A Diagnostic Marker to Discriminate Childhood Apraxia of Speech From Speech Delay: IV. The Pause Marker Index.

Purpose: Three previous articles provided rationale, methods, and several forms of validity support for a diagnostic marker of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS), termed the pause marker (PM). Goals of the present article were to assess the validity and stability of the PM Index (PMI) to scale CAS severity. Method: PM scores and speech, prosody, and voice precision-stability data were obtained for participants with CAS in idiopathic, neurogenetic, and complex neurodevelopmental disorders; adult-onset apraxia of speech consequent to stroke and primary progressive apraxia; and idiopathic speech delay. Three studies were completed including criterion and concurrent validity studies of the PMI and a temporal stability study of the PMI using retrospective case studies. Results: PM scores were significantly correlated with other signs of CAS precision and stability. The best fit of the distribution of PM scores to index CAS severity was obtained by dividing scores into 4 ordinal severity classifications: mild, mild-moderate, moderate-severe, and severe. Severity findings for the 4 classifications and retrospective longitudinal findings from 8 participants with CAS supported the validity and stability of the PMI. Conclusion: Findings support research and clinical use of the PMI to scale the severity of CAS.

A Diagnostic Marker to Discriminate Childhood Apraxia of Speech From Speech Delay: Introduction.

Purpose: The goal of this article is to introduce the pause marker (PM), a single-sign diagnostic marker proposed to discriminate early or persistent childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) from speech delay.

A Diagnostic Marker to Discriminate Childhood Apraxia of Speech From Speech Delay: III. Theoretical Coherence of the Pause Marker with Speech Processing Deficits in Childhood Apraxia of Speech.

Purpose: Previous articles in this supplement described rationale for and development of the pause marker (PM), a diagnostic marker of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS), and studies supporting its validity and reliability. The present article assesses the theoretical coherence of the PM with speech processing deficits in CAS. Method: PM and other scores were obtained for 264 participants in 6 groups: CAS in idiopathic, neurogenetic, and complex neurodevelopmental disorders; adult-onset apraxia of speech (AAS) consequent to stroke and primary progressive apraxia of speech; and idiopathic speech delay. Results: Participants with CAS and AAS had significantly lower scores than typically speaking reference participants and speech delay controls on measures posited to assess representational and transcoding processes. Representational deficits differed between CAS and AAS groups, with support for both underspecified linguistic representations and memory/access deficits in CAS, but for only the latter in AAS. CAS-AAS similarities in the age-sex standardized percentages of occurrence of the most frequent type of inappropriate pauses (abrupt) and significant differences in the standardized occurrence of appropriate pauses were consistent with speech processing findings. Conclusions: Results support the hypotheses of core representational and transcoding speech processing deficits in CAS and theoretical coherence of the PM's pause-speech elements with these deficits.

A Diagnostic Marker to Discriminate Childhood Apraxia of Speech From Speech Delay: I. Development and Description of the Pause Marker.

Purpose: The goal of this article (PM I) is to describe the rationale for and development of the Pause Marker (PM), a single-sign diagnostic marker proposed to discriminate early or persistent childhood apraxia of speech from speech delay. Method: The authors describe and prioritize 7 criteria with which to evaluate the research and clinical utility of a diagnostic marker for childhood apraxia of speech, including evaluation of the present proposal. An overview is given of the Speech Disorders Classification System, including extensions completed in the same approximately 3-year period in which the PM was developed. Results: The finalized Speech Disorders Classification System includes a nosology and cross-classification procedures for childhood and persistent speech disorders and motor speech disorders (Shriberg, Strand, & Mabie, 2017). A PM is developed that provides procedural and scoring information, and citations to papers and technical reports that include audio exemplars of the PM and reference data used to standardize PM scores are provided. Conclusions: The PM described here is an acoustic-aided perceptual sign that quantifies one aspect of speech precision in the linguistic domain of phrasing. This diagnostic marker can be used to discriminate early or persistent childhood apraxia of speech from speech delay.

A Diagnostic Marker to Discriminate Childhood Apraxia of Speech From Speech Delay: II. Validity Studies of the Pause Marker.

Purpose: The purpose of this 2nd article in this supplement is to report validity support findings for the Pause Marker (PM), a proposed single-sign diagnostic marker of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Method: PM scores and additional perceptual and acoustic measures were obtained from 296 participants in cohorts with idiopathic and neurogenetic CAS, adult-onset apraxia of speech and primary progressive apraxia of speech, and idiopathic speech delay. Results: Adjusted for questionable specificity disagreements with a pediatric Mayo Clinic diagnostic standard, the estimated sensitivity and specificity, respectively, of the PM were 86.8% and 100% for the CAS cohort, yielding positive and negative likelihood ratios of 56.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.15, 2763.31]) and 0.13 (95% CI [0.06, 0.30]). Specificity of the PM for 4 cohorts totaling 205 participants with speech delay was 98.5%. Conclusion: These findings are interpreted as providing support for the PM as a near-conclusive diagnostic marker of CAS.

Extensions to the Speech Disorders Classification System (SDCS).

This report describes three extensions to a classification system for paediatric 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 sub-types of motor speech disorders. Part II describes the Madison Speech Assessment Protocol (MSAP), an ∼ 2-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 ∼ 90 perceptual- and acoustic-based indices of speech, prosody, and voice used to quantify and classify sub-types of Speech Sound Disorders (SSD). A companion paper 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, and a test of the hypothesis of apraxia of speech in a group of children with autism spectrum disorders. All SDCS methods and reference databases running in the PEPPER (Programs to Examine Phonetic and Phonologic Evaluation Records) environment will be disseminated without cost when complete.

Perceptual and acoustic reliability estimates for the Speech Disorders Classification System (SDCS).

A companion paper describes three extensions to a classification system for paediatric speech sound disorders termed the Speech Disorders Classification System (SDCS). The SDCS uses perceptual and acoustic data reduction methods to obtain information on a speaker's speech, prosody, and voice. The present paper provides reliability estimates for the two perceptual methods (narrow phonetic transcription; prosody-voice coding) and the acoustic analysis methods the SDCS uses to describe and classify a speaker's speech competence, precision, and stability. Speech samples from 10 speakers, five with significant motor speech disorder and five with typical speech, were re-measured to estimate intra-judge and inter-judge agreement for the perceptual and acoustic methods. Each of the speakers completed five speech tasks (total = 50 datasets), ranging in articulatory difficulty for the speakers, with consequences for the difficulty level of data reduction. Point-to-point percentage of agreement findings for the two perceptual methods were as high or higher than reported in literature reviews and from previous studies conducted within the laboratory. Percentage of agreement findings for the acoustics tasks of segmenting phonemes, editing fundamental frequency tracks, and estimating formants ranged from values in the mid 70% to 100%, with most estimates in the mid 80% to mid 90% range. Findings are interpreted as support for the perceptual and acoustic methods used in the SDCS to describe and classify speakers with speech sound disorders.