A Randomized Controlled Trial for Children With Childhood Apraxia of Speech Comparing Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment and the Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme–Third Edition
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The therapeutic efficacy of clinician-led ReST is supported by several single-case experimental studies and randomized controlled trials.
“The therapeutic efficacy of clinician-led ReST is supported by several single-case experimental studies (e.g., Thomas et al., 2014Thomas et al., , 2016) ) and randomized controlled trials (e.g., McCabe et al., 2023;Murray et al., 2015).”
From Equipping Speech-Language Clinicians for the Critical Appraisal of an Artificial Intelligence–Driven, Evidence-Based Future (2025) · cites this paper as Murray et al., 2015
Cites
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373 · see citing works
Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials
Maher, C. G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Elkins, M. (2003) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/83.8.713 · Cited by 4,808 · see citing works
Boutron, I., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Ravaud, P., & for the CONSORT Group* (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008 · Cited by 2,292 · see citing works
Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential factors
Wulf, G., Shea, C., & Lewthwaite, R. (2010) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03421.x · Cited by 898 · see citing works
The Percentage of Consonants Correct (PCC) Metric: Extensions and Reliability Data
Shriberg, L. D., Austin, D., Lewis, B. A., McSweeny, J. L., & Wilson, D. L. (1997) · Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/jslhr.4004.708 · Cited by 647 · see citing works
A five-phase model for clinical-outcome research
Robey, R. R. (2004) · Journal of Communication Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2004.04.003 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
McNeill, B. C., Gillon, G. T., & Dodd, B. (2009) · Child Language Teaching and Therapy · doi:10.1177/0265659009339823 · Cited by 76 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, for Integrated Phonological Awareness intervention, the effect sizes for PPC were larger (McNeill et al., 2009) than our relatively small effect size for PPC derived from the GFTA-2.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Benway, N. R., & Preston, J. L. (2025) · Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/2025_lshss-24-00085 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- 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