PURPOSE: This investigation was designed to elucidate the effects of repeated practice treatment on sound production accuracy in individuals with apraxia of speech (AOS) and aphasia. A secondary purpose was to determine if the addition of rate/rhythm control to treatment provided further benefits beyond those achieved with repeated practice. METHOD: A single-subject design was employed with 10 speakers with chronic AOS and aphasia. Articulation accuracy served as the dependent measure. Participants received repeated practice treatment until a plateau in performance was observed or high levels of accuracy were achieved. If performance criterion was not reached, rate/rhythm control was added to the treatment to determine if additional gains would be made. RESULTS: For 8 of the participants, improvements were evident for all applications of repeated practice treatment, and positive response generalization was observed in most cases. When rate/rhythm control treatment was applied, modest additional gains were apparent for the majority of the applications. The 2 participants who did not benefit from repeated practice treatment also did not show improvements with rate/rhythm control treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated practice treatment resulted in improved articulation for the majority of participants. The amount of improvement varied within and across participants. Rate/rhythm control appeared to have limited additional benefits for some participants.
PURPOSE: This investigation was designed to elucidate the effects of repeated practice treatment on sound production accuracy in individuals with apraxia of speech (AOS) and aphasia. A secondary purpose was to determine if the addition of rate/rhythm control to treatment provided further benefits beyond those achieved with repeated practice. METHOD: A single-subject design was employed with 10 speakers with chronic AOS and aphasia. Articulation accuracy served as the dependent measure. Participants received repeated practice treatment until a plateau in performance was observed or high levels of accuracy were achieved. If performance criterion was not reached, rate/rhythm control was added to the treatment to determine if additional gains would be made. RESULTS: For 8 of the participants, improvements were evident for all applications of repeated practice treatment, and positive response generalization was observed in most cases. When rate/rhythm control treatment was applied, modest additional gains were apparent for the majority of the applications. The 2 participants who did not benefit from repeated practice treatment also did not show improvements with rate/rhythm control treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated practice treatment resulted in improved articulation for the majority of participants. The amount of improvement varied within and across participants. Rate/rhythm control appeared to have limited additional benefits for some participants.