ClinicalTrials.gg
Active, not recruitingNCT04642053Updated Oct 26, 2026

A Randomized Control Trial of Motor-based Intervention for CAS

An interventional study of Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cuing in Childhood Apraxia of Speech, sponsored by New York University. Active, not recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 29 Months to 95 Months. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-26.

Sponsored by New York University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
72
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
29 Months to 95 Months
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) is a complex, multivariate speech motor disorder characterized by difficulty planning and programming movements of the speech articulators (ASHA, 2007; Ayres, 1985; Campbell et al., 2007; Davis et al., 1998; Forrest, 2003; Shriberg et al., 1997). Despite the profound impact that CAS can have on a child's ability to communicate, little data are available to direct treatment in this challenging population. Historically, children with CAS have been treated with articulation and phonologically based approaches with limited effectiveness in improving speech, as shown by very slow treatment progress and poor generalization of skills to new contexts. With the emerging data regarding speech motor deficits in CAS, there is a critical need to test treatments that directly refine speech movements using methods that quantify speech motor control.

This research is a Randomized Control Trial designed to examine the outcomes of a non-traditional, motor-based approach, Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cuing (DTTC), to improve speech production in children with CAS. The overall objectives of this research are (i) to test the efficacy of DTTC in young children with CAS (N=72) by examining the impact of DTTC on treated words, generalization to untreated words and post-treatment maintenance, and (ii) to examine how individual patterns of speech motor variability impact response to DTTC.

Read the detailed description

Seventy-two children with CAS, between the ages of 2.5 and 7.11 years of age will be treated with DTTC. This work will employ a delayed treatment control group design across multiple behaviors. Participants will be seen in two groups: an Immediate Treatment group and a Delayed Treatment group. Probe data will be collected during the Pre-Treatment (5 data points), Treatment (12 data points) and Maintenance (minimum 5 data points) phases. The study duration is 28 weeks in total duration for all participants. The study will address the following specific aims:

Aim 1: Quantify the effects of DTTC on improved speech production (perceptual ratings) in treated words that are maintained post-treatment and generalized to untreated words in children with CAS. The working hypothesis is that DTTC will increase accuracy of treated words (primary outcome measure) and this effect will be maintained post-treatment and generalized to untreated words. We also predict that DTTC will increase speech intelligibility pre to post-treatment (secondary outcome measure).

Aim 2: Quantify the effects of DTTC on refined speech motor control (kinematic/acoustic measures) in treated words that are maintained post-treatment and generalized to untreated words in children with CAS. The working hypothesis is that DTTC will be associated with decreases in speech motor variability and duration of treated words (secondary outcome measures) that are maintained pre- to post-treatment and generalized to untreated words.

Aim 3: Characterize the effects of speech motor variability (within-subject) at baseline as a predictor of DTTC efficacy in children with CAS. The working hypothesis is that children with CAS who demonstrate higher levels of speech motor variability at baseline will display greater improvements in speech production accuracy following DTTC than children with lower levels of variability at baseline.

Treatment will be provided four times/week for 45-minute sessions. Principles of motor learning will be incorporated into sessions by controlling the type of practice (blocked vs. randomized), type of feedback (knowledge of results vs. knowledge of performance) and amount of feedback provided.

02

Conditions studied

  • Childhood Apraxia of Speech

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Pediatric motor speech disorder
  • Speech motor control
03

In context

Apraxias

65 studies on the registry are indexed under Apraxias; 21 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 72 is above the median of 32 across 50 interventional studies indexed under Apraxias.

Browse Apraxias studies →

Lead sponsor

New York University is the lead sponsor of 123 studies on the registry; 32 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
29 Months to 95 Months
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  1. Diagnosis of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Diagnostic classification for CAS will be determined according to the presence of the three core features identified in the ASHA position statement on CAS: 1) inconsistent consonant and vowel errors over productions of repeated trials; 2) difficulties forming accurate movement between sounds and syllables; and 3) prosodic errors (ASHA, 2007). These three characteristics must be present in more than one speaking context (i.e. single words, connected speech, sequencing tasks). In addition to the three core features, children with CAS must demonstrate at least four of the following characteristics: vowel errors, timing errors, phoneme distortions, articulatory groping, impaired volitional oral movement, reduced phonetic inventory and poorer expressive than receptive language skills, which is consistent with the Strand 10-point checklist (Shriberg et al., 2012). We will identify the presence of these factors from the Dynamic Evaluation of Motor Speech Skills (DEMSS, Strand et al., 2013), Verbal Motor Production Assessment for Children (VMPAC, Hayden \& Square, 1999), Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation (GFTA-3, Goldman \& Fristoe, 2016), and a connected speech sample. We have used these stringent criteria for diagnosing CAS in our past research (Please see the Diagnostic Framework and Criteria for CAS in Grigos and Case (2017)). The diagnosis will be made independently by two speech language pathologists (one being the PI) with expertise in assessing and treating children with CAS.
  2. Age between 2.5 and 7.11 years of age.
  3. Normal structure of the oral-peripheral mechanism.
  4. Participants must pass a hearing screening conducted at 20 dB SPL at 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz.
  5. No prior DTTC treatment.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Positive history of neurological disorder (e.g. cerebral palsy), developmental disorder (e.g. autism spectrum disorder) or genetic disorder (e.g. Down syndrome).
  2. Characteristics of dysarthria, even if the child meets criteria for CAS.
  3. Fluency disorder, even if the child meets criteria for CAS.
  4. Conductive or sensorineural hearing loss, even if the child meets criteria for CAS.
  5. History of DTTC treatment.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
72 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Immediate Treatment

    Participants in the Immediate Treatment Group will receive DTTC Treatment four times per week (45-minute sessions each) for 8 weeks. Total duration will be 180 minutes/week over 32 sessions. Treatment will begin between 1-3 weeks following the diagnostic evaluation.

    Behavioral: Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cuing

  • Experimental
    Delayed Treatment

    The Delayed Treatment Group serves as a control during the period in which participants are waiting to begin treatment. A delayed treatment onset is employed to control for maturation effects. Participants in the Delayed Treatment Group will receive DTTC Treatment four times per week (45-minute sessions each) for 8 weeks. Total duration will be 180 minutes/week over 32 sessions. Treatment will begin after an 8-week delay following the diagnostic evaluation.

    Behavioral: Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cuing

Interventions

  • BehavioralDynamic Temporal and Tactile Cuing

    Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cuing is based on principles of integral stimulation where the client watches, listens to and imitates the clinician (Strand, 2020). Treatment will begin by training the child to imitate and simultaneously produce syllables/words with the clinician. Sessions will focus on establishing accurate movement transitions in treated words. The child will be asked to imitate the clinician's production of the target. If the child's imitation is inaccurate, they will be instructed to simultaneously produce the target with the clinician. Simultaneous productions will continue to provide practice opportunity with maximal cuing. As the child gains greater accuracy, simultaneous productions will be faded and direct imitation will be attempted again. Over the course of treatment, the movement gesture will be shaped with the goal being accurate production with normal rate and naturalness.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Changes in word accuracy

    Word accuracy will be quantified for treated and untreated words using a composite score that reflects accuracy of segmental and suprasegmental components of words.

    Time frame: Through the treatment phase (32 treatment sessions over 8 weeks)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Changes in the percentage of words correctly identified by a listener

    Standard procedures (Hustad et al., 2007; 2016) will be used to measure speech intelligibility by computing the percentage of intelligible words (treated and untreated). Five naïve adult listeners will orthographically transcribe randomized word productions from each child.

    Time frame: Pre to post-treatment (8-weeks from treatment onset)

  2. Changes in the speech motor variability of segments and words

    Variability will be measured using acoustic and kinematic methods. Acoustic measures will include coefficient of variation of word and segment duration. Kinematic measures will include lip and jaw movement variability associated with whole word productions (i.e. spatiotemporal index (STI, Smith et al.1995) and coefficient of variation of single movements (i.e. movement from oral closing into oral opening; movement from oral opening into oral closing).

    Time frame: Pre to post-treatment (8-weeks from treatment onset)

  3. Changes in the duration of segments and words

    Word and segment duration will be measured using acoustic and kinematic methods. Acoustic measures will include word and segment duration. Kinematic measures will include word and single movement duration (e.g. oral opening into vowel).

    Time frame: Pre to post-treatment (8-weeks from treatment onset)

07

Study locations

1 site
08

References and documents

Publications

  • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2007). Childhood apraxia of speech: Technical Report. Available online: https://www.asha.org/policy/tr2007-00278/
  • Ayres, A. J. (1985). Developmental dyspraxia and adult-onset apraxia: By A. Jean Ayres. Sensory integration international.
  • Campbell TF, Dollaghan CA, Rockette HE, Paradise JL, Feldman HM, Shriberg LD, Sabo DL, Kurs-Lasky M. Risk factors for speech delay of unknown origin in 3-year-old children. Child Dev. 2003 Mar-Apr;74(2):346-57. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.7402002. PubMed 12705559 ↗
  • Davis, B. L., Jakielski, K. J., & Marquardt, T. P. (1998). Developmental apraxia of speech: Determiners of differential diagnosis. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 12(1), 25-45.
  • Forrest K. Diagnostic criteria of developmental apraxia of speech used by clinical speech-language pathologists. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2003 Aug;12(3):376-80. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2003/083). PubMed 12971826 ↗
  • Goldman, R. & Fristoe, M. (2016). Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation - 3. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service
  • Grigos MI, Case J. Changes in movement transitions across a practice period in childhood apraxia of speech. Clin Linguist Phon. 2018;32(7):661-687. doi: 10.1080/02699206.2017.1419378. Epub 2017 Dec 27. PubMed 29281317 ↗
  • Hayden, D. A., & Square, P. A. (1999). VMPAC: Verbal Motor Production Assessment for Children. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Association.
  • Hustad KC, Allison KM, Sakash A, McFadd E, Broman AT, Rathouz PJ. Longitudinal development of communication in children with cerebral palsy between 24 and 53 months: Predicting speech outcomes. Dev Neurorehabil. 2017 Aug;20(6):323-330. doi: 10.1080/17518423.2016.1239135. Epub 2016 Oct 28. PubMed 27792399 ↗
  • Hustad, K. C. and Weismer,G. (2007). A continuum of interventions for individuals with dysarthria: Compensatory and Rehabilitative Approaches, in Motor Speech Disorders, Weismer, (Ed.) San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing, 261-303.
  • Shriberg LD, Aram DM, Kwiatkowski J. Developmental apraxia of speech: III. A subtype marked by inappropriate stress. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997 Apr;40(2):313-37. doi: 10.1044/jslhr.4002.313. PubMed 9130201 ↗
  • Shriberg LD, Lohmeier HL, Strand EA, Jakielski KJ. Encoding, memory, and transcoding deficits in Childhood Apraxia of Speech. Clin Linguist Phon. 2012 May;26(5):445-82. doi: 10.3109/02699206.2012.655841. PubMed 22489736 ↗
  • Smith A, Goffman L, Zelaznik HN, Ying G, McGillem C. Spatiotemporal stability and patterning of speech movement sequences. Exp Brain Res. 1995;104(3):493-501. doi: 10.1007/BF00231983. PubMed 7589300 ↗
  • Strand EA. Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing: A Treatment Strategy for Childhood Apraxia of Speech. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2020 Feb 7;29(1):30-48. doi: 10.1044/2019_AJSLP-19-0005. Epub 2019 Dec 17. PubMed 31846588 ↗
  • Strand EA, McCauley RJ, Weigand SD, Stoeckel RE, Baas BS. A motor speech assessment for children with severe speech disorders: reliability and validity evidence. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013 Apr;56(2):505-20. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0094). Epub 2012 Dec 28. PubMed 23275421 ↗

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — Individual participant data tied to the primary and secondary outcome measures will be shared after deidentification.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan, Informed consent form

Time frame: Beginning 6 months following publication. No end date.

Access criteria: Researchers and speech language pathologists who provide a methodologically sound proposal. Proposals should be directed to maria.grigos@nyu.edu. To gain access, data requestors will need to complete and sign a data sharing agreement.

09

Timeline

1 registry update since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from Sep 2021 to primary completion in Aug 2026, 59 months.

Of 30 interventional studies with no phase under Apraxias, half reached primary completion within 53 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 21 and three quarters within 59. This study's 59 months is above that.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Nov 12, 2020
First posted
Nov 24, 2020
StartActual
Sep 14, 2021
Primary completionActual
Aug 31, 2026
CompletionEst.
Mar 31, 2027
Last update
Oct 26, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
Minor edits
Nothing that changes what the study is or who can join. Edited: date precision
1 update, last Oct 26, 2026
Show all 1 update
  1. Oct 26, 2026
    Minor edits only
    + 1 other change: date precision

From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04642053
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Nov 24, 2020
Start date
Sep 14, 2021
Primary completion
Aug 31, 2026
Completion
Mar 31, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Oct 26, 2026

Study contacts

Maria I Grigos, PhD
principal investigator · New York University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is active, not recruiting, as verified in Jan 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion