PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if randomized variable practice, a central component of concurrent treatment, would be effective and efficient in treating childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Concurrent treatment is a treatment program that takes the speech task hierarchy and randomizes it so that all tasks are worked on in one session. Previous studies have shown the treatment program to be effective and efficient in treating phonological and articulation disorders. The program was adapted to be used with children with CAS. METHOD: A research design of multiple baselines across participants was used. Probes of generalization to untaught words were administered every fifth session. Three children, ranging in age from 4 to 6 years old, were the participants. Data were collected as percent correct productions during baseline, treatment, and probes of generalization of target sounds to untaught words and three-word phrases. RESULTS: All participants showed an increase in correct productions during treatment and during probes. Effect sizes (standard mean difference) for treatment were 3.61-5.00, and for generalization probes, they were 3.15-8.51. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained from this study suggest that randomized variable practice as used in concurrent treatment can be adapted for use in treating children with CAS. Replication of this study with other children presenting CAS will be needed to establish generality of the findings.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if randomized variable practice, a central component of concurrent treatment, would be effective and efficient in treating childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Concurrent treatment is a treatment program that takes the speech task hierarchy and randomizes it so that all tasks are worked on in one session. Previous studies have shown the treatment program to be effective and efficient in treating phonological and articulation disorders. The program was adapted to be used with children with CAS. METHOD: A research design of multiple baselines across participants was used. Probes of generalization to untaught words were administered every fifth session. Three children, ranging in age from 4 to 6 years old, were the participants. Data were collected as percent correct productions during baseline, treatment, and probes of generalization of target sounds to untaught words and three-word phrases. RESULTS: All participants showed an increase in correct productions during treatment and during probes. Effect sizes (standard mean difference) for treatment were 3.61-5.00, and for generalization probes, they were 3.15-8.51. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained from this study suggest that randomized variable practice as used in concurrent treatment can be adapted for use in treating children with CAS. Replication of this study with other children presenting CAS will be needed to establish generality of the findings.