The current study investigated the impact of a dual treatment approach that included stimulability training protocol (STP) paired with a modified core vocabulary treatment (mCVT) on the speech sounds produced by children with CAS. The combined treatment was assessed for changes in consistency and expansion of the phonetic inventories of four participants. The children participated in 20 treatment sessions over the course of 10 weeks. Each session was comprised of 10 minutes of stimulability training and 45 minutes of mCVT that included words that were chosen by the child and his or her parents. The words were restricted to contain at least one complex phoneme that was omitted from the child's inventory. All children evidenced inventory expansion (average of five sounds) and increased percentage consonants correct (PCC; average of 20% increase), and three of the four children evidenced increased consistency in sound use. The effectiveness of STP paired with mCVT is explained by principles of motor and phonological learning.

Speech inconsistency is a core feature of CAS and is efficacious in differentiating between children with CAS and speech delay; however, sensitivity and specificity are stimuli dependent.

This article uses the International Classification of Functioning (ICF) framework to outline the assessment needs of children with apraxia of speech. Specifically, the level of breakdown for children with apraxia of speech—that of motor planning and programming at the level of body functions—is delineated using operationally defined criteria for greater diagnostic transparency.

Readers of this article should be able to (i) describe the motivation for investigating the role of auditory feedback in children with CAS; (ii) report the effects of feedback attenuation on speech production in children with CAS, speech delay, and typical development, and (iii) understand how the current findings may support a feedforward program deficit in children with CAS.

Purpose Children with dyslexia have speech production deficits in a variety of spoken language contexts. In this article, we discuss the nature of speech production errors in children with dyslexia, including those who have a history of speech sound disorder and those who do not, to familiarize speech-language pathologists with speech production–specific risk factors that may help predict or identify dyslexia in young children. Method In this tutorial, we discuss the role of a phonological deficit in children with dyslexia and how this may manifest as speech production errors, sometimes in conjunction with a speech sound disorder but sometimes not. We also briefly review other factors outside the realm of phonology that may alert the speech-language pathologist to possible dyslexia. Results Speech-language pathologists possess unique knowledge that directly contributes to the identification and remediation of children with dyslexia. We present several clinical recommendations related to speech production deficits in children with dyslexia. We also review what is known about how and when children with speech sound disorder are most at risk for dyslexia. Conclusion Speech-language pathologists have a unique opportunity to assist in the identification of young children who are at risk for dyslexia.

Purpose: This study sought to determine if (a) children with childhood apraxia of speech (CAS), other speech sound disorders (SSDs), and typical development (TD) would perform differently on a standardized motor assessment and (b) whether comorbid language impairment would impact group differences.Method: Speech, language, and motor abilities were assessed in children with CAS (n = 10), SSD (n = 16), and TD (n = 14) between the ages of 43 and 105 months. Motor skills were evaluated using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (Henderson, Sugden, & Barnett, 2007), a behavioral assessment that is sensitive in identifying fine/gross motor impairments in children with a range of motor and learning abilities. Data were reanalyzed after reclassifying children by language ability.Results: The CAS group performed below the normal limit on all components of the motor assessment and more poorly than the TD and SSD groups on Aiming and Catching and Balance. When children were reclassified by language ability, the comorbid CAS + language impairment group performed worse than the SSD-only and TD groups on Manual Dexterity and Balance and worse than the TD group on Aiming and Catching; all 7 children with CAS + language impairment evidenced performance in the disordered range compared to 1 of 3 children in the CAS-only group and 2 of 6 children in the SSD + language impairment group.Conclusions: Children with CAS + language impairment appear to be at an increased risk for motor impairments, which may negatively impact social, academic, and vocational outcomes; referrals for motor screenings/assessments should be considered. Findings may suggest a higher order deficit that mediates cognitive-linguistic and motor impairments in this population.

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.5848056.

No abstract