A Further Analysis for Developmental Apraxia of Speech in Children with Defective Articulation This paper reports a further analysis of behaviors that might distinguish developmental apraxia of speech from "functional" defective articulation. Closely following a study by Yoss and Darley, 30 children with moderately-to-severely defective articulation but with normal hearing, intelligence, and language development and with no apparent organic etiology for their disability ... Research Article
Research Article  |   December 01, 1981
A Further Analysis for Developmental Apraxia of Speech in Children with Defective Articulation
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ruth Williams
    Cumberland College of Health Sciences, Sydney, Australia
  • Roger J. Ingham
    Cumberland College of Health Sciences, Sydney, Australia
  • Joan Rosenthal
    Cumberland College of Health Sciences, Sydney, Australia
Article Information
Research Articles
Research Article   |   December 01, 1981
A Further Analysis for Developmental Apraxia of Speech in Children with Defective Articulation
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 1981, Vol. 24, 496-505. doi:10.1044/jshr.2404.496
History: Received October 22, 1979 , Accepted July 30, 1980
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 1981, Vol. 24, 496-505. doi:10.1044/jshr.2404.496
History: Received October 22, 1979; Accepted July 30, 1980

This paper reports a further analysis of behaviors that might distinguish developmental apraxia of speech from "functional" defective articulation. Closely following a study by Yoss and Darley, 30 children with moderately-to-severely defective articulation but with normal hearing, intelligence, and language development and with no apparent organic etiology for their disability were matched with a normal-speaking control group. Both groups were given Yoss and Darley's battery of speech and nonspeech tasks. Yoss and Darley's analysis procedure was applied to the data. Their finding of significant differences between the control group and the defective articulation group across five nonspeech tasks proved to be true for only two of the speech and nonspeech tasks in this study. Following division of the defective articulation group on the basis of isolated volitional oral movement scores, Yoss and Darley had conducted discriminant function analyses of the data, resulting in combinations of speech and nonspeech variables that significantly differentiated the two subgroups. Neurologic ratings figured prominently as a distinguishing variable. A similar comparison in this study did not find a combination of variables which differentiated the two subgroups with any confidence. The implication of these findings and some possible reasons for the differences between the findings of the studies are discussed.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access