Speech Intervention Effects for Childhood Apraxia of Speech

Abstract

Purpose: A number of studies have examined the effects of speech interventions on outcomes in childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). The findings have been summarized in the form of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), which are used to support evidence-based clinical practice decisions. Yet without acceptable rigor, SRs/MAs may be biased in their recommendations. We appraised the quality of existing SRs for CAS treatment using a tool developed within epidemiology, the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; Shea et al., 2017).

Method: A search of five databases to identify published SRs that coalesced treatment research for CAS revealed six systematic reviews that met inclusion criteria. Two examiners coded each article with the AMSTAR-2 to rate the methodologic rigor of the SRs and extracted summary data.

Results: One rigorous systematic review included only one randomized controlled trial (Morgan et al., 2018). A second moderately rigorous review (Murray et al., 2014) examined multiple single participant research designs. The weight of high-quality evidence supported the positive effects of motor programming treatments for children with CAS. Conclusions: Findings of six systematic reviews, two of which were conducted with relative rigor, suggest that motor programming treatments have the best evidence-base for treatment decisions pertaining to CAS. Clinicians are referred to online resources to implement these treatments according to published protocols.

Keywords: childhood apraxia of speech (CAS), systematic review (SR), evidence-based practice (EBP), research quality