Developmental Verbal Dyspraxia can be diagnosed by a speech language pathologist (SLP) through specific exams that measure oral mechanisms of speech. The oral mechanisms exam involves tasks such as pursing lips, blowing, licking lips, elevating the tongue, and also involves an examination of the mouth. A complete exam also involves observation of the patient eating and talking. Tests such as the Kaufman Speech Praxis test, a more formal examination, are also used in diagnosis.

A differential diagnosis of DVD/CAS is often not possible for children under the age of 2 years old. Even when children are between 2–3 years, a clear diagnosis cannot always occur, because at this age, they may still be unable to focus on, or cooperate with, diagnostic testing.

Although qualitative and quantitative studies exist, there is little consensus on the proper method to assess for apraxia. The criticisms of past methods include failure to meet standard psychometric properties as well as research-specific designs that translate poorly to non-research use.

The Test to Measure Upper Limb Apraxia (TULIA) is one method of determining upper limb apraxia through the qualitative and quantitative assessment of gesture production. In contrast to previous publications on apraxic assessment, the reliability and validity of TULIA was thoroughly investigated. The TULIA consists of subtests for the imitation and pantomime of non-symbolic (“put your index finger on top of your nose”), intransitive (“wave goodbye”) and transitive (“show me how to use a hammer”) gestures. Discrimination (differentiating between well- and poorly performed tasks) and recognition (indicating which object corresponds to a pantomimed gesture) tasks are also often tested for a full apraxia evaluation.

However, there may not be a strong correlation between formal test results and actual performance in everyday functioning or activities of daily living (ADLs). A comprehensive assessment of apraxia should include formal testing, standardized measurements of ADLs, observation of daily routines, self-report questionnaires and targeted interviews with the patients and their relatives.

As stated above, apraxia should not be confused with aphasia; however, they frequently occur together. It has been stated that apraxia is so often accompanied by aphasia that many believe that if a person displays AOS; it should be assumed that the patient also has some level of aphasia.

Neuropsychology is the study of neurobiology and psychology. Neuropsychological tests are utilized for the purpose of observing an individuals’ abilities in cognitive functioning, reasoning, and memories. The tests most commonly used for neuropsychological testing include WAIS-III, Stroop test, Bourdon Wiersma test, and the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure test. These tests allow physicians to evaluate the degree to which the bilateral lesions in the operculum have been affected, and allow for the determination of proper treatment.

Psycholinguistics pertain to the psychological and neurobiological components that allow humans to acquire, utilize, comprehend, and produce language. The tests most commonly used for psycholinguistic testing include the Dutch version of , syntactic comprehension test, and the Token test. Psycholinguistics allow physicians to narrow down and rule out other disorders that may be similar to FCMS when diagnosing a patient.

The prognosis for individuals with apraxia varies. With therapy, some patients improve significantly, while others may show very little improvement. Some individuals with apraxia may benefit from the use of a communication aid.

However, many people with apraxia are no longer able to be independent. Those with limb-kinetic and/or gait apraxia should avoid activities in which they might injure themselves or others.

Occupational therapy, physical therapy, and play therapy may be considered as other references to support patients with apraxia. These team members could work along with the SLP to provide the best therapy for people with apraxia. However, because people with limb apraxia may have trouble directing their motor movements, occupational therapy for stroke or other brain injury can be difficult.

No medication has been shown useful for treating apraxia.

Assessments for developmental coordination disorder typically require a developmental history, detailing ages at which significant developmental milestones, such as crawling and walking, occurred. Motor skills screening includes activities designed to indicate developmental coordination disorder, including balancing, physical sequencing, touch sensitivity, and variations on walking activities.

The American Psychiatric Association has four primary inclusive diagnostic criteria for determining if a child has developmental coordination disorder.

The criteria are as follows:

1. Motor Coordination will be greatly reduced, although the intelligence of the child is normal for the age.

2. The difficulties the child experiences with motor coordination or planning interfere with the child's daily life.

3. The difficulties with coordination are not due to any other medical condition

4. If the child does also experience comorbidities such as mental retardation; motor coordination is still disproportionally affected.

Screening tests which can be used to assess developmental coordination disorder include:-

- Movement Assessment Battery for Children (Movement-ABC – Movement-ABC 2)

- Peabody Developmental Motor Scales- Second Edition (PDMS-2)

- Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP-BOT-2)

- Motoriktest für vier- bis sechsjährige Kinder (MOT 4-6)

- Körperkoordinationtest für Kinder (KTK)

- Test of Gross Motor Development, Second Edition (TGMD-2)

- Maastrichtse Motoriek Test (MMT)

- Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV)

- Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WAIT-II)

- Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2)

- Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCD-Q)

- Children's Self-Perceptions of Adequacy in, and Predilection for Physical Activity (CSAPPA)

Currently there is no single gold standard assessment test.

A baseline motor assessment establishes the starting point for developmental intervention programs. Comparing children to normal rates of development may help to establish areas of significant difficulty.

However, research in the "British Journal of Special Education" has shown that knowledge is severely limited in many who should be trained to recognise and respond to various difficulties, including developmental coordination disorder, dyslexia and deficits in attention, motor control and perception (DAMP). The earlier that difficulties are noted and timely assessments occur, the quicker intervention can begin. A teacher or GP could miss a diagnosis if they are only applying a cursory knowledge.

"Teachers will not be able to recognise or accommodate the child with learning difficulties in class if their knowledge is limited. Similarly GPs will find it difficult to detect and appropriately refer children with learning difficulties."

Apraxia of speech can be diagnosed by a speech language pathologist (SLP) through specific exams that measure oral mechanisms of speech. The oral mechanisms exam involves tasks such as pursing lips, blowing, licking lips, elevating the tongue, and also involves an examination of the mouth. A complete exam also involves observation of the patient eating and talking. SLPs do not agree on a specific set of characteristics that make up the apraxia of speech diagnosis, so any of the characteristics from the section above could be used to form a diagnosis. Patients may be asked to perform other daily tasks such as reading, writing, and conversing with others. In situations involving brain damage, an MRI brain scan also helps identify damaged areas of the brain.

A differential diagnosis must be used in order to rule out other similar or alternative disorders. Although disorders such as expressive aphasia, conduction aphasia, and dysarthria involve similar symptoms as apraxia of speech, the disorders must be distinguished in order to correctly treat the patients. While AOS involves the motor planning or processing stage of speech, aphasic disorders can involve other language processes.

According to Ziegler et al., this difficulty in diagnosis derives from the unknown causes and function of the disorder, making it hard to set definite parameters for AOS identification. Specifically, he explains that oral-facial apraxia, dysarthria, and aphasic phonological impairment are the three distinctly different disorders that cause individuals to display symptoms that are often similar to those of someone with AOS, and that these close relatives must be correctly ruled out by a Speech Language Pathologist before AOS can be given as a diagnosis. In this way, AOS is a diagnosis of exclusion, and is generally recognized when all other similar speech sound production disorders are eliminated.

Assessment will usually include an interview with the child’s caregiver, observation of the child in an unstructured setting, a hearing test, and standardized tests of language. There is a wide range of language assessments in English. Some are restricted for use by experts in speech-language pathology: speech and language therapists (SaLTs/SLTs) in the UK, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the US and Australia. A commonly used test battery for diagnosis of DLD is the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF).

Assessments that can be completed by a parent or teacher can be useful to identify children who may require more in-depth evaluation. The Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC–2) is a parent questionnaire suitable for assessing everyday use of language in children aged 4 years and above who can speak in sentences.

Informal assessments, such as language samples, are often used by speech-language therapists/pathologists to complement formal testing and give an indication of the child's language in a more naturalistic context. A language sample may be of a conversation or narrative retell. In a narrative language sample, an adult may tell the child a story using a wordless picture book (e.g. Frog Where Are You?, Mayer, 1969), then ask the child to use the pictures and tell the story back. Language samples can be transcribed using computer software such as the Systematic Analysis of Language Software, and then analyzed for a range of features: e.g., the grammatical complexity of the child's utterances, whether the child introduces characters to their story or jumps right in, whether the events follow a logical order, and whether the narrative includes a main idea or theme and supporting details.

There is no cure for DVD/CAS, but with appropriate, intensive intervention, people with the disorder can improve significantly.

DVD/CAS requires various forms of therapy which varies with the individual needs of the patient. Typically, treatment involves one-on-one therapy with a speech language pathologist (SLP). In children with DVD/CAS, consistency is a key element in treatment. Consistency in the form of communication, as well as the development and use of oral communication are extremely important in aiding a child's speech learning process.

Many therapy approaches are not supported by thorough evidence; however, the aspects of treatment that do seem to be agreed upon are the following:

- Treatment needs to be intense and highly individualized, with about 3-5 therapy sessions each week

- A maximum of 30 minutes per session is best for young children

- Principles of motor learning theory and intense speech-motor practice seem to be the most effective

- Non-speech oral motor therapy is not necessary or sufficient

- A multi-sensory approach to therapy may be beneficial: using sign language, pictures, tactile cues, visual prompts, and Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) can be helpful.

Although these aspects of treatment are supported by much clinical documentation, they lack evidence from systematic research studies. In ASHA's position statement on DVD/CAS, ASHA states there is a critical need for collaborative, interdisciplinary, and programmatic research on the neural substrates, behavioral correlates, and treatment options for DVD/CAS.

Sensory aphasia cannot be diagnosed through the use of imaging techniques. Differences in cognition between asymptomatic subjects and affected patients can be observed via functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). However, these results only reveal temporal differences in cognition between control and diagnosed subjects. The degree of progression during therapy can also be surveyed through cognition tests monitored by fMRI. Many patients’ progress is assessed over time via repeated testing and corresponding cerebral imaging by fMRI.

In cases of acute AOS (stroke), spontaneous recovery may occur, in which previous speech abilities reappear on their own. All other cases of acquired AOS require a form of therapy; however the therapy varies with the individual needs of the patient. Typically, treatment involves one-on-one therapy with a speech language pathologist (SLP). For severe forms of AOS, therapy may involve multiple sessions per week, which is reduced with speech improvement. Another main theme in AOS treatment is the use of repetition in order to achieve a large amount of target utterances, or desired speech usages.

There are various treatment techniques for AOS. One technique, called the Linguistic Approach, utilizes the rules for sounds and sequences. This approach focuses on the placement of the mouth in forming speech sounds. Another type of treatment is the Motor-Programming Approach, in which the motor movements necessary for speech are practiced. This technique utilizes a great amount of repetition in order to practice the sequences and transitions that are necessary in between production of sounds.

Research about the treatment of apraxia has revealed four main categories: articulatory-kinematic, rate/rhythm control, intersystemic facilitation/reorganization treatments, and alternative/augmentative communication.

- Articulatory-kinematic treatments almost always require verbal production in order to bring about improvement of speech. One common technique for this is modeling or repetition in order to establish the desired speech behavior. Articulatory-kinematic treatments are based on the importance of patients to improve spatial and temporal aspects of speech production.

- Rate and rhythm control treatments exist to improve errors in patients’ timing of speech, a common characteristic of Apraxia. These techniques often include an external source of control like metronomic pacing, for example, in repeated speech productions.

- Intersystemic reorganization/facilitation techniques often involve physical body or limb gestural approaches to improve speech. Gestures are usually combined with verbalization. It is thought that limb gestures may improve the organization of speech production.

- Finally, alternative and augmentative communication approaches to treatment of apraxia are highly individualized for each patient. However, they often involve a "comprehensive communication system" that may include "speech, a communication book aid, a spelling system, a drawing system, a gestural system, technologies, and informed speech partners".

One specific treatment method is referred to as PROMPT. This acronym stands for Prompts for Restructuring Oral Muscular Phonetic Targets, and takes a hands on multidimensional approach at treating speech production disorders. PROMPT therapists integrate physical-sensory, cognitive-linguistic, and social-emotional aspects of motor performance. The main focus is developing language interaction through this tactile-kinetic approach by using touch cues to facilitate the articulatory movements associated with individual phonemes, and eventually words.

One study describes the use of electropalatography (EPG) to treat a patient with severe acquired apraxia of speech. EPG is a computer-based tool for assessment and treatment of speech motor issues. The program allows patients to see the placement of articulators during speech production thus aiding them in attempting to correct errors. Originally after two years of speech therapy, the patient exhibited speech motor and production problems including problems with phonation, articulation, and resonance. This study showed that EPG therapy gave the patient valuable visual feedback to clarify speech movements that had been difficult for the patient to complete when given only auditory feedback.

While many studies are still exploring the various treatment methods, a few suggestions from ASHA for treating apraxia patients include the integration of objective treatment evidence, theoretical rationale, clinical knowledge and experience, and the needs and goals of the patient

Articulation problems resulting from dysarthria are treated by speech language pathologists, using a variety of techniques. Techniques used depend on the effect the dysarthria has on control of the articulators. Traditional treatments target the correction of deficits in rate (of articulation), prosody (appropriate emphasis and inflection, affected e.g. by apraxia of speech, right hemisphere brain damage, etc.), intensity (loudness of the voice, affected e.g. in hypokinetic dysarthrias such as in Parkinson's), resonance (ability to alter the vocal tract and resonating spaces for correct speech sounds) and phonation (control of the vocal folds for appropriate voice quality and valving of the airway). These treatments have usually involved exercises to increase strength and control over articulator muscles (which may be flaccid and weak, or overly tight and difficult to move), and using alternate speaking techniques to increase speaker intelligibility (how well someone's speech is understood by peers). With the speech language pathologist, there are several skills that are important to learn; safe chewing and swallowing techniques, avoiding conversations when feeling tired, repeat words and syllables over and over in order to learn the proper mouth movements, and techniques to deal with the frustration while speaking. Depending on the severity of the dysarthria, another possibility includes learning how to use a computer or flip cards in order to communicate more effectively.

More recent techniques based on the principles of motor learning (PML), such as LSVT (Lee Silverman voice treatment) speech therapy and specifically LSVT may improve voice and speech function in PD. For Parkinson's, aim to retrain speech skills through building new generalised motor programs, and attach great importance to regular practice, through peer/partner support and self-management. Regularity of practice, and when to practice, are the main issues in PML treatments, as they may determine the likelihood of generalization of new motor skills, and therefore how effective a treatment is.

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices that make coping with a dysarthria easier include speech synthesis and text-based telephones. These allow people who are unintelligible, or may be in the later stages of a progressive illness, to continue to be able to communicate without the need for fully intelligible speech.

Developmental verbal dyspraxia is a developmental inability to motor plan volitional movement for the production of speech in the absence of muscular weakness. Research has suggested links to the FOXP2 gene.

Sensory aphasia is typically diagnosed by non-invasive evaluations. Neurologists, neuropsychologists or speech pathologists will administer oral evaluations to determine the extent of a patient’s comprehension and speech capability. Initial assessment will determine if the cause of linguistic deficiency is aphasia. If the diagnosis is then confirmed, testing will next address the type of aphasia and its severity. The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination specializes in determining the severity of a sensory aphasia through the observation of conversational behaviors. Several modalities of perception and response are observed in conjunction with the subject’s ability to process sensory information. The location of the brain lesion and type of the aphasia can then be inferred from the observed symptoms. The Minnesota Test for Differential Diagnosis is the most lengthy and thorough assessment of sensory aphasia. It pinpoints weaknesses in the auditory and visual senses, as well as reading comprehension. From this differential diagnosis, a patient’s course of treatment can be determined. After treatment planning, the Porch Index of Communicative Ability is used to evaluate prognosis and the degree of recovery.

TMoA is diagnosed by the referring physician and speech-language pathologist (SLP). The overall sign of TMoA is nonfluent, reduced, fragmentary echoic, and perseverative speech with frequent hesitations and pauses. Patients with TMoA also have difficulty initiating and maintaining speech. However, speech articulation and auditory comprehension remain typical. The hallmark sign of TMoA is intact repetition in the presence of these signs and symptoms.

TMoA, or any other type of aphasia, is identified and diagnosed through the screening and assessment process. Screening can be conducted by a SLP or other professional when there is a suspected aphasia. The screening does not diagnose aphasia, rather it points to the need for a further comprehensive assessment. A screening typically includes evaluation of oral motor functions, speech production skills, comprehension, use of written and verbal language, cognitive communication, swallowing, and hearing. Both the screening and assessment must be sensitive to the patient’s linguistic and cultural differences. An individual will be recommended to receive a comprehensive assessment if their screening shows signs of aphasia. Under the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines and the "International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health" (ICF) framework, the comprehensive assessment encompasses not only speech and language, but also impairments in body structure and function, co-morbid deficits, limitations in activity and participation, and contextual (environmental and personal) factors. The assessment can be static (current functioning) or dynamic (ongoing) and the assessment tools can be standardized or nonstandardized. Typically, the assessment for aphasia includes a gathering of a case history, a self-report from the patient, an oral-motor examination, assessment of expressive and receptive language in spoken and written forms, and identification of facilitators and barriers to patient success. From this assessment, the SLP will determine type of aphasia and the patient's communicative strengths and weaknesses and how their diagnosis may impact their overall quality of life.

There are two types of Apraxia. Developmental (or Childhood Apraxia of speech) or acquired Apraxia. Childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) is a neurological childhood speech sound disorder that involves impaired precision and consistency of movements required for speech production without any neuromuscular deficits (ASHA, 2007a, Definitions of CAS section, para. 1). Both are the inability to plan volitional motor movements for speech production in the absence of muscular weakness. Apraxia is not a result of sensory problems, or physical issues with the articulatory structures themselves, simply the way the brain plans to move them.

Expressive aphasia is classified as non-fluent aphasia, as opposed to fluent aphasia. Diagnosis is done on a case by case basis, as lesions often affect the surrounding cortex and deficits are highly variable among patients with aphasia.

A physician is typically the first person to recognize aphasia in a patient who is being treated for damage to the brain. Routine processes for determining the presence and location of lesion in the brain include Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Computed Tomography (CT) scans. The physician will complete a brief assessment of the patient's ability to understand and produce language. For further diagnostic testing, the physician will refer the patient to a speech-language pathologist, who will complete a comprehensive evaluation.

In order to diagnose a patient who is suffering from Broca’s aphasia, there are certain commonly used tests and procedures. The Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) classifies individuals based on their scores on the subtests; spontaneous speech, auditory comprehension, repetition, and naming. The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) can inform users what specific type of aphasia they may have, infer the location of lesion, and assess current language abilities. The Porch Index of Communication Ability (PICA) can predict potential recovery outcomes of the patients with aphasia. Quality of life measurement is also an important assessment tool. Tests such as the Assessment for Living with Aphasia (ALA) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) allow for therapists to target skills that are important and meaningful for the individual.

In addition to formal assessments, patient and family interviews are valid and important sources of information. The patient’s previous hobbies, interests, personality, and occupation are all factors that will not only impact therapy but may motivate them throughout the recovery process. Patient interviews and observations allow professionals to learn the priorities of the patient and family and determine what the patient hopes to regain in therapy. Observations of the patient may also be beneficial to determine where to begin treatment. The current behaviors and interactions of the patient will provide the therapist with more insight about the client and his or her individual needs. Other information about the patient can be retrieved from medical records, patient referrals from physicians, and the nursing staff.

In non-speaking patients who use manual languages, diagnosis is often based on interviews from the patient's acquaintances, noting the differences in sign production pre- and post- damage to the brain. Many of these patients will also begin to rely on non-linguistic gestures to communicate, rather than signing since their language production is hindered.

Developmental coordination disorder is a lifelong neurological condition that is more common in males than in females, with a ratio of approximately four males to every female. The exact proportion of people with the disorder is unknown since the disorder can be difficult to detect due to a lack of specific laboratory tests, thus making diagnosis of the condition one of elimination of all other possible causes/diseases. Approximately 5–6% of children are affected by this condition.

Individuals with conduction aphasia are able to express themselves fairly well, with some word finding and functional comprehension difficulty. Although people with aphasia may be able to express themselves fairly well, they tend to have issues repeating phrases, especially phrases that are long and complex. When asked to repeat something, the patient will be unable to do so without significant difficulty, repeatedly attempting to self-correct ("conduite d'approche"). When asked a question, however, patients can answer spontaneously and fluently.

Several standardized test batteries exist for diagnosing and classifying aphasias. These tests are capable of identifying conduction aphasia with relative accuracy. The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) and the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) are two commonly used test batteries for diagnosing conduction aphasia. These examinations involve a set of tests, which include asking patients to name pictures, read printed words, count aloud, and repeat words and non-words (such as "shwazel").

Dysarthria is a motor speech disorder resulting from neurological injury of the motor component of the motor-speech system and is characterized by poor articulation of phonemes. In other words, it is a condition in which problems effectively occur with the muscles that help produce speech, often making it very difficult to pronounce words. It is unrelated to problems with understanding language (that is aphasia), although a person can have both. Any of the speech subsystems (respiration, phonation, resonance, prosody, and articulation) can be affected, leading to impairments in intelligibility, audibility, naturalness, and efficiency of vocal communication. Dysarthria that has progressed to a total loss of speech is referred to as anarthria.

Neurological injury due to damage in the central or peripheral nervous system may result in weakness, paralysis, or a lack of coordination of the motor-speech system, producing dysarthria. These effects in turn hinder control over the tongue, throat, lips or lungs; for example, swallowing problems (dysphagia) are also often present in those with dysarthria.

Dysarthria does not include speech disorders from structural abnormalities, such as cleft palate, and must not be confused with apraxia of speech, which refers to problems in the planning and programming aspect of the motor-speech system. Just as the term "articulation" can mean either "speech" or "joint movement", so is the combining form of the same in the terms "dysarthria", "dysarthrosis", and "arthropathy"; the term "dysarthria" is conventionally reserved for the speech problem and is not used to refer to arthropathy, whereas "dysarthrosis" has both senses but usually refers to arthropathy.

Cranial nerves that control the muscles relevant to dysarthria include the trigeminal nerve's motor branch (V), the facial nerve (VII), the glossopharyngeal nerve (IX), the vagus nerve (X), and the hypoglossal nerve (XII). The term is from New Latin, "dys-" "dysfunctional, impaired" and "arthr-" "joint, vocal articulation")

DLD is defined purely in behavioural terms: there is no biological test. There are three points that need to be met for a diagnosis of DLD:

1. The child has language difficulties that create obstacles to communication or learning in everyday life,

2. The child's language problems are unlikely to resolve by five years of age, and

3. The problems are not associated with a known biomedical condition such as brain injury, neurodegenerative conditions, genetic conditions or chromosome disorders such as Down Syndrome, sensorineural hearing loss, or Autism Spectrum Disorder or Intellectual Disability.

For research and epidemiological purposes, specific cutoffs on language assessments have been used to document the first criterion. Tomblin et al. proposed the EpiSLI criterion, based on five composite scores representing performance in three domains of language (vocabulary, grammar, and narration) and two modalities (comprehension and production). Children scoring in the lowest 10% on two or more composite scores are identified as having language disorder.

The second criterion, persistence of language problems, can be difficult to judge in a young child, but longitudinal studies have shown that difficulties are less likely to resolve for children who have poor language comprehension, rather than difficulties confined to expressive language. In addition, children with isolated difficulties in just one of the areas noted under 'subtypes' tend to make better progress than those whose language is impaired in several areas.

The third criterion specifies that DLD is used for children whose language disorder is not part of another biomedical condition, such as a genetic syndrome, a sensorineural hearing loss, neurological disease, Autism Spectrum Disorder or Intellectual Disability – these were termed 'differentiating conditions' by the CATALISE panel. Language disorders occurring with these conditions need to be assessed and children offered appropriate intervention, but a terminological distinction is made so that these cases would be diagnosed as Language Disorder associated with ___, with the main diagnosis being specified: e.g. "Language Disorder associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder." The reasoning behind these diagnostic distinctions is discussed further by Bishop (2017).

Treatment for aphasias is generally individualized, focusing on specific language and communication improvements, and regular exercise with communication tasks. Regular therapy for conduction aphasics has been shown to result in steady improvement on the Western Aphasia Battery. However, conduction aphasia is a mild aphasia, and conduction aphasics score highly on the WAB at baseline.

Movement and posture limitations are aspects of all CP types and as a result, CP has historically been diagnosed based on parental reporting of developmental motor delays such as failure to sit upright, reach for objects, crawl, stand, or walk at the appropriate age. Diagnosis of ADCP is also based on clinical assessment used in conjunction with milestone reporting. The majority of ADCP assessments now use the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) or the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (formerly the International Classification of Impairments Disease, and Handicaps), measures of motor impairment that are effective in assessing severe CP. ADCP is typically characterized by an individual’s inability to control their muscle tone, which is readily assessed via these classification systems.

In a typical 2-year-old child, about 50% of speech may be intelligible. A 4-year-old child's speech should be intelligible overall, and a 7-year-old should be able to clearly produce most words consistent with community norms for their age. Misarticulation of certain difficult sounds ("l", "r",

"s", "z", "th", "ch", "dzh", and "zh") may be normal up to 8 years. Children with speech sound disorder have pronunciation difficulties inappropriate for their age, and the difficulties are not caused by hearing problems, congenital deformities, motor disorders or selective mutism.

The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria are as follows:

- A. Persistent difficulty with speech sound production that interferes with speech intelligibility or prevents verbal communication of messages.

- B. The disturbance causes limitations in effective communication that interfere with social participation, academic achievement, or occupational performance, individually or in any combination.

- C. Onset of symptoms is in the early developmental period.

- D. The difficulties are not attributable to congenital or acquired conditions, such as cerebral palsy, cleft palate, deafness or hearing loss, traumatic brain injury, or other medical or neurological conditions.

For most children, the disorder is not lifelong and speech difficulties improve with time and speech-language treatment. Prognosis is poorer for children who also have a language disorder, as that may be indicative of a learning disorder.

Dysprosody, which may manifest as pseudo-foreign accent syndrome, refers to a disorder in which one or more of the prosodic functions are either compromised or eliminated completely.

Prosody refers to the variations in melody, intonation, pauses, stresses, intensity, vocal quality, and accents of speech. As a result, prosody has a wide array of functions, including expression on linguistic, attitudinal, pragmatic, affective and personal levels of speech. People diagnosed with dysprosody most commonly experience difficulties in pitch or timing control. Essentially, people diagnosed with the disease can comprehend language and vocalize what they intend to say, however, they are not able to control the way in which the words come out of their mouths. Since dysprosody is the rarest neurological speech disorder discovered, not much is conclusively known or understood about the disorder. The most obvious expression of dysprosody is when a person starts speaking in an accent which is not their own. Speaking in a foreign accent is only one type of dysprosody, as the disease can also manifest itself in other ways, such as changes in pitch, volume, and rhythm of speech. It is still very unclear as to how damage to the brain causes the disruption of prosodic function. The only form of effective treatment developed for dysprosody is speech therapy.