Wambaugh, Julie L.

Purpose: Significant variation is observed in diagnostic assessments for individuals with acquired apraxia of speech (AOS). The lack of consistency across research related to AOS impacts the comparison of intervention outcomes. This extends to diagnostic criteria, assessment, and the inclusion of patient demographics. This viewpoint examines outcomes related to the consistency in diagnostic tool use and collection of demographic information and introduces a template to support researchers and clinicians conducting diagnostic evaluations. Materials include guidelines for a thorough case history, current diagnostic characteristics, and diagnostic assessment tools available for describing AOS. The template illustrates how such materials can be structured and applied in research and clinical practice. Method: The recommendations provided in this viewpoint are part of a recent systematic review about AOS treatment outcomes. Trained raters extracted data from a comprehensive literature search from 1951 to April 2024 using a consensus protocol. Results: Of the 92 studies included in data extraction, demographic information such as age, gender, etiology, and months post-onset was commonly reported, and information about race and ethnicity (described in 15% of studies), socioeconomic status (0%), current/previous occupation (8%), language history (10%), and education (59%) was described less frequently. Reported diagnostic characteristics varied across studies, reflecting differences in using discriminatory versus nondiscriminatory features. Concomitant diagnoses, such as aphasia severity (37%) and presence of dysarthria (32%), were not consistently reported or described. Conclusion: A template with specific criteria and assessments can support research replication, raise awareness of diagnostic strategies, and offer a structured framework for investigators and clinicians. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.32012346

Purpose: While acquired apraxia of speech (AOS) has been the focus of intervention research for decades, little information is reported about the demographic representation of study participants. This article examines the extent to which published AOS treatment studies report participants' age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, language background, and socioeconomic status; identifies critical gaps in the literature; and considers implications for representativeness. This information supports the important call to capture these patient factors systematically and thereby advance equity in research and clinical care. Method: This study is part of a larger systematic review examining treatment outcomes for acquired AOS. A comprehensive search of databases from 1951 to April 2024 was completed to determine the proportion of treatment articles that reported demographic information related to diversity. Studies were reviewed by trained raters using a standardized data extraction protocol with a consensus protocol. Results: While participant age and sex/gender were reported in nearly all studies (99% and 100%, respectively), only 24% of studies reported on race/ethnicity, 15% provided information on participants' language background, and none reported socioeconomic status. Among studies that included race/ethnicity, 89% of the participants were White, with minimal representation of other racial/ethnic groups. Conclusions: The underreporting of race/ethnicity, language background, and socioeconomic factors limits the generalizability and ecological validity of AOS treatment research. The field must prioritize inclusive participant recruitment and consistent demographic reporting. We propose a practical template for use in both research and clinical contexts to support more thorough data collection and to inform future work in diagnosis, assessment, and intervention for AOS. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.31172353

Objectives The aim was for the appointed committee of the Academy of Neurological Communication Disorders and Sciences to conduct a systematic review of published intervention studies of acquired apraxia of speech (AOS), updating the previous committee's review article from 2006. Method A systematic search of 11 databases identified 215 articles, with 26 meeting inclusion criteria of (a) stating intention to measure effects of treatment on AOS and (b) data representing treatment effects for at least 1 individual stated to have AOS. Results All studies involved within-participant experimental designs, with sample sizes of 1 to 44 (median = 1). Confidence in diagnosis was rated high to reasonable in 18 of 26 studies. Most studies (24/26) reported on articulatory–kinematic approaches; 2 applied rhythm/rate control methods. Six studies had sufficient experimental control for Class III rating according to the Clinical Practice Guidelines Process Manual (American Academy of Neurology, 2011), with 15 others satisfying all criteria for Class III except use of independent or objective outcome measurement. Conclusions The most important global clinical conclusion from this review is that the weight of evidence supports a strong effect for both articulatory–kinematic and rate/rhythm approaches to AOS treatment. The quantity of work, experimental rigor, and reporting of diagnostic criteria continue to improve and strengthen confidence in the corpus of research.