The Importance of Production Frequency in Therapy for Childhood Apraxia of Speech

Abstract

Both treatment designs were effective, though frequent and intense practice of speech resulted in more rapid response to treatment in 2 children whose primary communication difficulty was childhood apraxia of speech.

Motor-Based Intervention Protocols in Treatment of Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS)

“…Although some studies reported findings consistent with the motor learning literature [14••,41,47], others failed to find clear and consistent differences between conditions [42,43,45,51,52], or reported opposite effects for some participants [22•,44]. It is likely that differences in tasks, measures, and populations contribute to this mixed pattern.…”

“…In the last 15 years, incorporation of motor learning principles into treatment for CAS has been recommended [12–18]. Several published treatment studies have implemented some of these principles [12,19–20], but few studies have systematically compared practice conditions in CAS treatment [14••,21–22•]. In this section, we briefly review important concepts and trends in extending this research paradigm to examining its relevance for enhancing speech motor learning.…”

“…For individuals with speech/voice impairments, studies have examined practice amount [14••], practice schedule [22•,41,42], practice variability [43], practice distribution (massed vs. distributed) [42,44,45], feedback type (verbal knowledge of results vs. biofeedback knowledge of performance) [46], feedback frequency [21,47–51], feedback timing (immediate vs. delayed) [48] and attentional focus [52]. Although some studies reported findings consistent with the motor learning literature [14••,41,47], others failed to find clear and consistent differences between conditions [42,43,45,51,52], or reported opposite effects for some participants [22•,44].…”

Describing Treatment Intensity in Milieu Teaching Interventions for Children With Developmental Disabilities: A Review

“…Strain and Hoyson (2000) offered one of the only discussions of intervention intensity related to the implementation of a social-pragmatic (developmentally based) communication approach for a child served in a preschool classroom setting. Recently, several investigations manipulated parameters of dosage in a range of curricular areas that involve content areas that are outside the content parameters of this investigation (e.g., Bellon-Harn, 2012;Brady & Bashinski, 2008;Breit-Smith et al, 2009;Edeal & Gildersleeve-Neumann, 2011;Smith-Lock et al, 2013; see also Fey, Yoder, Warren, & Bredin-Oja, 2013).…”

Effect Size for Single-Subject Design in Phonological Treatment

“…By comparison, ES for single-subject design is just beginning to be extended to clinical populations and treatment. Research in the area of aphasia (Beeson & Robey, 2006;Robey, 1994Robey, , 1998Robey, Schultz, Crawford, & Sinner, 1999) has led the way with complementary data emerging, for example, in treatment of autism/ developmental disability (Olive & Smith, 2005), childhood apraxia of speech (Edeal & Gildersleeve-Neumann, 2011), learning disability (Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2000), and phonological disorders in children (Gierut & Morrisette, 2011).…”