Maas, Edwin

Purpose The aim of this study was to examine 2 aspects of treatment intensity in treatment for childhood apraxia of speech (CAS): practice amount and practice distribution. Method Using an alternating-treatments single-subject design with multiple baselines, we compared high versus low amount of practice, and massed versus distributed practice, in 6 children with CAS. Conditions were manipulated in the context of integral stimulation treatment. Changes in perceptual accuracy, scored by blinded analysts, were quantified with effect sizes. Results Four children showed an advantage for high amount of practice, 1 showed an opposite effect, and 1 showed no condition difference. For distribution, 4 children showed a clear advantage for massed over distributed practice post treatment; 1 showed an opposite pattern, and 1 showed no clear difference. Follow-up revealed a similar pattern. All children demonstrated treatment effects (larger gains for treated than untreated items). Conclusions High practice amount and massed practice were associated with more robust speech motor learning in most children with CAS, compared to low amount and distributed practice, respectively. Variation in effects across children warrants further research to determine factors that predict optimal treatment conditions. Finally, this study adds to the evidence base supporting the efficacy of integral stimulation treatment for CAS. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9630599

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.