Predictors of Functional Communication Outcomes in Children With Idiopathic Motor Speech Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to investigate child- and intervention-level factors that predict improvements in functional communication outcomes in children with motor-based speech sound disorders. METHOD: = 48) participated. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between minimal clinically important difference in the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six scores and multiple child-level (e.g., age, sex, speech intelligibility, Kaufman Speech Praxis Test diagnostic rating scale) and intervention-level predictors (dose frequency and home practice duration). RESULTS: Overall, 65% of participants demonstrated minimal clinically important difference changes in the functional communication outcomes. Kaufman Speech Praxis Test rating scale was significantly associated with higher odds of noticeable change in functional communication outcomes in children. There is some evidence that delivering the intervention for 2 times per week for 10 weeks provides benefit. CONCLUSION: A rating scale based on task complexity has the potential for serving as a screening tool to triage children for intervention from waitlist and/or determining service delivery for this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".