Voice therapy is a complex behavioural intervention. Understanding its components is integral for continued advancement of voice therapy research, translation of evidence into the clinical setting and improved client care. The Motor Learning Classification Framework (MLCF) offers an excellent opportunity for increasing such knowledge, specifically in relation to identifying variables that affect motor learning (ML), an important mechanism hypothesised to bring about voice change during voice therapy. The MLCF has shown promising results in identifying speech-language pathologists’ (SLPs) use of ML variables during experimentally controlled voice therapy contexts. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of applying the framework in the clinical context of everyday voice therapy practice. Data consisted of two video-recorded voice therapy sessions representing usual voice therapy care. Classification of ML variables used by SLPs during the recorded sessions was attempted based on the MLCF. Several problematic features of the framework were identified. Based on deliberations between the authors of the current paper, the MLCF was revised using an iterative process. This resulted in the construction of an updated version of the framework (MLCF-V2). The MLCF-V2 organises ML strategies into two broad categories: directly observable behaviours and learning processes. The framework incorporates greater consideration of theory and empirical evidence supporting motivational, attentional focus and subjective error estimation influences on ML. Several examples of each ML variable are included as well as an attempt to provide clearer classification instruction. It is anticipated that the MLCF-V2 will provide a more useful and reliable classification for use in future investigations of SLPs’ use of ML variables during usual voice therapy practice.

Voice therapy is a complex behavioural intervention. Understanding its components is integral for continued advancement of voice therapy research, translation of evidence into the clinical setting and improved client care. The Motor Learning Classification Framework (MLCF) offers an excellent opportunity for increasing such knowledge, specifically in relation to identifying variables that affect motor learning (ML), an important mechanism hypothesised to bring about voice change during voice therapy. The MLCF has shown promising results in identifying speech-language pathologists’ (SLPs) use of ML variables during experimentally controlled voice therapy contexts. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of applying the framework in the clinical context of everyday voice therapy practice. Data consisted of two video-recorded voice therapy sessions representing usual voice therapy care. Classification of ML variables used by SLPs during the recorded sessions was attempted based on the MLCF. Several problematic features of the framework were identified. Based on deliberations between the authors of the current paper, the MLCF was revised using an iterative process. This resulted in the construction of an updated version of the framework (MLCF-V2). The MLCF-V2 organises ML strategies into two broad categories: directly observable behaviours and learning processes. The framework incorporates greater consideration of theory and empirical evidence supporting motivational, attentional focus and subjective error estimation influences on ML. Several examples of each ML variable are included as well as an attempt to provide clearer classification instruction. It is anticipated that the MLCF-V2 will provide a more useful and reliable classification for use in future investigations of SLPs’ use of ML variables during usual voice therapy practice.

To evaluate the dose–response relationship between the number of It Takes Two to Talk® (ITTT) sessions attended and the language outcomes of young children with language delay and their parent’s responsivity in a multicultural clinical population. A clinical caseload of 273 early language delayed children (mean age 29.2 months, SD 7.8) and their families participated in parent group workshops and individual coaching sessions of the parent responsivity program ITTT. The children’s vocabulary and early syntax, collected using the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories and mean length of the three longest utterances respectively, were collated from pre- and post-intervention from pre-existing clinical data. Parental responsivity was evaluated utilising the Parent–Child Interaction checklist at three time points. Multilevel regression was used to determine the relationship between the number of sessions attended and outcomes, while accounting for covariates such as age and language spoken. ITTT dosage did not predict child language outcomes. Rather, vocabulary and early syntax outcomes were predicted by age, pre-scores and parent responsivity at the beginning of treatment. A higher dosage of ITTT did however positively predict parent responsivity, as did speaking only English at home. Socioeconomic status, gender and presence of receptive language difficulties did not contribute significantly to either child or parent outcomes. A lower dosage of the intervention may be considered for parents and children with fewer known risk factors without significant implications.

To evaluate the dose–response relationship between the number of It Takes Two to Talk® (ITTT) sessions attended and the language outcomes of young children with language delay and their parent’s responsivity in a multicultural clinical population. A clinical caseload of 273 early language delayed children (mean age 29.2 months, SD 7.8) and their families participated in parent group workshops and individual coaching sessions of the parent responsivity program ITTT. The children’s vocabulary and early syntax, collected using the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories and mean length of the three longest utterances respectively, were collated from pre- and post-intervention from pre-existing clinical data. Parental responsivity was evaluated utilising the Parent–Child Interaction checklist at three time points. Multilevel regression was used to determine the relationship between the number of sessions attended and outcomes, while accounting for covariates such as age and language spoken. ITTT dosage did not predict child language outcomes. Rather, vocabulary and early syntax outcomes were predicted by age, pre-scores and parent responsivity at the beginning of treatment. A higher dosage of ITTT did however positively predict parent responsivity, as did speaking only English at home. Socioeconomic status, gender and presence of receptive language difficulties did not contribute significantly to either child or parent outcomes. A lower dosage of the intervention may be considered for parents and children with fewer known risk factors without significant implications.

Motor speech and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) interventions are commonly used with children with cerebral palsy (CP) but there is limited literature comparing the effectiveness of these interventions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of intensive AAC, Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment (ReST), and blended intervention, a combination of motor-speech and AAC, on speech accuracy and sentence length and complexity. A single case experimental design across participants with repeated measurements across phases (ABACADA design) was used. Four participants aged 8–14 years with CP who used a speech-generating device (SGD) received three 6-week intervention blocks that included ReST, AAC, and blended intervention. Measures were taken during intervention and baseline phases and at maintenance two and four weeks after the last intervention phase. Participants were randomized to starting with either ReST or AAC with the blended intervention delivered last. All participants improved their speech accuracy and sentence length and complexity in speech and with their SGD in all three interventions. The data demonstrated overall immediacy of the effect with all interventions and retention of gains across the whole sequence of phases. The order of AAC or ReST interventions or the severity of CP did not impact the intervention gains. This study suggests that intensive AAC, a multi-modal approach, and ReST improve speech accuracy and sentence length and complexity in children with moderate CP, but all require further investigation.Implications for rehabilitationIn this paper intensive AAC intervention with a speech generating device (SGD), ReST treatment and multimodal blended intervention were effective in improving speech accuracy and sentence length and complexity in both verbal speech and on communication with the SGD.ReST treatment has not been used with children with CP before. This study established a proof of concept for its effectiveness in children with CP. Further research is warranted. In this paper intensive AAC intervention with a speech generating device (SGD), ReST treatment and multimodal blended intervention were effective in improving speech accuracy and sentence length and complexity in both verbal speech and on communication with the SGD. ReST treatment has not been used with children with CP before. This study established a proof of concept for its effectiveness in children with CP. Further research is warranted.

Motor speech and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) interventions are commonly used with children with cerebral palsy (CP) but there is limited literature comparing the effectiveness of these interventions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of intensive AAC, Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment (ReST), and blended intervention, a combination of motor-speech and AAC, on speech accuracy and sentence length and complexity. A single case experimental design across participants with repeated measurements across phases (ABACADA design) was used. Four participants aged 8–14 years with CP who used a speech-generating device (SGD) received three 6-week intervention blocks that included ReST, AAC, and blended intervention. Measures were taken during intervention and baseline phases and at maintenance two and four weeks after the last intervention phase. Participants were randomized to starting with either ReST or AAC with the blended intervention delivered last. All participants improved their speech accuracy and sentence length and complexity in speech and with their SGD in all three interventions. The data demonstrated overall immediacy of the effect with all interventions and retention of gains across the whole sequence of phases. The order of AAC or ReST interventions or the severity of CP did not impact the intervention gains. This study suggests that intensive AAC, a multi-modal approach, and ReST improve speech accuracy and sentence length and complexity in children with moderate CP, but all require further investigation.Implications for rehabilitationIn this paper intensive AAC intervention with a speech generating device (SGD), ReST treatment and multimodal blended intervention were effective in improving speech accuracy and sentence length and complexity in both verbal speech and on communication with the SGD.ReST treatment has not been used with children with CP before. This study established a proof of concept for its effectiveness in children with CP. Further research is warranted. In this paper intensive AAC intervention with a speech generating device (SGD), ReST treatment and multimodal blended intervention were effective in improving speech accuracy and sentence length and complexity in both verbal speech and on communication with the SGD. ReST treatment has not been used with children with CP before. This study established a proof of concept for its effectiveness in children with CP. Further research is warranted.

While many examples of speech pathology intervention approaches for children with speech sound disorders (SSDs) exist in English and some other European languages, approaches with children in other languages are largely unknown. The aim was to determine current speech-language pathologists (SLPs) intervention practices with children with SSDs in the ME, and to then compare these with international practices. Data were collected by online questionnaire using Qualtrics. One hundred and eighty-nine SLPs completed the survey. Participants were required to be Arabic first language speaking SLPs practicing in the ME (e.g. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt), working with children with SSDs. The respondents reported a frequent use of phonological awareness, traditional articulation therapy, auditory discrimination, minimal pairs, and whole language therapy approaches in the treatment of children with SSDs, like their counterparts in Australia, the USA, UK, and Portugal. Gaps between research recommendations for evidence-based practice and actual clinical practice are identified, and discussed. Future research should investigate the efficacy of speech-therapy approaches to improve service delivery for Arabic-speaking children with SSDs in the ME.

While many examples of speech pathology intervention approaches for children with speech sound disorders (SSDs) exist in English and some other European languages, approaches with children in other languages are largely unknown. The aim was to determine current speech-language pathologists (SLPs) intervention practices with children with SSDs in the ME, and to then compare these with international practices. Data were collected by online questionnaire using Qualtrics. One hundred and eighty-nine SLPs completed the survey. Participants were required to be Arabic first language speaking SLPs practicing in the ME (e.g. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt), working with children with SSDs. The respondents reported a frequent use of phonological awareness, traditional articulation therapy, auditory discrimination, minimal pairs, and whole language therapy approaches in the treatment of children with SSDs, like their counterparts in Australia, the USA, UK, and Portugal. Gaps between research recommendations for evidence-based practice and actual clinical practice are identified, and discussed. Future research should investigate the efficacy of speech-therapy approaches to improve service delivery for Arabic-speaking children with SSDs in the ME.

Purpose The gold standard for diagnosing childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) is expert judgment of perceptual features. The aim of this study was to identify a set of objective measures that differentiate CAS from other speech disorders.
Method Seventy-two children (4–12 years of age) diagnosed with suspected CAS by community speech-language pathologists were screened. Forty-seven participants underwent diagnostic assessment including presence or absence of perceptual CAS features. Twenty-eight children met two sets of diagnostic criteria for CAS (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2007b; Shriberg, Potter, & Strand, 2009); another 4 met the CAS criteria with comorbidity. Fifteen were categorized as non-CAS with phonological impairment, submucous cleft, or dysarthria. Following this, 24 different measures from the diagnostic assessment were rated by blinded raters. Multivariate discriminant function analysis was used to identify the combination of measures that best predicted expert diagnoses.
Results The discriminant function analysis model, including syllable segregation, lexical stress matches, percentage phonemes correct from a polysyllabic picture-naming task, and articulatory accuracy on repetition of /pətəkə/, reached 91% diagnostic accuracy against expert diagnosis.
Conclusions Polysyllabic production accuracy and an oral motor examination that includes diadochokinesis may be sufficient to reliably identify CAS and rule out structural abnormality or dysarthria. Testing with a larger unselected sample is required.

Purpose The gold standard for diagnosing childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) is expert judgment of perceptual features. The aim of this study was to identify a set of objective measures that differentiate CAS from other speech disorders.
Method Seventy-two children (4–12 years of age) diagnosed with suspected CAS by community speech-language pathologists were screened. Forty-seven participants underwent diagnostic assessment including presence or absence of perceptual CAS features. Twenty-eight children met two sets of diagnostic criteria for CAS (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2007b; Shriberg, Potter, & Strand, 2009); another 4 met the CAS criteria with comorbidity. Fifteen were categorized as non-CAS with phonological impairment, submucous cleft, or dysarthria. Following this, 24 different measures from the diagnostic assessment were rated by blinded raters. Multivariate discriminant function analysis was used to identify the combination of measures that best predicted expert diagnoses.
Results The discriminant function analysis model, including syllable segregation, lexical stress matches, percentage phonemes correct from a polysyllabic picture-naming task, and articulatory accuracy on repetition of /pətəkə/, reached 91% diagnostic accuracy against expert diagnosis.
Conclusions Polysyllabic production accuracy and an oral motor examination that includes diadochokinesis may be sufficient to reliably identify CAS and rule out structural abnormality or dysarthria. Testing with a larger unselected sample is required.