A survey of the clinical management of childhood apraxia of speech in the United States and Canada.

PURPOSE: Limited information is available about the current practices of generalist speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in relation to their management of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). This study was designed to investigate four primary questions separately for the US and Canada; 1. What treatment approaches are used by SLP clinicians to treat CAS? 2. What treatment format and intensity are used to deliver CAS treatment? 3. What are the attitudes and perspectives of SLPs to evidence-based practice (EBP) as it pertains to CAS treatment? and 4. What are the perceived barriers to the implementation of EBP in CAS treatment?

METHOD: An online questionnaire was used to investigate the four primary research questions. The questionnaire was distributed online through social media, some state-based associations and through forums affiliated with national speech-language-hearing associations.

RESULTS

Most survey respondents reported frequently using an eclectic approach to treat CAS (US 85%; Canada 89%). Although no intervention emerged as the most preferred primary treatment for CAS, US-based clinicians more commonly reported using the Kaufman Speech to Language Protocol (K-SLP) (33%) and Dynamic, Temporal and Tactile Cueing (DTTC) (28%); while clinicians in Canada used PROMPT ® (31%). SLPs demonstrated a positive attitude towards EBP however, they identified a range of perceived barriers that impacted their implementation of EBP.

CONCLUSION

SLPs in the US and Canada frequently used an eclectic approach to treat CAS which is consistent with previous findings both in the CAS literature and the wider speech disorders literature. The more commonly used primary interventions were the K-SLP and DTTC (US); and PROMPT ® (Canada), with one of the strongest factors that influenced clinicians' choice of intervention being familiarity with the treatment approach. Face to face therapy was preferred by clinicians across both countries, with clinicians in the US providing therapy between 2-5 times per week, while those in Canada delivered therapy up to once per week. Clinicians identified a number of barriers to implementing evidence-based practice, among which, being time poor was most commonly selected across clinicians in both the US and Canada.