Error Consistency in Acquired Apraxia of Speech With Aphasia: Effects of the Analysis Unit Purpose Diagnostic recommendations for acquired apraxia of speech (AOS) have been contradictory concerning whether speech sound errors are consistent or variable. Studies have reported divergent findings that, on face value, could argue either for or against error consistency as a diagnostic criterion. The purpose of this study was to explain ... Research Article
Research Article  |   February 15, 2018
Error Consistency in Acquired Apraxia of Speech With Aphasia: Effects of the Analysis Unit
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Katarina L. Haley
    Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Kevin T. Cunningham
    Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Catherine Torrington Eaton
    Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Rockhurst University, Kansas City, MO
  • Adam Jacks
    Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.
    Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication. ×
  • Kevin T. Cunningham is now at the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC
    Kevin T. Cunningham is now at the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC×
  • Correspondence to Katarina L. Haley: khaley@med.unc.edu
  • Editor: Julie Liss
    Editor: Julie Liss×
  • Associate Editor: Maria Grigos
    Associate Editor: Maria Grigos×
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Apraxia of Speech & Childhood Apraxia of Speech / Language Disorders / Aphasia / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Speech / Research Articles
Research Article   |   February 15, 2018
Error Consistency in Acquired Apraxia of Speech With Aphasia: Effects of the Analysis Unit
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, February 2018, Vol. 61, 210-226. doi:10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-16-0381
History: Received September 27, 2016 , Revised February 14, 2017 , Accepted October 15, 2017
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, February 2018, Vol. 61, 210-226. doi:10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-16-0381
History: Received September 27, 2016; Revised February 14, 2017; Accepted October 15, 2017

Purpose Diagnostic recommendations for acquired apraxia of speech (AOS) have been contradictory concerning whether speech sound errors are consistent or variable. Studies have reported divergent findings that, on face value, could argue either for or against error consistency as a diagnostic criterion. The purpose of this study was to explain discrepancies in error consistency results based on the unit of analysis (segment, syllable, or word) to help determine which diagnostic recommendation is most appropriate.

Method We analyzed speech samples from 14 left-hemisphere stroke survivors with clinical diagnoses of AOS and aphasia. Each participant produced 3 multisyllabic words 5 times in succession. Broad phonetic transcriptions of these productions were coded for consistency of error location and type using the word and its constituent syllables and sound segments as units of analysis.

Results Consistency of error type varied systematically with the unit of analysis, showing progressively greater consistency as the analysis unit changed from the word to the syllable and then to the sound segment. Consistency of error location varied considerably across participants and correlated positively with error frequency.

Conclusions Low to moderate consistency of error type at the word level confirms original diagnostic accounts of speech output and sound errors in AOS as variable in form. Moderate to high error type consistency at the syllable and sound levels indicate that phonetic error patterns are present. The results are complementary and logically compatible with each other and with the literature.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a grant to Katarina Haley from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University Research Council. The original data, reanalyzed in this article, were presented at the 2004 Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (Haley & Eaton, 2004).
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access