Research Priorities for Childhood Apraxia of Speech: A Long View.

This article introduces the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Special Issue: Selected Papers From the 2022 Apraxia Kids Research Symposium. The field of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) has developed significantly in the past 15 years, with key improvements in understanding of basic biology including genetics, neuroscience, and computational modelling; development of diagnostic tools and methods; diversity of evidence-based interventions with increasingly rigorous experimental designs; and understanding of impacts beyond impairment-level measures. Papers in this special issue not only review and synthesize the some of the substantial progress to date but also present novel findings addressing critical research gaps and adding to the overall body of knowledge. A second aim of this prologue is to report the current research needs in CAS, which arose from symposium discussions involving researchers, clinicians, and Apraxia Kids community members (including parents of children with CAS). Four primary areas of need emerged from discussions at the symposium. These were: (a) What questions should we ask? (b) Who should be in the research? (c) How do we conduct the research? and (d) How do we move from research to practice? Across themes, symposium attendees emphasized the need for CAS research to better account for the diversity of people with CAS and improve the timeliness of implementation of high-level evidence-based practice across the lifespan. It is our goal that the articles and prologue discussion in this special issue provide an appreciation of advancements in CAS research and an updated view of the most pressing needs for future research.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Treatment Distribution and Biofeedback Effects on Speech Production in School-Age Children With Apraxia of Speech.

PURPOSE: This study examines how ultrasound biofeedback and intensive treatment distribution affect speech sound generalization during an evidence-based treatment, Speech Motor Chaining, for children with persisting speech errors associated with childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). METHOD: In a 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial, children ages 9-17 years meeting CAS criteria were randomized to receive (a) a distributed treatment (20 sessions twice weekly over 10 weeks) or intensive treatment (20 hr in 5 weeks, with 10 hr in Week 1) and (b) treatment with or without biofeedback. Due to the COVID pandemic, some participants were randomized to distributed/intensive telepractice treatment only. The primary outcome was percent target sounds correct on untreated phrases (i.e., generalization) at the 10-week time point. More than 50,000 narrow phonetic transcriptions were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-eight participants completed treatment. Intensive treatment significantly increased generalization at all time points. The effect of biofeedback was significant at 5 weeks from the start of treatment but not significant at the primary 10-week time point. However, when comparing each group immediately after their 20 hr of treatment finished, generalization was significantly greater in intensive over distributed treatment and greater in ultrasound over no-ultrasound treatment (with a significant interaction favoring intensive treatment with ultrasound). Only the advantage of intensive treatment remained significant 5 weeks after groups finished treatment. There was no significant difference between face-to-face and telepractice modalities. CONCLUSIONS: When the number of treatment hours is fixed, an intensive schedule of Speech Motor Chaining facilitated greater improvement than a distributed schedule. Ultrasound biofeedback initially accelerated learning, but the benefits may dissipate as treatment continues or after it ends.

Concurrent Validity Between Two Sound Sequencing Tasks Used to Identify Childhood Apraxia of Speech in School-Age Children.

Purpose To assess the concurrent validity of two tasks used to inform diagnosis of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS), this study evaluated the agreement between the Syllable Repetition Task (SRT) and the Maximum Repetition Rate of Trisyllables (MRR-Tri). Method A retrospective analysis was conducted with 80 children 7-16 years of age who were referred for treatment studies. All children had a speech sound disorder, and all completed both the SRT and the MRR-Tri. On each task, children were classified as meeting or not meeting the tool's threshold for CAS based on the sound sequencing errors demonstrated. Results The two tasks were in agreement for 47 participants (59% of the sample); both tasks classified 13 children as meeting the threshold for CAS and 34 children as not meeting the threshold for CAS. However, the two tasks disagreed on CAS classification for 33 children (41% of the sample). Overall, the MRR-Tri identified more children as having sound sequencing errors indicative of CAS (n = 39) than did the SRT (n = 20). Conclusions These two tasks of sound sequencing differ in the children they identify with CAS, possibly due to aspects of the underlying task requirements (e.g., time pressure). The SRT and the MRR-Tri should not be used in isolation to identify CAS but may be useful as part of a balanced CAS assessment battery that includes additional tasks that inform the nature of the impairment and that aid treatment planning. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14110280.