Cited by 137Language Development and DisordersVoice and Speech DisordersChildren's Physical and Motor Development

A Randomized Controlled Trial for Children With Childhood Apraxia of Speech Comparing Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment and the Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme–Third Edition

Murray, Elizabeth, McCabe, Patricia, Ballard, Kirrie J.·2015·Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Abstract

Purpose This randomized controlled trial compared the experimental Rapid Syllable Transition (ReST) treatment to the Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme-Third Edition (NDP3; Williams & Stephens, 2004), used widely in clinical practice in Australia and the United Kingdom. Both programs aim to improve speech motor planning/programming for children with apraxia of speech (CAS), but they differ in types of stimuli used, level of stimulus complexity at initiation of treatment, and the principles of motor learning that they apply. Method Treatment was delivered to 26 children with mild to severe CAS aged 4-12 years through trained and supervised speech-language pathology students in 1-hr sessions, 4 days a week for 3 weeks at a university clinic. Articulation and prosodic accuracy were assessed at pretreatment, 1 week, 1 month, and 4 months posttreatment using blinded independent assessors to compare treatment, maintenance, and generalization effects. Results The ReST and NDP3 treatments demonstrated large treatment effects. ReST maintained treatment gains from 1-week to 4-months posttreatment more effectively than the NDP3. Significant generalization to untreated stimuli was observed for both ReST and NDP3. Conclusions ReST and NDP3 have strong evidence of treatment and generalization gains in children with CAS when delivered intensively. Overall, ReST has greater external evidence from multiple sources but both treatments have support for clinical use.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/2015_jslhr-s-13-0179

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murray, E., McCabe, P., & Ballard, K. J.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Venue
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Published
2015-06
Volume
58
Issue
3
Pages
669-686
ISSN
  • 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9102
OpenAlex
W2073254356
Cited by
137
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5
FWCI
33.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Children's Physical and Motor Development
Keywords
childhood apraxia of speech, speech motor planning, maintenance therapy, articulation accuracy, motor learning
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Apraxias, Australia, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Language Tests, Male, Motor Skills, Severity of Illness Index, Speech, Speech Disorders, Speech Production Measurement, Speech Therapy, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review