Random versus Blocked Practice in Treatment for Childhood Apraxia of Speech

Autor/inn/en	Maas, Edwin; Farinella, Kimberly A.
Titel	Random versus Blocked Practice in Treatment for Childhood Apraxia of Speech
Quelle	In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55 (2012) 2, S.561-578 (18 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1092-4388
DOI	10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0120)
Schlagwörter	Children; Speech; Transfer of Training; Recall (Psychology); Scheduling; Speech Language Pathology; Comparative Analysis; Statistical Analysis; Communication Disorders; Speech Impairments; Neurological Impairments; Prompting; Outcomes of Treatment + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Child; Kind; Kinder; Speaking; Sprechen; Training; Transfer; Ausbildung; Abberufung; Disposition; Statistische Analyse; Kommunikationsstörung; Speech impairment; Speech handicap; Speech handicaps; Language handicps; Language impairments; Sprachbehinderung; Neurodegenerative Erkrankung; Benutzerführung
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. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). 10801 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Tel: 800-638-8255; Fax: 301-571-0457; e-mail: subscribe@asha.org; Web site: http://jslhr.asha.org
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10