Display options
Cite
Ballard KJ, Wambaugh JL, Duffy JR, et al. Treatment for Acquired Apraxia of Speech: A Systematic Review of Intervention Research Between 2004 and 2012. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015;24(2):316-337doi: 10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0118.
Ballard, K. J., Wambaugh, J. L., Duffy, J. R., Layfield, C., Maas, E., Mauszycki, S., & McNeil, M. R. (2015). Treatment for Acquired Apraxia of Speech: A Systematic Review of Intervention Research Between 2004 and 2012. American journal of speech-language pathology, 24(2), 316-337. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0118
Ballard, Kirrie J, et al. "Treatment for Acquired Apraxia of Speech: A Systematic Review of Intervention Research Between 2004 and 2012." American journal of speech-language pathology vol. 24,2 (2015): 316-337. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0118
Ballard KJ, Wambaugh JL, Duffy JR, Layfield C, Maas E, Mauszycki S, McNeil MR. Treatment for Acquired Apraxia of Speech: A Systematic Review of Intervention Research Between 2004 and 2012. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015 May 01;24(2):316-337. doi: 10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0118. PMID: 25815778.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015 May 01;24(2):316-337. doi: 10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0118.

Treatment for Acquired Apraxia of Speech: A Systematic Review of Intervention Research Between 2004 and 2012.

American journal of speech-language pathology

Kirrie J Ballard, Julie L Wambaugh, Joseph R Duffy, Claire Layfield, Edwin Maas, Shannon Mauszycki, Malcolm R McNeil

PMID: 25815778 DOI: 10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0118

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim was for the appointed committee of the Academy of Neurological Communication Disorders and Sciences to conduct a systematic review of published intervention studies of acquired apraxia of speech (AOS), updating the previous committee's review article from 2006.

METHOD: A systematic search of 11 databases identified 215 articles, with 26 meeting inclusion criteria of (a) stating intention to measure effects of treatment on AOS and (b) data representing treatment effects for at least 1 individual stated to have AOS.

RESULTS: All studies involved within-participant experimental designs, with sample sizes of 1 to 44 (median = 1). Confidence in diagnosis was rated high to reasonable in 18 of 26 studies. Most studies (24/26) reported on articulatory-kinematic approaches; 2 applied rhythm/rate control methods. Six studies had sufficient experimental control for Class III rating according to the Clinical Practice Guidelines Process Manual (American Academy of Neurology, 2011), with 15 others satisfying all criteria for Class III except use of independent or objective outcome measurement.

CONCLUSIONS: The most important global clinical conclusion from this review is that the weight of evidence supports a strong effect for both articulatory-kinematic and rate/rhythm approaches to AOS treatment. The quantity of work, experimental rigor, and reporting of diagnostic criteria continue to improve and strengthen confidence in the corpus of research.

Publication Types