4.3 Article

Treatment intensity and childhood apraxia of speech

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1460-6984.12154

Keywords

childhood apraxia of speech; treatment intensity; developmental motor speech disorders; speech intelligibility; speech-sound disorder; functional outcomes

Funding

  1. Childhood Apraxia of Speech Association of North America (CASANA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundIntensive treatment has been repeatedly recommended for the treatment of speech deficits in childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). However, differences in treatment outcomes as a function of treatment intensity have not been systematically studied in this population. AimTo investigate the effects of treatment intensity on outcome measures related to articulation, functional communication and speech intelligibility for children with CAS undergoing individual motor speech intervention. Methods & ProceduresA total of 37 children (32-54 months of age) with CAS received 1x/week (lower intensity) or 2x/week (higher intensity) individual motor speech treatment for 10 weeks. Assessments were carried out before and after a 10-week treatment block to study the effects of variations in treatment intensity on the outcome measures. Outcomes & ResultsThe results indicated that only higher intensity treatment (2x/week) led to significantly better outcomes for articulation and functional communication compared with 1x/week (lower intensity) intervention. Further, neither lower nor higher intensity treatment yielded a significant change for speech intelligibility at the word or sentence level. In general, effect sizes for the higher intensity treatment groups were larger for most variables compared with the lower intensity treatment group. Conclusions & ImplicationsOverall, the results of the current study may allow for modification of service delivery and facilitate the development of an evidence-based care pathway for children with CAS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available