Developmental Apraxia of Speech

Abstract

Two prior studies in this series (Shriberg, Aram, & Kwiatkowski, 1997a, 1997b) address the premise that children with developmental apraxia of speech (DAS) can be differentiated from children with speech delay (SD) on the basis of one or more reliable differences in their speech. The first study compared segmental and prosody-voice profiles of a group of 14 children with suspected DAS to profiles of 73 children with SD. Results suggest that the only linguistic domain that differentiates some children with suspected DAS from those with SD is inappropriate stress. The second study cross-validated these findings, using retrospective data from a sample of 20 children with suspected DAS evaluated in a university phonology clinic over a 10-year period. The present study is of particular interest because it cross-validates the prior stress findings, using conversational speech samples from 19 children with suspected DAS provided by five DAS researchers at geographically diverse diagnostic facilities in North America. Summed across the three studies, 52% of 48 eligible samples from 53 children with suspected DAS had inappropriate stress, compared to 10% of 71 eligible samples from 73 age-matched children with speech delay of unknown origin. Discussion first focuses on the implications of stress findings for theories of the origin and nature of DAS. Perspectives in psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, and developmental biolinguistics lead to five working hypotheses pending validation in ongoing studies: (a) inappropriate stress is a diagnostic marker for at least one subtype of DAS, (b) the psycholinguistic loci of inappropriate stress in this subtype of DAS are in phonological representational processes, (c) the proximal origin of this subtype of DAS is a neurogenically specific deficit, (d) the distal origin of this form of DAS is an inherited genetic polymorphism, and (e) significant differences between acquired apraxia of speech in adults and findings for this subtype of DAS call into question the inference that it is an apractic, motor speech disorder. Concluding discussion considers implications of these findings for research in DAS and for clinical practice.