Background/Aims: Maximum repetition rate (MRR) is often used in the assessment of speech motor performance in older children and adults. The present study aimed to evaluate a standardized protocol for MRR assessment in young children in Dutch. Methods: The sample included 1,524 children of 2-7 years old with no hearing difficulties and Dutch spoken in their nursery or primary school and was representative for children in the Netherlands. The MRR protocol featured mono-, tri-, and bisyllabic sequences and was computer-implemented to maximize standardization. Results: Less than 50% of the 2-year-olds could produce > 1 monosyllabic sequence correctly. Children who could not correctly produce ≥2 monosyllabic sequences could not produce any of the multisyllabic sequences. The effect of instruction ("faster" and "as fast as possible") was small, and multiple attempts yielded a faster MRR in only 20% of the cases. MRRs did not show clinically relevant differences when calculated over different numbers of repeated syllables. Conclusions: The MRR protocol is suitable for children of 3 years and older. If children cannot produce at least 2 of the monosyllabic sequences , the multisyllabic tasks should be omitted. Furthermore, all fast attempts of each sequence should be analyzed to determine the fastest MRR.

This study presents reference values of four maximum performance tests for comparing the performance of dysarthric patients with non-pathological performance. Age was identified as most important factor influencing maximum speech performance.

Purpose The aims of this study were to assess the reliability and validity of the Computer Articulation Instrument (CAI), a speech production test battery assessing phonological and speech motor skills in 4 tasks: (1) picture naming, (2) nonword imitation, (3) word and nonword repetition, and (4) maximum repetition rate (MRR). Method Normative data were collected in 1,524 typically developing Dutch-speaking children (aged between 2;0 and 7;0 [years;months]). Parameters were extracted on segmental and syllabic accuracy (Tasks 1 and 2), consistency (Task 3), and syllables per second (Task 4). Interrater reliability and test–retest reliability were analyzed using subgroups of the normative sample and studied by estimating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Construct validity was investigated by determining age-related changes of test results and factor analyses of the extracted speech measures. Results ICCs for interrater reliability ranged from sufficient to good, except for percentage of vowels correct of picture naming and nonword imitation and for the MRRs for bisyllabic and trisyllabic items. The ICCs for test–retest reliability were sufficient (picture naming, nonword imitation) to insufficient (word and nonword repetition, MRR) due to larger-than-expected normal development and learning effects. Continuous norms showed developmental patterns for all CAI parameters. The factor analyses revealed 5 meaningful factors: all picture-naming parameters, the segmental parameters of nonword imitation, the syllabic structure parameters of nonword imitation, (non)word repetition consistency, and all MRR parameters. Conclusion Its overall sufficient to good psychometric properties indicate that the CAI is a reliable and valid instrument for the assessment of typical and delayed speech development in Dutch children in the ages of 2–7 years.