Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.55 561-578 April 2012. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0120)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Maas, E.
Right arrow Articles by Farinella, K. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Maas, E.
Right arrow Articles by Farinella, K. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

Random Versus Blocked Practice in Treatment for Childhood Apraxia of Speech

Edwin Maasa
Kimberly A. Farinellaa,,b
a University of Arizona, Tucson
b Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff

Correspondence to Edwin Maas: emaas{at}arizona.edu

Purpose: To compare the relative effects of random vs. blocked practice schedules in treatment for childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Although there have been repeated suggestions in the literature to use random practice in CAS treatment, no systematic studies exist that have directly compared random with blocked practice in this population.

Method: Using an alternating treatments single-subject design with multiple baselines across behaviors, the authors compared random and blocked practice in 4 children diagnosed with CAS in terms of retention and transfer. Random and blocked practice were implemented in the context of a version of Dynamic Temporal and Tactile *Cueing treatment (Strand, Stoeckel, & Baas, 2006). Perceptual accuracy of target utterances was scored, and effect sizes were calculated to quantify the magnitude of treatment effects.

Results: Findings were mixed, with 2 children showing a blocked practice advantage, 1 child showing a random practice advantage, and 1 child showing no clear improvement in either condition.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that the random practice advantage observed in the nonspeech motor learning literature may not extend to treatment for CAS. Furthermore, the findings add to the small body of literature indicating that integral stimulation treatment can lead to improvements in speech production for children with CAS.

KEY WORDS: childhood apraxia of speech, treatment, motor learning, single-subject design, speech disorders


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 AJSLPHome page
J. L. Wambaugh, C. Nessler, R. Cameron, and S. C. Mauszycki
Treatment for Acquired Apraxia of Speech: Examination of Treatment Intensity and Practice Schedule
Am J Speech Lang Pathol, February 1, 2013; 22(1): 84 - 102.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AJSLPHome page
E. Maas, C. E. Butalla, and K. A. Farinella
Feedback Frequency in Treatment for Childhood Apraxia of Speech
Am J Speech Lang Pathol, August 1, 2012; 21(3): 239 - 257.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]