonspeech apraxia (37.3%; including limb, nonspeech oromotor, and oculomotor apraxia) were significantly more likely to have severe CAS than children without these comorbidities. However, children with comorbid autism spectrum disorder (33.6%) were no more likely to have severe CAS than children without autism. Conclusions: Comorbidity appears to be the rule, rather than the exception, for children with CAS. Comorbid intellectual disability, receptive language impairment, and nonspeech apraxia confer additional risk for more severe forms of CAS. Findings are limited by being from a convenience sample of participants but inform future models of comorbidity. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22096622

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

Motor learning principles guide treatment of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Previous studies found children to benefit from higher-intensity conditions; however, they did not control for the total amount of therapy time. The aims of the article are to examine the effects of high versus low treatment frequency in intervention for CAS in German-speaking children. An alternating single-subject design with multiple baselines was applied to compare frequent, short sessions with fewer, longer sessions in terms of speech production accuracy in four children with CAS while keeping the total therapy time constant. We administered a version of integral stimulation treatment. Despite inter-individual differences, changes under both treatment conditions showed similar positive trajectories for all four children. Untreated control targets also improved across participants and conditions. Maintenance and generalization to untreated targets were observed two weeks and three months post treatment, independent of treatment intensity. Our results show no significant advantage of more intensive treatment when the total therapy time is held constant. This study contributes to the evidence base for the use of integral stimulation in treating children with CAS, and in particular those who speak languages other than English.

Purpose Assessing children with hearing loss and co-occurring medical disorders can be challenging. The purpose of this clinical focus article is to highlight multidisciplinary decision making and evaluation considerations when assessing communication skills of children with hearing loss and co-occurring disorders: velopharyngeal insufficiency, childhood apraxia of speech, and autism spectrum disorder. Method Case examples are described to illustrate multidisciplinary decision-making processes for assessing the communication skills of children with hearing loss who have co-occurring velopharyngeal insufficiency, childhood apraxia of speech, or autism spectrum disorder. Conclusions Clinicians must have knowledge of speech sound development, language development, and social communication for differential diagnosis and treatment planning for children with hearing loss and co-occurring disorders. A team-based approach is recommended when assessing and treating children with hearing loss. Speech-language pathologists and audiologists should feel comfortable recommending other professionals to help with differential diagnosis and treatment considerations when appropriate. Continued assessment and monitoring by a multidisciplinary team for individuals with hearing loss is recommended across the life-span.

Purpose This article uses two case studies to illustrate clinical decision making using the best available evidence to approach the assessment and intervention for children with childhood apraxia of speech. The cases represent children seen in the authors' clinical practice, with personal information altered or omitted to protect the identity of the individuals. The case discussions exemplify choices that may be made for children of different ages, highlighting common elements across ages, as well as treatment aspects that may differ by age. Conclusions While research regarding best practice for assessment and treatment for childhood apraxia of speech has not been conclusive and, in fact, at times has been equivocal, there is empirical evidence from which to develop a rationale for assessment and treatment decisions. Accountability is important even as decisions are being made based on the best available evidence. In each case study, modifications in treatment depended on data that allowed the clinician to evaluate the children's response to therapy and adapt accordingly.