Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Jul 25.
Published in final edited form as: Top Lang Disord. 2011;31(2):112–127. doi: 10.1097/TLD.0b013e318217b5dd

Table 6. Comparison of Clinical Subtypes of SSD and Their Performance on Endophenotype Factor Score Mean (SD).

Clinical subtypes
Endophenotype measures No SSD N = 69 SSD alone N = 73 SSD + LI N = 53 CAS N = 42 F p
Oral motor skills N = 187 n = 58 −1.05 (8.6) n = 58 0.23 (5.2) n = 42 −1.12 (7.36) n = 29 1.26 (9.3) 0.864 .461
Speeded naming N = 175 n = 52 −2.57 (27.9) n = 57 −0.23 (30.5) n = 39 −2.66 (32.2) n = 27 9.64 (41.4) 1.015 .387
Phonological awarenessab N = 192 n = 61 0.25 (2.0) n = 59 0.80 (1.7) n = 45 −0.58 (2.0) n = 27 −1.56 (−.02) 11.34 <.0001
Phonological memorycd N = 234 n = 68 2.93 (4.2) n = 73 1.29 (3.9) n = 52 −2.18 (4.7) n = 41 −4.44 (3.23) 35.44 <.0001
Vocabularyc N = 237 n = 69 1.46 (4.7) n = 73 1.83 (5.0) n = 53 −2.05 (5.2) n = 42 −4.11 (4.5) 18.34 <.0001

Note. CAS = childhood apraxia of speech; LI = language impairment; SSD = speech sound disorders.

a

CAS differs from no SSD and SSD alone.

b

SSD + LI differs from SSD alone.

c

CAS and SSD + LI differs from no SSD and SSD alone.

d

CAS differs from SSD + LI.

Cells contain number of observations and mean (standard deviation) for the factor score. Table 6 represents clinical subtypes that we have previously reported. In this table we distinguish children with CAS from children with SSD alone or SSD + LI. All children with CAS except for one, have comorbid LI.