Extensions to the Speech Disorders Classification System (SDCS)

Abstract

This report describes three extensions to a classification system for pediatric speech sound disorders termed the Speech Disorders Classification System (SDCS). Part I describes a classification extension to the SDCS to differentiate motor speech disorders from speech delay and to differentiate among three subtypes of motor speech disorders. Part II describes the Madison Speech Assessment Protocol (MSAP), an approximately two-hour battery of 25 measures that includes 15 speech tests and tasks. Part III describes the Competence, Precision, and Stability Analytics (CPSA) framework, a current set of approximately 90 perceptual- and acoustic-based indices of speech, prosody, and voice used to quantify and classify subtypes of Speech Sound Disorders (SSD). A companion paper, Shriberg, Fourakis, et al. (2010) provides reliability estimates for the perceptual and acoustic data reduction methods used in the SDCS. The agreement estimates in the companion paper support the reliability of SDCS methods and illustrate the complementary roles of perceptual and acoustic methods in diagnostic analyses of SSD of unknown origin. Examples of research using the extensions to the SDCS described in the present report include diagnostic findings for a sample of youth with motor speech disorders associated with galactosemia (Shriberg, Potter, & Strand, 2010) and a test of the hypothesis of apraxia of speech in a group of children with autism spectrum disorders (Shriberg, Paul, Black, & van Santen, 2010). All SDCS methods and reference databases running in the PEPPER (Programs to Examine Phonetic and Phonologic Evaluation Records; [Shriberg, Allen, McSweeny, & Wilson, 2001]) environment will be disseminated without cost when complete.

Speech characteristics of 8-year-old children: Findings from a prospective population study

“…There is a precedent for separating these groups in the literature (Shriberg et al, 1997(Shriberg et al, , 2010. Nevertheless, the differing prevalence figures for each of these subgroups identified within this study clearly demonstrates how prevalence figures can vary across studies depending on the cut off point used for classification of speech status and the definition of speech disorder.…”

“…This is logical given that speech acquisition is generally considered to be complete by this age (Dodd, Holm, Hua & Crosbie, 2003;James, 2001;Smit, 1993aSmit, , 1993b. Moreover, Shriberg, Fourakis, Hall, Karlsson, Lohmeier, McSweeny et al (2010) justify a cut off between age 8 and 9 on the basis that children whose speech disorder continues beyond this age are small in number but more at risk for long term persistence and associated sequelae, sometimes into adulthood.…”

Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS) in two patients with 16p11.2 microdeletion syndrome

“…They also had standard scores below typical limits on the Percentage of Consonants CorrectRevised (PCCR), a measure of speech competence obtained from conversational speech. 23 Thus, both patients' histories and their profiles of persisting speech impairment meet contemporary research criteria for CAS. 13 …”

“…21,22 A primary constraint in CAS-genetics and other CAS research-the need for a diagnostically conclusive assessment method-has recently been addressed. 23 The goal of the present study was to use contemporary methods in speech and genetics, to add to the literature the first report of co-occurring 16p11.2 microdeletion syndrome and CAS in two patients.…”

“…The patients were assessed by the same examiner using the Madison Speech Assessment Protocol (MSAP), a 2-h protocol developed for research in speech sound disorders across the lifespan, including CAS. 23 The MSAP includes 15 measures that provide a range of speaking conditions for age-sex standardized scores that profile a speaker's speech processing and speech production competence, precision, and stability. Competence variables index severity of involvement, precision variables index phonetic accuracy, and stability variables index variability within a sample (ie, coefficient of variation).…”