PURPOSE: The authors designed this investigation to extend the development of a treatment for acquired apraxia of speech (AOS)--sound production treatment (SPT)--by examining the effects of 2 treatment intensities and 2 schedules of practice. METHOD: The authors used a multiple baseline design across participants and behaviors with 4 speakers with chronic AOS and aphasia. Accuracy of production of trained and untrained words in phrases served as the dependent measure. Participants received 4 permutations of SPT (i.e., intensive-blocked, intensive-random, traditional-blocked, and traditional-random) applied sequentially to different lists of words. RESULTS: Positive changes in accuracy of articulation were observed for all participants for all phases of treatment. Two participants had a slightly poorer response to the traditional-random application of treatment. However, no clinically meaningful differences were noted among treatment applications when follow-up data were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this preliminary Phase II investigation suggest that similar outcomes may be achieved with SPT applied with different treatment intensities and different practice schedules. Extending treatment to achieve higher levels of accuracy may have improved maintenance effects, which may have revealed possible differences among conditions. In addition, overlap in methods used for random and blocked practice may have minimized distinctions between these conditions.
PURPOSE: The authors designed this investigation to extend the development of a treatment for acquired apraxia of speech (AOS)--sound production treatment (SPT)--by examining the effects of 2 treatment intensities and 2 schedules of practice. METHOD: The authors used a multiple baseline design across participants and behaviors with 4 speakers with chronic AOS and aphasia. Accuracy of production of trained and untrained words in phrases served as the dependent measure. Participants received 4 permutations of SPT (i.e., intensive-blocked, intensive-random, traditional-blocked, and traditional-random) applied sequentially to different lists of words. RESULTS: Positive changes in accuracy of articulation were observed for all participants for all phases of treatment. Two participants had a slightly poorer response to the traditional-random application of treatment. However, no clinically meaningful differences were noted among treatment applications when follow-up data were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this preliminary Phase II investigation suggest that similar outcomes may be achieved with SPT applied with different treatment intensities and different practice schedules. Extending treatment to achieve higher levels of accuracy may have improved maintenance effects, which may have revealed possible differences among conditions. In addition, overlap in methods used for random and blocked practice may have minimized distinctions between these conditions.
Authors: Phil Weir-Mayta; Kristie A Spencer; Steven M Bierer; Ayoub Daliri; Peter Ondish; Ashley France; Erika Hutchison; Caitlin Sears Journal: Int J Aging Res Date: 2019