Last updated 2026-07-09
TL;DR
Kids with childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) do better in school when their accommodations lower the motor-speech load of participating: more time to answer, other ways to respond, AAC access, and teachers who actually understand what's going on. These belong in an IEP or 504 plan. Get it right and a child can show what they know regardless of how their speech is cooperating that day.
Why apraxia makes school so hard
Childhood apraxia of speech is a neurological motor speech disorder, not a muscle weakness problem. The brain struggles to plan and program the precise movements the mouth, tongue, and lips need for speech [1]. A child with CAS usually knows exactly what they want to say and has the words for it, but the signal from brain to mouth doesn't come through cleanly. Words come out wrong, inconsistently, or not at all.
That inconsistency is what trips people up. A child might say "banana" perfectly on Tuesday and be unable to produce it at all on Thursday. Teachers who don't understand CAS sometimes read that as laziness or lack of effort. It's neither.
A school day is full of motor-speech demands: roll call, reading aloud, group discussion, presentations, answering questions on the spot. A child with CAS faces all of that every day, and without accommodations, the record that piles up ends up reflecting speech difficulty rather than what the child actually knows. Those are two different things, and mixing them up causes real harm.
Roughly 1 in 1,000 children are estimated to have CAS, though that number shifts because diagnostic criteria have been inconsistent over the years [10]. It often shows up alongside autism, genetic syndromes, or general language delay, so some kids in any given class are managing more than one diagnosis at once [2]. For more on the diagnosis itself, see our guide to childhood apraxia of speech.
What schools are legally required to do
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that eligible children with disabilities get a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment [3]. Speech-language impairment is one of the 13 disability categories under IDEA, and CAS qualifies when it gets in the way of a child participating, learning, or showing what they've learned at school.
If a child qualifies, the school convenes an IEP team and writes an Individualized Education Program covering present levels of performance, measurable annual goals, and the services the child will receive, including speech-language therapy [3]. The school's speech-language pathologist is the clinical voice on that team. IDEA also requires the IEP to be reviewed at least yearly and the child reevaluated at least every three years [3].
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is the other route, for kids who don't meet the bar for an IEP [4]. It covers children whose physical or mental impairment substantially limits a major life activity, and speaking counts as one. A 504 plan can put classroom accommodations in place without the full IEP process, though it comes with less paperwork, less enforcement, and no guarantee of related services like therapy. In practice: if your child needs the school to actually deliver speech-language therapy, push for an IEP. A 504 plan alone doesn't obligate the school to provide sessions.
Accommodations that actually help
The useful accommodations for CAS remove unnecessary speech barriers without lowering what's expected academically.
The biggest one is giving a child other ways to show what they know: writing, pointing to answers, using an AAC device, thumbs up or down, drawing, typing. None of that lowers the standard. It just separates how the child communicates from what's actually being graded.
Extended time matters too, since kids with CAS need longer to plan the motor sequences speech requires, and pressure reliably makes things worse. A common starting point is 100 percent additional time, and it's worth writing the accommodation so it covers oral responses, not just written tests.
Cold calling and reading aloud in front of the class are common trouble spots. The fix is telling the child in advance which paragraph they'll read or which question they'll answer, so they can rehearse privately. Some kids do fine with that much. Others need it written as "no required public oral reading" until their speech goals catch up.
Seating near the teacher helps too: it shortens the distance a child has to project their voice and lets the teacher check in quietly instead of turning a stumble into a whole-class moment.
Testing is where the stakes are highest. Written, typed, or AAC-based responses should be allowed whenever a test is measuring content rather than oral skill, and if an oral component truly needs to be assessed, it should happen one-on-one or in a small group.
None of this works, though, without the classroom culture behind it. Teachers can tell the class, at an age-appropriate level and with the family's input, that people communicate in different ways, without ever naming the diagnosis. The goal is simple: a kid who takes longer to speak, or uses a device, or sounds different, doesn't get interrupted, mocked, or talked over. That costs nothing and matters more than almost anything else on this list.
| Accommodation | What it addresses | How to write it in the IEP |
|---|---|---|
| Alternative response formats | Motor speech demand of oral answering | "Student may respond in writing, by pointing, or via AAC device for all academic tasks" |
| Extended oral response time | Time pressure worsening motor planning | "100% extended time for oral responses; teacher will not call on student without prior notice" |
| Pre-notification for oral tasks | Anxiety and cold-call failure | "Teacher will privately notify student which question/passage they will be asked to respond to" |
| No required public oral reading | Fluency exposure in front of peers | "Student is not required to read aloud in front of the class unless self-selected" |
| AAC device access at all times | Functional communication when speech fails | "Student has access to AAC device at all times; staff trained in device support" |
| Small group or 1:1 for oral assessment | Test anxiety amplifying CAS | "Oral assessments administered in small group or individual setting" |
| Seating near teacher | Audibility and teacher proximity | "Preferential seating within arm's reach of teacher" |
Why CAS goals need to be different from typical speech goals
This is a distinction IEPs get wrong constantly, and it matters. CAS goals should target motor speech directly, not vocabulary or sentence length.
Most general speech-language IEP goals aim at vocabulary size, sentence length, or comprehension, which are language goals. CAS is a motor speech disorder, not a language disorder. A child with CAS can have completely age-appropriate language locked behind a motor planning system that won't execute it. Write language goals for a motor speech problem and you're aiming at the wrong target entirely.
ASHA's technical report on CAS describes the disorder as characterized by "inconsistent errors on consonants and vowels in repeated productions of syllables or words, lengthened and disrupted coarticulatory transitions between sounds and syllables, and inappropriate prosody" [1].
Goals that are actually built for CAS look more like this:
- "Student will accurately produce target words at the single-syllable level with 80% accuracy across three consecutive sessions using the Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme or DTTC approach"
- "Student will use a core vocabulary AAC system to produce a 2-element message (carrier phrase + key word) across 4 out of 5 opportunities in the classroom setting"
- "Student will accurately produce targeted words in a 3-word phrase with correct stress pattern across 80% of opportunities in structured SLP sessions"
The IEP should also name the therapy approach the school SLP plans to use. ASHA points to Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing (DTTC), the Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme (NDP3), and Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment (ReST) as the approaches with the strongest research support for CAS [1]. If an IEP just lists "speech-language therapy, 2x30 minutes per week" with no named method, ask directly which evidence-based approach the SLP intends to use for motor speech.
Frequency matters as much as method. Kids with CAS need frequent, intensive practice of motor speech sequences, and two 30-minute sessions a week may not be enough for moderate to severe CAS, especially in the early grades. If goals aren't being met, that's worth pushing on. For more on the therapy side, see speech therapy and how to pick a therapist.
What AAC tools are appropriate for a child with apraxia in school?
AAC (augmentative and alternative communication) isn't a last resort, and it doesn't hold speech back. ASHA is explicit that AAC does not inhibit speech development, and that kids with CAS should have access to it while their motor speech is still developing [1]. The worry that a device stops a child from trying to talk just isn't backed up by evidence.
Classroom options range from low-tech to high-tech. Low-tech means picture communication boards, alphabet boards for spelling, and choice boards for common classroom responses. These cost almost nothing and never need charging, and a teacher can print a core vocabulary board from a free template in an afternoon.
Mid to high-tech means dedicated speech-generating devices and tablet-based AAC apps. Devices like the Tobii Dynavox TD Snap, PRC-AAC's Accent series, and apps like Proloquo2Go run roughly $200 to $8,000 depending on the setup [5]. Districts have to consider AAC as a related service under IDEA when it's needed for the child to access FAPE, and the school can be required to fund the device if the IEP team documents that it's educationally necessary.
For kids with co-occurring motor difficulties, touch-based AAC can be hard to use, so switch-access AAC, eye-gaze systems, or apps built for motor-reduced input become the better fit.
Whatever system a child uses, the IEP has to name who trains them on it: the classroom teacher, the paraprofessional, the family. A device only the SLP knows how to run is a device that sits in a bag between therapy sessions. Our full explainer on AAC devices covers the options and funding paths in more depth.
For at-home practice, Little Words is an AI speech companion built for neurodivergent kids, including those working on motor speech targets between sessions. It won't replace a school-funded device or SLP-directed therapy, but it gives kids more repetitions in a low-pressure setting. You can take the quiz to see if it fits your child.
How should teachers talk to a child with apraxia during class?
How a teacher responds changes how willing a child with CAS is to keep trying to communicate. A few concrete habits do most of the work: wait longer, don't finish their sentences, and recast instead of correct.
Motor speech planning takes time, and the silence after a question feels longer to you than it does to the child. Give at least 5 to 10 seconds before restating the question or moving on. Research on wait time in ordinary classrooms found that stretching teacher wait time from under 1 second to 3 to 5 seconds increases the quantity and quality of student responses, even for typically developing kids [6]. For a child with a motor planning disorder, the effect is bigger.
It feels kind to jump in when a child is struggling, but finishing their sentences removes the motor practice and tells them you don't expect them to get there. Better to recast than correct: if a child says "wawa" for "water," respond with "Oh, you want water" naturally in the flow of conversation. That models the target without an explicit correction and without shame, and it lines up with ASHA's practice guidance on motor speech disorders [1].
Avoid telling the child to "slow down" or "say it again clearly." Those instructions don't help CAS, because the problem isn't rate or effort. Asking for a repeat without changing anything just buys another failed attempt in front of the class. If you need a repeat, shrink the audience first.
For paraprofessionals working closely with a child who has CAS, the school SLP should coach them directly. A 30-minute session showing the para how to prompt, wait, and model is a legitimate related service that belongs right in the IEP.
What should the IEP meeting actually include for a child with apraxia?
A lot of IEP meetings for kids with CAS produce plans that are vague, under-resourced, or just wrong for the diagnosis. Here's what to push for.
The present levels section should describe motor speech functioning: how many syllable shapes the child produces, what contexts they communicate in, their intelligibility with familiar versus unfamiliar listeners, and their current AAC use. If present levels reads like a general language summary with no motor speech specifics, the rest of the IEP probably won't address CAS either.
The annual goals section needs at least one motor speech goal that names an evidence-based CAS approach (DTTC, NDP3, ReST). "Student will improve articulation skills" is not a CAS goal.
The related services section should spell out frequency, duration, and whether sessions are individual or group, plus the setting. Individual sessions usually beat group sessions for CAS, because the practice has to be high-repetition and targeted. If your child is grouped with three other kids working on totally different goals, the therapy won't do much for CAS.
The accommodations section should cover everything in the table above, and get specifics in writing: "extended time on tests" is not the same as extended time for oral responses in class. Name both.
Ask the team point-blank who trains the classroom teacher on the child's communication needs. That should be the SLP, and it should happen before the first week of school, not after the teacher has locked in routines that leave the child out.
If you disagree with the IEP, IDEA gives parents the right to request mediation, file a state complaint, or request a due process hearing [3]. Just knowing that exists shifts the tone of the meeting, even if you never use it.
How does apraxia affect reading and writing, more than speech?
CAS is primarily a speech disorder, but its reach in the classroom goes past oral communication. Reading aloud, spelling, and decoding can all take a hit, which surprises a lot of parents.
Reading aloud is a speech production task. A child with CAS who reads silently and understands the text may still fall apart when asked to read out loud, because turning written words into oral output runs through the same motor planning system that's impaired. Oral reading just isn't a reliable measure of reading comprehension for these kids.
Some children with CAS also have co-occurring written language difficulties, and the link isn't fully worked out. One idea is that phonological awareness, the ability to hear and manipulate the sounds of language, sits underneath both speech production and early literacy [7]. Kids with CAS often have phonological awareness deficits, which drags on spelling and decoding. A 2010 study in the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research found children with CAS scored significantly below typically developing peers on phonological awareness tasks [7].
If your child has CAS and is also struggling with reading or spelling, ask whether the SLP is working on phonological awareness inside speech therapy, and whether the reading specialist knows about the connection. Those conversations rarely happen without a parent pushing them.
Writing and keyboarding can be good outlets, since they skip the motor speech system entirely. But if the child also has fine motor difficulties, which run higher with CAS than in the general population, handwriting becomes its own barrier. Typing accommodations, voice-to-text with editing time, or scribe services may fit better. For context on overlapping profiles, our piece on autism spectrum speech therapy covers how these conditions stack.
What do families need to do at home to support classroom progress?
School-based services for CAS are rarely enough on their own. Motor learning research is clear that CAS needs high-repetition, frequent practice to build and keep motor patterns [1]. Two or three 30-minute sessions a week at school might add up to 200 to 300 meaningful practice trials, but motor learning research suggests kids with CAS may need hundreds of trials per session to make gains that stick [8].
That gap is real, and closing it falls on families, which is a hard thing to ask of parents who are already stretched thin. Here's what actually helps at home, lined up with what the school SLP is targeting.
Ask the SLP for a home program. This should be automatic, but it often isn't unless you ask. The program should name which words or word shapes to practice, how many trials a day, and what to do when the child hits the target versus misses it.
Make practice feel like a game. Motor speech practice for a 5-year-old isn't flashcard drills, it's repeating a target word while rolling a toy car down a ramp, one word per roll. The repetition is the point; the activity is just the reason to do it.
Keep corrections off the dinner table. Structured practice time and regular conversation should stay separate. If every attempt at speech during dinner gets corrected, the child stops talking at dinner. Conversation builds communicative confidence; structured practice builds motor patterns. Don't mix the two.
For structured practice between sessions, Little Words is built for neurodivergent kids and designed to make speech repetition feel low-stakes. It's not therapy and it doesn't replace the school SLP, but it gives kids more reps in a familiar spot.
Check in with the school SLP every 4 to 6 weeks, not just at the annual review. Ask whether the child is moving toward the motor speech goals, and if not, ask what needs to change: the approach, the frequency, or the goals themselves.
What questions should parents ask at the IEP meeting?
Most families walk into IEP meetings under-prepared, because the process is run daily by school staff and attended by parents who've never sat through one before. These eight questions tend to get you better information and better outcomes:
1. "Which evidence-based treatment approach are you using for motor speech, and how are you measuring trial-by-trial accuracy?"
2. "How many individual practice trials is my child getting in each therapy session?"
3. "Has the classroom teacher had specific training on childhood apraxia of speech from the SLP?"
4. "How will my child be allowed to respond to classroom questions and assessments?"
5. "Does my child have consistent access to their AAC system all day, including lunch and recess, not only during speech therapy?"
6. "What's the plan if my child's speech is much worse on a given day, from illness, fatigue, or stress?"
7. "Are you addressing phonological awareness as part of the speech goals, given the link to literacy?"
8. "Who coordinates between the classroom teacher, the SLP, and the paraprofessional so everyone uses the same communication strategies?"
Write these down and bring the paper with you. That's normal, and no one will blink. You're a required member of the IEP team under IDEA, not a guest [3], and the school can't finalize the IEP without your input. If you haven't been through a first evaluation yet, our guide to early intervention walks through what happens before the school IEP process even starts.
What if the school says my child doesn't qualify?
This happens more than people expect. Schools have real resource limits, and eligibility decisions aren't always made on purely clinical grounds. If the school says your child doesn't qualify for special education, you have four moves.
Ask for the denial in writing first. IDEA requires written notice when a school refuses to evaluate or refuses to provide services [3], and if they won't put it on paper, that's a procedural violation in itself.
Second, get an independent educational evaluation. IDEA gives parents the right to one at public expense if they disagree with the school's evaluation. The school can push back by requesting a due process hearing, but the burden is on them to start that fight [3].
Third, consider the 504 path. Even without IDEA eligibility, a child with a documented CAS diagnosis that substantially limits speaking as a major life activity qualifies for 504 protections [4]. A 504 plan can't mandate direct speech therapy, but it can require accommodations: extended time, AAC access, alternative response formats. For a child at the milder end of CAS, that may be enough.
Fourth, look at private speech therapy to supplement or replace what the school provides. Private SLPs who specialize in CAS can often deliver the intensive, method-specific therapy that school settings struggle to offer. Cost varies a lot by region: in the US, private speech therapy runs roughly $100 to $350 per hour depending on location and provider type [9]. Some private insurers cover it for CAS when medical necessity is documented, though coverage swings widely by plan. If you're new to the school-based system, our guide to choosing a speech therapist can help you know what to ask for.
How does apraxia present differently at each grade level?
CAS doesn't look the same at every age, and what a first grader needs is different from what fits a middle schooler.
In preschool and kindergarten, the priority is a functional communication system (often including AAC), a reliable core vocabulary, and a classroom that doesn't penalize communication differences. Oral participation expectations at this age sit well above what a child with CAS can manage, so broad accommodations belong in place from day one.
In early elementary (grades 1 to 3), reading and writing demands climb fast, and this is when phonological awareness deficits start showing up as reading and spelling struggles. The accommodations should grow to cover literacy directly: no cold calling for oral reading, alternative formats for assessing reading fluency, and the SLP working directly with the reading teacher.
By upper elementary and middle school, social communication gets more complicated, and the gap between what a child is thinking and what comes out of their mouth becomes obvious to peers. The social cost of speech differences is real at this age, which is why presentation accommodations (pre-recorded video, written formats, small group instead of whole class) start to matter more. Many kids with well-managed CAS have much better intelligibility by middle school after consistent therapy, though residual prosody differences and occasional breakdowns under stress stick around for some.
In high school, students can start to self-advocate. Transition planning under IDEA (required at 16, earlier in many states) should build in self-advocacy goals: knowing your own diagnosis, being able to explain the accommodations you need, and requesting supports on your own [3]. That's a learnable skill set, not something kids just pick up.
For the fuller picture of how CAS changes with age and intervention, see our apraxia of speech article.
Yes, a child with apraxia can get an IEP. Childhood apraxia of speech counts as a speech-language impairment under IDEA's disability categories once it starts affecting educational performance, so the school has to evaluate the child, and if eligibility is confirmed, write an IEP with measurable speech goals and whatever related services are needed. If a child doesn't meet IDEA eligibility, a Section 504 plan can still provide classroom accommodations, though it won't include direct therapy. That distinction matters. An IEP comes with legally mandated special education services, including direct speech-language therapy from a school SLP. A 504 plan gets you accommodations like extra time, AAC access, or alternative response formats, but the school isn't required to provide therapy under it. For moderate to severe CAS, families should usually be aiming for an IEP, since the child needs intensive motor speech therapy rather than just accommodations. On AAC: ASHA is clear that it doesn't inhibit speech development, and kids with CAS should have access to it while their motor speech skills develop. The IEP team, SLP included, should assess whether AAC is needed, and if the team decides it's necessary for the child to access their education, the district has to provide it, all day, not just during therapy sessions. There's no magic number for how many therapy sessions a week a child needs, but both ASHA guidance and motor learning research point toward frequent, intensive practice. Two 30-minute sessions a week is a common starting point, but it's often not enough for moderate to severe cases. The IEP should spell out why a given frequency was chosen, and if a child isn't meeting annual goals, frequency and session structure should be among the first things the team looks at again. As for approach, ASHA points to Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing (DTTC), the Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme (NDP3), Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment (ReST), and Integrated Phonological Awareness intervention as having the strongest evidence for CAS. It's worth asking your child's SLP directly which approach they use and how they track progress. If the answer is a vague "articulation therapy," that's a sign the SLP may not specialize in motor speech disorders. Reading can be affected too. Many children with CAS also have phonological awareness deficits, which show up in decoding and spelling. A 2010 study in the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research found children with CAS scored significantly below typical peers on phonological awareness tasks, so the IEP should address this directly as part of the speech goals, with the SLP coordinating with the reading teacher. When a child with apraxia can't get a word out in class, the fix is mostly about patience: give at least 5 to 10 seconds of wait time, don't jump in to finish their sentence, and never ask them to "say it again more clearly." Let them respond through AAC, writing, or pointing, whatever's documented in the IEP, and if something needs following up, do it privately after class rather than in front of peers. Taking the pressure off actually helps motor speech planning for kids with CAS. On cost: many private insurers will cover speech therapy for CAS when a licensed SLP documents medical necessity, though coverage, co-pays, and session limits vary a lot by plan. Some states have autism insurance mandates that extend to communication-related diagnoses as well. Private sessions in the US typically run $100 to $350 an hour depending on location and provider, and if you're paying out of pocket and hoping for reimbursement later, always ask for a superbill. The present levels section of the IEP needs to be specific about motor speech functioning: what syllable shapes the child produces, how intelligible they are with familiar versus unfamiliar listeners, their current AAC use, and how all of this plays out in classroom participation. If present levels read like a general language summary with no motor speech detail, the IEP wasn't written with CAS in mind, and that's worth pushing back on, because vague present levels lead to vague, unhelpful goals. It's also completely normal for a child to talk fine at home and struggle at school. CAS symptoms get worse under stress, fatigue, and unfamiliar communication demands, and school has more of all three than home does. That inconsistency across settings is actually one of the defining features of CAS. It isn't selective mutism or anxiety, though those can show up alongside it. The child isn't choosing to struggle; their motor planning system is just more taxed in demanding situations. For oral presentations, there are several accommodations worth naming in the IEP: pre-recorded video instead of live delivery, written reports instead of oral ones, small group or one-on-one presentations instead of whole-class, or use of AAC or a visual script during the talk. Grading a child with CAS on speech fluency for what's meant to be a content presentation is measuring the wrong thing. Support should start as early as possible. For preschoolers age 3 and up, the district has to evaluate and provide services if the child is eligible, including in public preschool, and there's no minimum age for accommodations once a child is in a school setting. Earlier support tends to produce better motor speech outcomes, since young children have the most neuroplasticity to work with. To know if therapy is actually working, ask the SLP for data rather than relying on impressions from parents or teachers. A good motor speech program tracks trial-by-trial accuracy within sessions, and progress should show up in that data within 6 to 8 weeks of starting a new target. If the SLP can't produce session data, or the annual review shows last year's goals still sitting at baseline, something needs to change, whether that's the approach, the frequency, or the provider. For older students, apraxia does qualify as a disability under the ADA, which covers people with impairments that substantially limit a major life activity, and speaking is named specifically. Once a student reaches postsecondary education, IDEA no longer applies, but ADA Title II covers public universities and Title III covers private ones, both requiring reasonable academic adjustments. The student has to self-disclose and request accommodations through the school's disability services office.Sources
- ASHA, Technical Report on Childhood Apraxia of Speech: CAS is characterized by inconsistent errors on consonants and vowels, disrupted coarticulatory transitions, and inappropriate prosody; AAC does not inhibit speech development; DTTC, NDP3, and ReST have the most research support
- American Academy of Pediatrics, Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics: CAS co-occurs with autism spectrum disorder, genetic syndromes, and general language delay
- U.S. Department of Education, IDEA Statute and Regulations: IDEA requires FAPE in the LRE for eligible children; IEP review at least annually; reevaluation every 3 years; parents have procedural rights including IEE and due process; transition planning required at age 16
- U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Section 504 covers children with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, including speaking; a 504 plan can provide accommodations without direct therapy
- ASHA, Augmentative and Alternative Communication Overview: AAC devices range from low-tech picture boards to high-tech speech-generating devices; schools are required to consider AAC as a related service under IDEA if educationally necessary
- Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 43-50.: Extending teacher wait time from under 1 second to 3 to 5 seconds increases quantity and quality of student responses in classroom settings
- Goffman, L. et al. (2010). Production and awareness of word and syllable structure in children with childhood apraxia of speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.: Children with CAS performed significantly below typically developing peers on phonological awareness tasks in a 2010 JSLHR study
- Maassen, B., & Terband, H. (2015). Motor speech disorders in children. ASHA SIG 5 Perspectives.: Motor learning research indicates children with CAS may need hundreds of practice trials per session to make durable gains in motor speech patterns
- ASHA, Health Care Economics and Reimbursement: Private speech therapy session costs in the United States typically range from approximately $100 to $350 per hour depending on geographic location and provider type
- Apraxia Kids (Childhood Apraxia of Speech Association of North America), CAS Prevalence and Characteristics: Approximately 1 in 1,000 children are estimated to have CAS; prevalence estimates vary due to historically inconsistent diagnostic criteria
- ASHA, Scope of Practice in Speech-Language Pathology: Motor speech disorders including CAS are within the scope of practice of speech-language pathologists; SLPs are the qualified professionals for CAS assessment and treatment