Publication Date


Document Type


First Advisor

Andrews, James R.

Degree Name

M.A. (Master of Arts)

Legacy Department

Department of Communicative Disorders


Apraxia--Treatment; Speech therapy; Articulation disorders--Treatment


This study explored the effectiveness of contrastive stress drill and reauditorization as treatment methods for apraxia of speech and compared the effectiveness of the two methods. These two methods were compared because each represents opposing theories of speech improvement. The design was a single-subject experimental A-B-C-B-C design. Baseline data were obtained during condition A, while conditions B and C represented an adaptation of reauditorization and contrastive stress drill, respectively. Stimuli were scored for three classes of apraxic errors. At the end of each condition, A, B, and C, a generalization probe of 25 sentences was delivered. In addition, the Boston Naming Test by E. Kaplan, H. Goodglass, and S. Weintraub in 1983 and the Animal Naming subtest of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination by H. Goodglass and E. Kaplan in 1983 were administered in order to evaluate control behaviors. The results indicated that there is not a significant difference in the post-treatment number of apraxic errors when contrastive stress drill and reauditorization are compared with one another. Although each of these methods seemed to reduce slightly the number of apraxic errors when compared to baseline, these differences were not substantial. Further analysis of data was completed to obtain additional information about the comparison of complexity levels of stimuli, the comparison of each method using multi-syllabic words, type of errors, the generalization probe, control behaviors, consistency, and subjective influences. These results are discussed. Moreover, possible explanations for results and implications for treatment strategies to be used with persons with apraxia of speech are discussed.


Includes bibliographical references (pages [76]-80)


87 pages




Northern Illinois University

Rights Statement

In Copyright

Rights Statement 2

NIU theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from Huskie Commons for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without the written permission of the authors.

Media Type