Clinical Rehabilitation

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mumby, K.
Right arrow Articles by Hesketh, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mumby, K.
Right arrow Articles by Hesketh, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 21, No. 8, 760-767 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0269215507077285

Apraxia of speech: how reliable are speech and language therapists' diagnoses?

Katharyn Mumby

Central Cheshire PCT, now at School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Audrey Bowen

School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester

Anne Hesketh

School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, anne.hesketh{at}manchester.ac.uk

Objective : To discover how reliably speech and language therapists could diagnose apraxia of speech using their clinical judgement, by measuring whether they were consistent (intra-rater reliability), and whether their diagnoses agreed (inter-rater reliability).

Design : Video clips of people with communication difficulties following stroke were rated by four speech and language therapists who were given no definition of apraxia of speech, no training, and no opportunity for conferring.

Settings : Videos were made of people following stroke in their homes. Ratings of the videos were carried out in the university lab under controlled conditions.

Subjects : Forty-two people with communication difficulties such as aphasia, apraxia of speech and dysarthria took part, and four specialist speech and language therapists acted as raters.

Main measure : Speech and language therapists' ratings of the presence and severity of apraxia of speech using videos.

Results : Intra-rater reliability was high for diagnosing (1) the presence of apraxia of speech (Cohen's kappas ranging from 0.90 to 1.00; 0.93 overall), and (2) the severity of apraxia of speech (kappa 0.84 to 0.92; 0.90 overall). The inter-rater reliability was also high for both the presence of apraxia of speech (kappa 0.86) and severity of apraxia of speech (0.74).

Conclusion : Despite controversy over its nature and existence, specialist speech and language therapists show high levels of agreement on the diagnosis of apraxia of speech using their clinical judgement.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?