ArticleFolia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP)2019
A Standardized Protocol for Maximum Repetition Rate Assessment in Children.
Article in Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- It's Mine, . . . It's Mine: Unsolicited Repetitions Are Reduced in Toddlers.Language and speech · 2023Article
- The Use of Segmental and Suprasegmental Sequencing Skills to Differentiate Children With and Without Childhood Apraxia of Speech: Protocol for a Comparative Accuracy Study.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Process-Oriented Profiling of Speech Sound Disorders.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Digital endpoints for self-administered home-based functional assessment in pediatric Friedreich's ataxia.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2021Article
- A Psycholinguistic Framework for Diagnosis and Treatment Planning of Developmental Speech Disorders.Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsMaximum repetition rate (MRR) is often used in the assessment of speech motor performance in older children and adults. The present study aimed to evaluate a standardized protocol for MRR assessment in young children in Dutch.
methodsThe sample included 1,524 children of 2-7 years old with no hearing difficulties and Dutch spoken in their nursery or primary school and was representative for children in the Netherlands. The MRR protocol featured mono-, tri-, and bisyllabic sequences and was computer-implemented to maximize standardization.
resultsLess than 50% of the 2-year-olds could produce >1 monosyllabic sequence correctly. Children who could not correctly produce ≥2 monosyllabic sequences could not produce any of the multisyllabic sequences. The effect of instruction ("faster" and "as fast as possible") was small, and multiple attempts yielded a faster MRR in only 20% of the cases. MRRs did not show clinically relevant differences when calculated over different numbers of repeated syllables.
conclusionsThe MRR protocol is suitable for children of 3 years and older. If children cannot produce at least 2 of the monosyllabic sequences, the multisyllabic tasks should be omitted. Furthermore, all fast attempts of each sequence should be analyzed to determine the fastest MRR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.