Article  |   April 2012
Random Versus Blocked Practice in Treatment for Childhood Apraxia of Speech
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Edwin Maas
    University of Arizona, Tucson
  • Kimberly A. Farinella
    University of Arizona, Tucson
  • Correspondence to Edwin Maas: emaas@arizona.edu
  • Editor: Anne Smith
    Editor: Anne Smith×
  • Associate Editor: Wolfram Ziegler
    Associate Editor: Wolfram Ziegler×
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Apraxia of Speech & Childhood Apraxia of Speech / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Speech
Article   |   April 2012
Random Versus Blocked Practice in Treatment for Childhood Apraxia of Speech
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research April 2012, Vol.55, 561-578. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0120)
History: Accepted 02 Aug 2011 , Received 17 May 2011
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research April 2012, Vol.55, 561-578. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0120)
History: Accepted 02 Aug 2011 , Received 17 May 2011

Purpose: To compare the relative effects of random vs. blocked practice schedules in treatment for childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Although there have been repeated suggestions in the literature to use random practice in CAS treatment, no systematic studies exist that have directly compared random with blocked practice in this population.

Method: Using an alternating treatments single-subject design with multiple baselines across behaviors, the authors compared random and blocked practice in 4 children diagnosed with CAS in terms of retention and transfer. Random and blocked practice were implemented in the context of a version of Dynamic Temporal and Tactile *Cueing treatment (Strand, Stoeckel, & Baas, 2006). Perceptual accuracy of target utterances was scored, and effect sizes were calculated to quantify the magnitude of treatment effects.

Results: Findings were mixed, with 2 children showing a blocked practice advantage, 1 child showing a random practice advantage, and 1 child showing no clear improvement in either condition.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that the random practice advantage observed in the nonspeech motor learning literature may not extend to treatment for CAS. Furthermore, the findings add to the small body of literature indicating that integral stimulation treatment can lead to improvements in speech production for children with CAS.

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

Related Articles

Treating Speech Subsystems in Childhood Apraxia of Speech With Tactual Input: The PROMPT Approach
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology November 2013, Vol.22, 644-661. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2013/12-0055)
Part III
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools April 2000, Vol.31, 176-178. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.3102.176
People: April 2013
The ASHA Leader April 2013, Vol.18, 12-13. doi:10.1044/leader.PPL.18042013.12
Ultrasound Biofeedback Treatment for Persisting Childhood Apraxia of Speech
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology November 2013, Vol.22, 627-643. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2013/12-0139)
A Treatment for Dysprosody in Childhood Apraxia of Speech
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research October 2010, Vol.53, 1227-1245. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0130)