Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42741833›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of language & communication disorders

Assessment and Diagnostic Standards of Childhood Apraxia of Speech in Turkish-Speaking Children: A Scoping Review.

Eddy C H Wong, Aşena Karamete, Ayşın Noyan-Erbaş

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of language & communication disorders. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Eddy C H WongAcademic Unit of Human Communication, Learning, and Development, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1827-6876
Aşena KarameteDepartment of Speech and Language Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul Atlas University, Istanbul, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6602-8039
Ayşın Noyan-ErbaşDepartment of Speech and Language Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9552-199X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChildhood apraxia of speech (CAS) is a motor speech disorder for which assessment and diagnostic standards have been largely informed by studies of English-speaking populations. Evidence related to CAS in Turkish-speaking children remains sparse, is published across both Turkish- and English-language sources, and variable in diagnostic rigor.

aimsThis scoping review aimed to map existing evidence on the assessment and diagnostic standards of CAS in Turkish-speaking populations, with a focus on diagnostic approaches, assessment tasks, diagnostic quality, reported clinical features and gaps in the literature.

methodsThe review followed the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Systematic searches were conducted across thirteen English-and Turkish-language databases for peer-reviewed articles published between 2007 and 2025. Studies reporting on at least one Turkish-speaking child with CAS or suspected CAS were included. Extracted data included diagnostic methods, assessment tasks, reported clinical features and assessor information. Diagnostic quality was evaluated using an established rating framework and findings were synthesised narratively. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: Five studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 45 Turkish-speaking children with CAS or suspected CAS. Diagnostic approaches ranged from reliance on general perceptual judgement to expert-based evaluation and standardized assessment tools, with evidence of improved diagnostic quality over time. Assessment tasks sampled multiple domains, including single-word production, connected speech, speech inconsistency, oral motor skills, diadochokinesis and prosody. Reported clinical features largely reflected language-universal characteristics of CAS, with limited investigation of Turkish-specific patterns.

conclusionAlthough progress in CAS assessment for Turkish-speaking children is evident, gaps remain in diagnostic consistency, psychometric evidence and language-specific research, highlighting the need for further systematic investigation. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject Assessment and diagnosis of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) are largely guided by evidence and assessment tools developed for English-speaking populations. Research on CAS in Turkishspeaking children is limited, scattered across languages, and shows wide variability in diagnostic approaches and rigor, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions or guide clinical practice. What this study adds to the existing knowledge This scoping review provides the first integrated synthesis of English- and Turkish-language evidence on the assessment and diagnostic standards of CAS in Turkish-speaking children. It demonstrates a gradual improvement in diagnostic quality over time and shows that reported clinical features largely mirror language-universal characteristics of CAS, while Turkish-specific manifestations remain under-investigated. What are the clinical implications of this study? Clinicians working with Turkish-speaking children should adopt multi-task assessment protocols that sample speech across varied contexts and use standardised tools, such as the DEMSS-TR, to supplement expert perceptual judgement. The findings highlight the need for continued development, validation and clinician training in Turkish-language CAS assessments to improve diagnostic consistency and accuracy.

Indexed as

ApraxiasSpeech DisordersChildChild, PreschoolHumansTurkeyassessment and diagnostic standardschildhood apraxia of speechTurkish

Identifiers

PMID42741833
PMCPMC13575839

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.