4.3 Article

Feedback Frequency in Treatment for Childhood Apraxia of Speech

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 239-257

Publisher

AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
DOI: 10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0119)

Keywords

childhood apraxia of speech; treatment; motor learning; feedback; speech disorders

Funding

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

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To examine the role of feedback frequency in treatment for childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Reducing the frequency of feedback enhances motor learning, and recently, such feedback frequency reductions have been recommended for the treatment of CAS. However, no published studies have explicitly compared different feedback frequencies in this population. Method: Using an alternating treatments single-subject design with multiple baselines across behaviors, retention and transfer of learning were compared following high-frequency feedback and low-frequency feedback in 4 children with CAS. Feedback frequency was manipulated in the context of an integral stimulation treatment. Changes in perceptual accuracy were quantified with effect sizes and were compared across conditions. Results: Findings were mixed, with 2 children showing an advantage for low-frequency feedback, 1 child showing a small advantage for high-frequency feedback, and 1 child showing no clear improvement in either condition. Conclusion: These findings suggest that reducing the frequency of feedback may be beneficial for some children with CAS, although this may vary with the child's age or severity of apraxia. Caution is warranted in extrapolating from the nonspeech motor learning literature to speech treatment for CAS. Finally, this study contributes another replication to the literature on the efficacy of integral stimulation treatment 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