ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2025
Refined Operational Definitions for the Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale (ASRS; Strand et al., 2014) has quickly emerged as a standard for apraxia of speech (AOS) diagnosis in stroke despite mixed evidence. The purpose of this study was to analyze, clarify, and revise the scoring procedures and item definitions of the ASRS as a preliminary step for investigating the scale's psychometric properties in stroke.
methodWe evaluated the interpretation of the ASRS items and scale procedures by independently rating the video and audio examples provided with the latest dissemination of the ASRS. Discrepancies in ratings were discussed after each rating.
resultsUpon discussing the rating discrepancies, our team identified barriers to using the scale, including lack of clear operational definitions for the scale items, difficulties with applying the multidimensional rating scale, mismatch between the scale description and item description, and lack of detailed procedures for applying the scale. Based on this analysis, we developed a series of rules for scoring the ASRS in our own research applications with stroke survivors. We also clarified scale labels and operationalized definitions for most of the scale items.
conclusionsSeveral potential concerns for reliable use of the ASRS were identified and addressed by clarifying the scale procedures and item definitions. We plan to use the updated procedures and definitions in research applications and are sharing them here for further input and potential applications from the research community. Research is needed to evaluate the impact of the changes on diagnostic classification and severity estimation for AOS.
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.