Random versus blocked practice in treatment for childhood apraxia of speech

Edwin Maas, Kimberly A. Farinella

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

97 Scopus citations


Purpose: To compare the relative effects of random vs. blocked practice schedules in treatment for childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Although there have been repeated suggestions in the literature to use random practice in CAS treatment, no systematic studies exist that have directly compared random with blocked practice in this population. Method: Using an alternating treatments single-subject design with multiple baselines across behaviors, the authors compared random and blocked practice in 4 children diagnosed with CAS in terms of retention and transfer. Random and blocked practice were implemented in the context of a version of Dynamic Temporal and Tactile *Cueing treatment (Strand, Stoeckel, & Baas, 2006). Perceptual accuracy of target utterances was scored, and effect sizes were calculated to quantify the magnitude of treatment effects. Results: Findings were mixed, with 2 children showing a blocked practice advantage, 1 child showing a random practice advantage, and 1 child showing no clear improvement in either condition. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the random practice advantage observed in the nonspeech motor learning literature may not extend to treatment for CAS. Furthermore, the findings add to the small body of literature indicating that integral stimulation treatment can lead to improvements in speech production for children with CAS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)561-578
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Issue number2
StatePublished - Apr 1 2012


  • Childhood apraxia of speech
  • Motor learning
  • Single-subject design
  • Speech disorders
  • Treatment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing


Dive into the research topics of 'Random versus blocked practice in treatment for childhood apraxia of speech'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this