Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37611182›Full record

Trial reportJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2024

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Treatment Distribution and Biofeedback Effects on Speech Production in School-Age Children With Apraxia of Speech.

Jonathan L Preston, Nicole F Caballero, Megan C Leece, Dongliang Wang, Benedette M Herbst, Nina R Benway

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Reliability of Lexical Stress Transcription in Childhood Apraxia of Speech.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jonathan L PrestonSyracuse University, NY.ORCID 0000-0001-9971-6321
Nicole F CaballeroSyracuse University, NY.ORCID 0000-0001-6141-7852
Megan C LeeceSyracuse University, NY.ORCID 0000-0003-3792-2992
Dongliang WangUpstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY.ORCID 0000-0003-4713-3516
Benedette M HerbstSyracuse University, NY.
Nina R BenwaySyracuse University, NY.ORCID 0000-0003-0955-9495
Google (United States) · US

Funding

Treating Childhood Apraxia of Speech: Role of Biofeedback & Practice DistributionR15DC016426 · NIDCD · SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY · PI PRESTON, JONATHAN · 2017 to 2017
$446k
NIDCD NIH HHS R15 DC016426
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study examines how ultrasound biofeedback and intensive treatment distribution affect speech sound generalization during an evidence-based treatment, Speech Motor Chaining, for children with persisting speech errors associated with childhood apraxia of speech (CAS).

methodIn a 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial, children ages 9-17 years meeting CAS criteria were randomized to receive (a) a distributed treatment (20 sessions twice weekly over 10 weeks) or intensive treatment (20 hr in 5 weeks, with 10 hr in Week 1) and (b) treatment with or without biofeedback. Due to the COVID pandemic, some participants were randomized to distributed/intensive telepractice treatment only. The primary outcome was percent target sounds correct on untreated phrases (i.e., generalization) at the 10-week time point. More than 50,000 narrow phonetic transcriptions were analyzed.

resultsForty-eight participants completed treatment. Intensive treatment significantly increased generalization at all time points. The effect of biofeedback was significant at 5 weeks from the start of treatment but not significant at the primary 10-week time point. However, when comparing each group immediately after their 20 hr of treatment finished, generalization was significantly greater in intensive over distributed treatment and greater in ultrasound over no-ultrasound treatment (with a significant interaction favoring intensive treatment with ultrasound). Only the advantage of intensive treatment remained significant 5 weeks after groups finished treatment. There was no significant difference between face-to-face and telepractice modalities.

conclusionsWhen the number of treatment hours is fixed, an intensive schedule of Speech Motor Chaining facilitated greater improvement than a distributed schedule. Ultrasound biofeedback initially accelerated learning, but the benefits may dissipate as treatment continues or after it ends.

Indexed as

ApraxiasBiofeedback, PsychologySpeech TherapyAdolescentChildFemaleHumansMalePhoneticsSpeechSpeech DisordersSpeech Production MeasurementTreatment OutcomeUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID37611182
PMCPMC12878836
OpenAlexW4386090719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.