Random versus blocked practice in treatment for childhood apraxia of speech

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)561-578
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume55
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2012

Fingerprint

Apraxias
childhood
Therapeutics
Touch
Childhood Apraxia of Speech
Appointments and Schedules
Learning
Population

Keywords

  • Childhood apraxia of speech
  • Motor learning
  • Single-subject design
  • Speech disorders
  • Treatment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Speech and Hearing
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Random versus blocked practice in treatment for childhood apraxia of speech. / Maas, Edwin; Farinella, Kimberly A.

In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Vol. 55, No. 2, 01.04.2012, p. 561-578.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5e34d41f44394c4bab2a5836ee001573,
title = "Random versus blocked practice in treatment for childhood apraxia of speech",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Childhood apraxia of speech, Motor learning, Single-subject design, Speech disorders, Treatment",
author = "Edwin Maas and Farinella, {Kimberly A}",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0120)",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "55",
pages = "561--578",
journal = "Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research",
issn = "1092-4388",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Random versus blocked practice in treatment for childhood apraxia of speech

AU - Maas, Edwin

AU - Farinella, Kimberly A

PY - 2012/4/1

Y1 - 2012/4/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Childhood apraxia of speech

KW - Motor learning

KW - Single-subject design

KW - Speech disorders

KW - Treatment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859389837&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859389837&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0120)

DO - 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0120)

M3 - Article

VL - 55

SP - 561

EP - 578

JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

SN - 1092-4388

IS - 2

ER -