A Phonomotor Approach to Apraxia of Speech Treatment

A Comparison of Sound Production Treatment and Metrical Pacing Therapy for Apraxia of Speech: A Single-Case Experimental Design

PURPOSE

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of two specific treatment protocols for acquired apraxia of speech (AOS): Sound Production Treatment (SPT) and Metrical Pacing Therapy (MPT), and to examine changes in communicative participation.

METHOD

Four speakers with chronic AOS and aphasia were each administered SPT and MPT in a replicated crossover design (ABACA/ACABA) with nonconcurrent multiple baselines across participants and behaviors. Treatment outcomes were compared with respect to whole word correctness (WWC) for treated and untreated multisyllabic word targets. Speech intelligibility was assessed using the Chapel Hill Multilingual Intelligibility Test, and communicative participation was measured using the Communicative Participation Item Bank at baseline, washout, and follow-up phases.

RESULTS

Three of the four participants experienced statistically significant improvements in WWC with SPT, and three of the four participants with MPT. Based on a priori criteria, three participants demonstrated relatively greater benefit from SPT and one participant demonstrated relatively greater benefit from MPT. There were measurable improvements in intelligibility following SPT for three of the four participants. Only one participant in this investigation reported a significant change in communicative participation, and only following MPT.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that individuals in the chronic stages of AOS can benefit from both SPT and MPT, corroborating prior research on articulatory kinematic and rate and/or rhythm control treatment approaches. It contributes a comparison of two protocols for AOS with respect to whole word targets, intelligibility, and individual self-report of communicative participation changes. More participants showed a relative advantage of SPT over MPT. One individual reported communicative participation improvement after MPT.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.23971929.

Assessing Patients and Care Partner Ratings of Communication-Related Participation Restrictions: Insights From Degenerative Disease

PURPOSE

Prior studies have shown that communication-related participation restrictions in patients with degenerative disease do not always match clinician judgment or objective indices of symptom severity. Although there is a growing body of literature documenting that discrepancies between patients with dementia and their care partners' perception of participation restrictions exist, it is not known how care partner perceptions of communication participation restrictions specifically match or diverge from the patients' experiences, which may inform the use of care partner proxy in the context of degenerative diseases.

METHOD

Thirty-eight patients with progressive neurologic conditions (progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome, and primary progressive aphasia or apraxia of speech) and, in most instances, focal cognitive-communication disorders were included. The patients and their accompanying care partners independently completed the Communicative Participation Item Bank, short form, a 10-question survey about communication participation restrictions in different contexts. Care partners were instructed to complete the form with their perception of the patient's experience. The difference between patient and care partner total scores were calculated and analyzed relative to clinical and demographic variables of interest.

RESULTS

Care partner ratings modestly tracked with patient experience and objective indices of symptom severity but did not exactly match patient ratings. The presence of aphasia increased, but did not fully account for, the likelihood of a discrepancy between care partner and patient ratings.

CONCLUSION

Although careful consideration should be given prior to using care-partner report as a proxy for patient experience, it is worthwhile to include care partner ratings as a means of supporting conversations about differing perceptions, guiding joint intervention planning, and monitoring care-partner perceptions of change along with the implementation of supported conversation strategies.

Speech Therapy Interventions for Acquired Apraxia of Speech: An Updated Systematic Review

PURPOSE

This systematic review aims to summarize and evaluate the available literature on speech and language therapy interventions for acquired apraxia of speech since 2012.

METHOD

A systematic search in six electronic databases was performed from 2013 to 2020. The following primary outcomes were summarized: (a) improvement in targeted behaviors, (b) generalization, and (c) maintenance of outcomes. Moreover, studies were evaluated for the level of evidence and the clinical phase.

RESULTS

Of the 3,070 records identified, 27 studies were included in this review. The majority of the studies (n = 22) used articulatory kinematic approaches followed by intersystemic facilitation/reorganization treatments (n = 4) and other approaches (n = 1). According to the classes defined in Clinical Practice Guideline Process Manual (Gronseth et al., 2017), one was Class II, 10 were Class III, 10 were Class III-b (fulfill Class III criteria except for independence of assessors' criterion), and five were Class IV. In terms of clinical phase, one study classified as Phase III, 10 as Phase II, and 15 as Phase I.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the interventions for apraxia of speech, articulatory kinematic treatments have become prominent over the last 8 years. Focusing on self-administrated therapies, use of technology for therapy administration and development of treatments that focus on apraxia of speech and aphasia simultaneously were identified as new advancements in the apraxia of speech literature. The methodological quality, clinical phase, and level of evidence of the studies have improved within the past 8 years. Large-scale randomized controlled trials for articulatory kinematic approaches and future studies on other treatment approaches are warranted.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22223785.

Assessing Change in Communication Limitations in Primary Progressive Apraxia of Speech and Aphasia: A 1-Year Follow-Up Study

Purpose Individuals with primary progressive apraxia of speech have apraxia of speech (AOS) as the initial and predominant symptom. Many develop aphasia and/or dysarthria later in the disease course. It was previously demonstrated that patients with neurodegenerative AOS experience reduced participation in communication that is further exacerbated by co-occurring language deficits (Utianski et al., 2020). Measures of disease severity did not necessarily correlate with measures of participation restrictions. The aim of this follow-up study was to describe changes in communication limitations in these patients, again measured by (a) the patient via the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) and (b) the speech-language pathologist via the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (ASHA's) Functional Communication Measures (FCMs) and an adapted motor speech disorder (MSD) severity rating to determine if there are significant changes in these and other objective speech and language measures at follow-up after 1 year. Method Of the 24 patients reported in the study of Utianski et al. (2020), 17 (10 men, seven women) returned for a second visit approximately 1 year following the first visit. Identical procedures were utilized; the communication measures collected at each visit were statistically compared. Correlations were calculated between the participation ratings and other clinical assessment measures at the second visit and for the change in scores on those measures between the first and second visits. Results There were statistically significant differences in AOS and aphasia severity between visits. There were significant changes in clinical assessments, MSD severity rating, and all ASHA FCMs between visits, but not the CPIB. Correlation analyses suggest the relationships among clinical and participation measures are complex; overall, patients with more severe changes in AOS experienced greater changes in participation restrictions. Conclusions The findings of this study support the use of patient-reported outcome measures as they may better reflect the patient experience, including the influence of factors such as ongoing speech therapy and the emergence of neuropsychiatric features, and associated changes in day-to-day functioning, when other measures may simply index the progression of the disease. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16528512.

The Communicative Participation Item Bank: Evaluating, and Reevaluating, Its Use across Communication Disorders in Adults

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential in patient-centered, evidence-based practice in speech-language pathology. PROs respect individuals who live with communication disorders as key stakeholders providing a critically unique perspective on consequences of communication disorders, and whether interventions bring about meaningful changes. Some PROs focus on specific communication symptoms such as voice or language symptom severity, while others focus on broader constructs such as quality of life. Many PROs target specific diagnostic groups. This article presents the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB), a PRO that measures communicative participation restrictions. The CPIB was based on the concept of participation, or engagement in life situations, as defined in the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. It was designed to be relevant for adults across different communication disorders to facilitate clinical and research activities that may involve either comparing or aggregating data across communication disorders. The CPIB follows current PRO development protocols including systematic guidance from stakeholders through cognitive interviews, and the measurement methods of Item Response Theory that allow precise and adaptive assessment. This article reviews use of the CPIB across different diagnostic groups, and identifies needs for future efforts to expand the relevance of the CPIB further.

Apraxia of speech and the study of speech production impairments: Can we avoid further confusion? Reply to Romani (2021)

We agree with Cristina Romani (CR) about reducing confusion and agree that the issues raised in her commentary are central to the study of apraxia of speech (AOS). However, CR critiques our approach from the perspective of basic cognitive neuropsychology. This is confusing and misleading because, contrary to CR's claim, we did not attempt to inform models of typical speech production. Instead, we relied on such models to study the impairment in the clinical category of AOS (translational cognitive neuropsychology). Thus, the approach along with the underlying assumptions is different. This response aims to clarify these assumptions, broaden the discussion regarding the methodological approach, and address CR's concerns. We argue that our approach is well-suited to meet the goals of our recent studies and is commensurate with the current state of the science of AOS. Ultimately, a plurality of approaches is needed to understand a phenomenon as complex as AOS.