TY - JOUR
T1 - Differential diagnosis of childhood apraxia of speech compared to other speech sound disorders
T2 - A systematic review
AU - Murray, Elizabeth
AU - Iuzzini-Seigel, Jenya
AU - Maas, Edwin
AU - Terband, Hayo
AU - Ballard, Kirrie J.
N1 - Funding Information:
We acknowledge support from Lauren Reid, the research assistant who supported finding the articles in the review; the Academy of Neurologic Communication Disorders and Sciences; and the Apraxia of Speech Writing Committee (Acquired AOS members) in providing the manual and Excel spreadsheet templates we adapted for this childhood apraxia of speech review.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
PY - 2021/1
Y1 - 2021/1
N2 - Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the discriminative features that might contribute to differentiation of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) from other speech sound disorders (SSDs). Method: A comprehensive literature search was conducted for articles or doctoral dissertations that included ≥ 1 child with CAS and ≥ 1 child with SSD. Of 2,071 publications screened, 53 met the criteria. Articles were assessed for (a) study design and risk of bias; (b) participant characteristics and confidence in diagnosis; and (c) discriminative perceptual, acoustic, or kinematic measures. A criterion was used to identify promising studies: American Academy of Neurology study design (Class III+), replicable participant descriptions and adequate confidence in diagnosis (≥ 3), and ≥ 1 discriminative and reliable measure. Results: Over 75% of studies were retrospective, case– control designs and/or assessed English-speaking children. Many studies did not fully describe study design and quality.
AB - Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the discriminative features that might contribute to differentiation of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) from other speech sound disorders (SSDs). Method: A comprehensive literature search was conducted for articles or doctoral dissertations that included ≥ 1 child with CAS and ≥ 1 child with SSD. Of 2,071 publications screened, 53 met the criteria. Articles were assessed for (a) study design and risk of bias; (b) participant characteristics and confidence in diagnosis; and (c) discriminative perceptual, acoustic, or kinematic measures. A criterion was used to identify promising studies: American Academy of Neurology study design (Class III+), replicable participant descriptions and adequate confidence in diagnosis (≥ 3), and ≥ 1 discriminative and reliable measure. Results: Over 75% of studies were retrospective, case– control designs and/or assessed English-speaking children. Many studies did not fully describe study design and quality.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100508636&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85100508636&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00063
DO - 10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00063
M3 - Review article
C2 - 33151751
AN - SCOPUS:85100508636
SN - 1058-0360
VL - 30
SP - 279
EP - 300
JO - American journal of speech-language pathology
JF - American journal of speech-language pathology
IS - 1
ER -