National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
Senate Submission – NDIS Amendment Bill 2026
Executive summary
This Bill should not be passed in its current form. The proposed reforms go too far and risk significant unintended consequences for people with disability, their families, and the broader community.
It is important to secure the future of NDIS and safeguard more effectively against fraud, however without meaningful changes, this Bill will reduce future functional capacity of participants, limit independence, and likely increase long-term costs to government systems.
The most concerning changes to us are:
Changes to functional capacity criteria. Changes to the definition of permanent disability which will exclude people who can improve functionally with therapeutic supports. Changes to parental responsibility meaning parents will become even more burdened and taking on roles that are not traditionally parental responsibilities. The changes will disproportionately affect women.
Instead of these changes the Government and NDIA could seek to:
Delay the implementation of these changes for 6 months until a reasonable consultation period has been provided . This includes considering different ways of making the NDIS sustainable for future generations without eroding the choice and control of participants or
1
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
risking people with disability who have met original eligibility criteria not getting access to the scheme. For example, consider co-payment models or service caps based on what is needed for functional outcomes to be achieved based on evidence, rather than potentially underfunding or overfunding some supports where value for money is not achieved. There should be Government data both before and during the NDIS available to support some of these decisions and review assessment reports that specify progress reporting for consideration. This submission includes practice based evidence where we have found the amount of service required for meaningful results but not overburdening families or costing more resources. Provide nuanced and detailed definitions around what functional capacity criteria need to be met in consultation with people with disability and health professions so the people the scheme was designed for are still included on NDIS. Originally, they were people with moderate to severe permanent and lifelong disabilities that could. People with childhood apraxia of speech and dysarthria meet the current NDIS eligibility criteria, are on the current NDIS impairment list and should continue to be eligible for NDIS supports. In being clearer about function and eligibility, this will still serve to reduce the number of participants accessing the NDIS but it is crucial that people who originally would have met eligibility criteria continue to do so. Uphold the current definition of permanency so that treatments that support people’s function, reduce their symptoms and negative impacts of the disability and support long-term productivity and capacity to contribute as taxpayers are included. Continue funding meaningful supports such as support workers for families with limited external or family support or tricky environmental conditions such as language and cultural barriers to ensure families are not burdened any more than currently. It should not be a one-size-fits-all solution.
2
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
Background Information
About Us
Remarkable Speech and Movement is a specialist provider of speech pathology and allied health services, with a team of nine clinicians supporting people with disability, including children and young people. Our work focuses on building communication, functional movement, and independence so individuals can participate meaningfully in education, employment, and community life. We provide clinic and telehealth services for individuals with childhood apraxia of speech, childhood dysarthria, and related conditions across Greater Sydney and most local government areas in New South Wales. We also support families and speech pathologists nationally.
Our director, Dr Elizabeth Murray, is a speech pathologist with over 20 years of experience across disability, community health, non-government, and private practice settings. She completed her PhD on the assessment and treatment of childhood apraxia of speech in 2014 and has lived experience as the sibling of two individuals with this condition. As a clinician and researcher, her work focuses on improving diagnosis, treatment, and service delivery. She founded Remarkable Speech and Movement to deliver evidence-aligned, family-centred services that are accountable, measurable, and effective.
Through our day-to-day work, we see the transformative impact of timely, consistent supports. We also see the consequences when these supports are reduced or delayed, including declines in functional capacity, increased reliance on families, and withdrawal from social participation, education, and employment.
Reducing access to NDIS-funded supports will not eliminate need but shift it to other systems. This is likely to increase pressure on hospitals, care facilities, housing systems, and the justice system. It is more cost-effective to support individuals early to develop functional skills and participate productively in their communities than to fund crisis-driven responses later.
3
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
Disability context We are specifically advocating for with people with two neurological, permanent motor speech conditions:
Childhood apraxia of speech is a neurological speech disorder that affects the brain’s ability to plan and coordinate the movements required for speech. Children with this condition know what they want to say but have difficulty producing the precise sequences of sounds required to form words. Their speech may be inconsistent, effortful, and difficult for others to understand. Longer or more complex words are often particularly challenging, and errors may vary each time a word is attempted. This reflects a breakdown in motor planning rather than weakness in the speech muscles (American Speech- Language-Hearing Association, 2007; Murray et al., 2021).
Childhood dysarthria is a related but distinct condition that affects the execution of speech movements. It occurs when there is reduced strength, coordination, or control of the muscles used for speech. Children with dysarthria may produce speech that is slurred, slow, or imprecise, and they may have difficulty controlling their breathing or voice to support clear communication (Pennington et al., 2013).
Both conditions are neurological in origin and persist across the lifespan. They are currently funded by the NDIS as they are on the impairment list and we have advocated strongly over the past 10 years to achieve and maintain this. While therapy can improve communication, it does not eliminate the underlying impairment. Instead, intervention focuses on improving the accuracy and consistency of speech movements and supporting participation in daily life (McCabe et al., 2024).
Childhood apraxia of speech is also associated with broader neurodevelopmental impairments and 1 in 3 people with CAS have known genetic conditions (Morgan et al, 2024). It frequently co-occurs with other developmental conditions such as developmental coordination disorder, cerebral palsy, sensory processing disorder, autism and ADHD which increases the complexity of support needs (e.g., Morgan et al., 2024; Newmeyer et al., 2009).
4
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
Information sources within this submission
This submission is informed by substantial clinical experience, direct engagement with participants and families, and lived experience being a family member of people with disability and the established evidence base in neurological speech disorders as well as practice based evidence.
Primary concerns About the Bill
- The proposed amendments to eligibility and functional capacity introduce changes that risk underfunding for people who need NDIS supports.
A significant concern is the narrowing of how functional capacity is interpreted, the lack of consultation with families and allied health professionals regarding eligibility decisions and the proposed lack of recourse if the functional assessment does not deem a person is eligible for future NDIS supports.
The Bill appears to rely on currently unspecified functional capacity assessment that includes a degree of automation that may not capture the breadth and depth of the functional impacts on communication, learning and social interaction in real-world environments. This creates a risk that children and people with significant disability will be excluded from supports because their needs are not accurately captured in assessment processes (Murray et al., 2021).
The impact of childhood apraxia of speech and dysarthria extends well beyond speech production and continues across the lifespan.
In early childhood, communication difficulties limit a child’s ability to express needs, engage with others, and participate in play. They are unable to talk about their days, their thoughts and feelings and families grieve not being able to communicate and understand their children like other families do. Frustration is common and behavioural challenges often emerge when communication is unsuccessful, with people acting out or withdrawing or avoiding communication.
5
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
As children enter school, communication difficulties persist and begin to affect literacy development. Speech production is intricately linked to the development of phonological awareness, which underpins reading and spelling skills (Chou et al, 2024). Children with childhood apraxia of speech are therefore at increased risk of literacy impairment (Lewis et al., 2021).
These challenges continue into adolescence and adulthood. Individuals with a history of childhood apraxia of speech often experience ongoing differences in speech clarity and communication confidence. They may avoid speaking situations such as speaking on the phone or in a group, which limits social participation and reduces opportunities for education and employment. They are more likely to be bullied and treated differently. Longitudinal studies show that communication difficulties are associated with lower educational attainment, reduced employment participation, and increased reliance on supports (Cassar et al., 2022; Lewis et al., 2021).
Mental health impacts are also significant. Communication impairment is strongly associated with increased rates of anxiety, social withdrawal, and reduced quality of life (Barrett et al., 2019). Without effective supports, these impacts compound over time, resulting in greater dependence on services and increased societal cost.
It is concerning that this also moves away from a holistic view of a person and may not consider their environment, daily supports and the contextual impact of their disability on their lives which allied health professionals routinely consider in our assessments. NDIS participants we support are already reporting concerns about frequent eligibility checks and that NDIS planners are unwilling to update their child’s impairment list to change it from global developmental delay to CAS and dysarthria or adding multiple impairments where both meet the NDIS eligibility criteria, risking inappropriate supports being provided as they do not meet their impairment. As CAS and dysarthria are not common, NDIS planners often have not heard of them and caregivers often report needing to appeal to help planners see they do meet the criteria. Not having the ability to appeal or even consult about eligibility will increase caregiver stress and may not consider the impact of these disorders and underestimate the people who need support.
6
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
- The Bill also introduces revised permanency criteria where treatment options should not be available even to support symptoms and that all other supports should be exhausted before NDIS supports are provided or continued.
This concept is deeply concerning as it detracts from the functional supports people require to be productive members of the community. This definition confuses permanent with unable to improve symptoms, function or risk factors, rather than permanency meaning it is not curable and will be lifelong. It is understandable to require other supports to be used in hospitals, health and education where these exist and are effective . But these blanket changes sound like they are designed to reduce supports and expenditure by deflecting to other services, stalling, introducing a burden of proof on participants and introducing considerable red tape, especially when other alternatives are not suitable, value for money or geographically available.
Therapy is an ongoing process of skill development to improve function, manage long-term risk factors and help people be productive the best way they can. There is a very real risk this change will result in people falling between the cracks and not getting any support that improves their functioning and productivity, leading to more drastic support and costs longer-term. The change to functional capacity if designed well to capture those with moderate-severe disabilities, should make it clear when people are significantly affected and therefore, they should receive NDIS supports. Ideally, most people get the supports they need to function at a reasonable level whether that be assistive technology, alternative and augmentative communication and therapeutic supports and then require less or no NDIS supports in the long-term to reduce Government and taxpayer expenditure.
NDIS has been a gamechanger for people with neurological motor speech disorders such as CAS and childhood dysarthria. The introduction of the NDIS has fundamentally changed outcomes for children with CAS and dysarthria. For the first time, families have been able to access therapy at the intensity required to support meaningful skill development.
7
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
Prior to the NDIS, therapy was often limited to low-frequency sessions delivered in short-term blocks. Families often accessed supports at community health, playgroups and education centres based on parent training for language stimulation that did not improve outcomes for people with CAS and dysarthria as it was not relevant to their impairment and needs. Those who did get speech-specific therapy did not often get motor speech specific supports and supports were provided at low intensity. Low intensity weekly, fortnightly or monthly therapy has now been shown to be insufficient value for money because it results in minimal functional gains and increased long-term cost (Murray et al., 2015; Thomas et al., 2014; Thomas et al, 2018). Fortnightly and monthly therapy rely on parental involvement.
This was insufficient for motor learning, and many children made limited progress.
With the NDIS, children have been able to access consistent, intensive therapy provided by trained clinicians. Research consistently shows that therapy delivered two to four times per week leads to significantly better outcomes than low-frequency therapy (McCabe et al, 2024) and evidence-based approaches work on coarticulation and movement and incorporate motor learning including frequent, targeted practice and feedback (Maas, 2024; Maas et al., 2014; Murray et al., 2015). These therapies promote functional gains in movement, communication, autonomy, social interaction and participation in learning and employment as seen in our intensives and measured by our outcome measures over the last 10 years.
Appropriately funded intensive therapy is also more cost-effective over time. It leads to faster progress, reduces the total duration of therapy required, and increases independence. In contrast, low-frequency therapy is not value for money because it delays progress and increases long-term reliance on supports.
The proposed amendments risk reversing these gains by limiting access to intensive therapy and introducing constraints that are inconsistent with the evidence base.
8
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
Illustration with case examples.
Two adults with CAS had weekly therapy after completing short term preschool and community health supports in the 1990s into the 2000s. These were primarily through private practice speech pathologists funded at private cost by their parents taking out a second mortgage. They required 12-15 years of continuous therapy to meet a functional level where they could communicate, interact, participate at school and get meaningful employment. Many adults have not received this and therefore are experiencing adverse long-term impacts as described above. Before the NDIS, the Medicare CDM was relied upon to access private services but with 5 sessions of subsidised therapy a calendar year across all allied health professions, this did not meaningfully help people gain functional outcomes. Families then needed to pay the rest with whatever means they had or people went without, affecting longer term outcomes and productivity.
In contrast, our practice-based evidence for NDIS participants shows that our participants who take part in short blocks of 4 sessions a week for 12 sessions or 2 sessions a week for 20 sessions gain improved movement, speech clarity and functional outcomes. They require multiple therapy blocks to reach their individual functional goals over years. Given our lived experience with families, we collaborate with them on setting goals and selecting supports based on their needs and are wary of burnout. Our evidence shows this therapy models are effective but also allow kids and families time to do other things, rather than requiring 3-5 sessions a week of therapy long term, adding extra cost to NDIS supports but also families time and capacity. Most of our participants need between 16-32 blocks of intensive therapy with breaks to meet their functional goals, demonstrating the complexity of these impairments even with the best therapy available. Progress depends on multiple factors including their intellectual and language ability, environmental support, co- morbid disorders such as autism, ADHD, cerebral palsy and other factors and future ambitions (Murray et al, 2018; Murray et al, 2023). After this point, people can come back for discreet blocks of therapy to support their functional goals over time including in adulthood, but the major burden of communication access is achieved and they have compensatory and functional strategies to
9
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
support their daily lives. This means they can integrate and be productive members of society.
NDIS are already cutting these supports with detrimental effects. For example, we have seen a 35-year-old participant with CAS, dysarthria and other impairments caused by a severe version of a genetic, rare metabolic disorder. She had her therapeutic supports taken away from her in her last NDIS review and her family have spent 18 months in tribunal with the NDIA. In the meantime, her overall motor function has decreased to a point where her speech is soft and slurred, she cannot sit in a chair for long periods due to reduced core strength and has fallen 3 times and hurt her head, 2 times have resulted in hospitalisation. Her family are carrying the burden of looking after her but as they are aging are looking for group homes and aged care facilities that could support her. These are real examples of the downstream unintended but expensive costs in not providing timely and effective supports.
Other supports do not exist or are insufficient.
Caregivers have reported that they want ongoing, intensive therapy blocks but experience significant barriers to obtaining skilled speech pathologists and evidence-based intensive care (Thomas et al, 2026). These are mostly provided by private providers who have completed extra training such as us. Without NDIS support to allow for choice and control over services, the existing services are insufficient and will add to caregiver burden.
In New South Wales, the Department of Education as well as Catholic or Independent schools do not integrated support funding for any communication disability that we know of. This means teachers are already working harder to provide bespoke daily supports within their classrooms. Classroom teachers do not have the training required to provide motor speech intervention and are responsible for curriculum delivery meaning they can provide the individual therapy required for meaningful change. Therapy aides and support workers are also not trained to analyse speech production or deliver the complex cueing required in therapy (Lim et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2018). Likewise, parent-implemented therapy has been shown to be ineffective for childhood apraxia of speech and can increase stress and negatively affect the parent- child relationship (Lim et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2018). Teachers, coaches
10
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
and family members provide value supports and practice for generalisation and participation but cannot replace therapy delivered by a trained speech pathologist. Speech pathologists require extra specialised training to provide appropriate therapy, requiring the ability to hear complex errors and provide cues and feedback specific to the child’s often variable productions (Keller et al, 2025). Currently people with CAS and childhood dysarthria are not eligible for support through Community Health Centres as they currently meet CAS criteria and their disorders are complex, permanent and lifelong and out of scope for a generalist caseload. Their support is generally limited to usually 1-2 therapy blocks of less than 12 sessions, not representing sufficient support for gains to be made for children with motor speech disorders. These clinicians also need to address a range of communication and feeding issues, meaning it is unlikely they have the advanced training required to appropriately treat CAS and dysarthria. They of course have the skills to do this training but would require departmental training and support to achieve this and appropriate service delivery. The new Medicare M10 provides some support for childhood apraxia of speech and childhood dysarthria but the significant, permanent and neurological nature of these disorders requires more than 20 sessions of speech pathology across their lifetime.
There is a significant risk these changes will require people with CAS and childhood dysarthria to exhaust these options that do not exist for their benefit and are likely to gatekeep them out as they have in the past, under support them, or lead to considerable waiting times for limited services adversely affecting their functional skills and long-term risk factors.
We have participants who have gotten support with us in later primary school, high school or in adulthood and already have decreased school attendance, significant learning difficulties affecting multiple learning areas without adequate support, reduced interaction and considerable mental health impacts including frequent bullying at school.
The cost of delaying supports or providing ineffective supports is considerable for individuals, families and the community. Restricting supports will not remove the need for services but will shift demand into other systems, including health, education, housing, and justice and increase caregiver stress and
11
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
burden. This results in higher long-term costs and poorer outcomes affecting productivity.
12
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
- Adding more parental responsibility and burden to families who are already oversubscribed and at breaking point and disproportionately impacting women including business owners and allied health professionals.
The Bill also risks increasing reliance on families beyond reasonable expectations. Caregivers are already providing extensive unpaid support, and additional responsibilities will exacerbate stress and inequity.
The impact of CAS and dysarthria extends beyond the individual to affect the entire family. Caregivers report significant emotional, financial, and logistical burden. Managing therapy, advocating for services, and supporting communication development requires sustained effort over many years (Dawoud et al., 2025). The experience of disability is different for every individual and family. The current system focusses on the person and their impairment and does not consider their context, family, environmental supports, economic capacity, health and other factors. As such, any blanket rule to increase family and parental responsibility is likely to cause further strain and for some, distress.
This burden falls disproportionately on women. Women are more likely to take on primary caregiving roles, reduce paid employment to support their child, and manage coordination of services. Women are also overrepresented in health and disability professions, including speech pathology, and are frequently small business owners who provide flexible services within their communities. These professionals often balance caring responsibilities for their own children and ageing parents while working to support NDIS participants and their families.
Policies that reduce access to funded supports therefore have a compounded impact on women. They increase unpaid care demands, reduce workforce participation, and place pressure on small, allied health businesses that rely on consistent funding to deliver services. This creates broader gender and economic inequities that are not sufficiently considered in the current Bill. It may also reduce female participation in the workforce like what occurred for many of our clients before NDIS, affecting national productivity. This would be
13
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
a considerable burden on participants and families to work and obtain funds as required.
As notes above, families are already stressed about frequent eligibility NDIS checks, advocating for support, finding effective services, helping explain their child’s messages and helping others understand their conditions. They are already doing this work. But they cannot provide the direct therapy needed for functional and meaningful change (Lim et al, 2020; Thomas et al, 2018).
Conclusion
This Bill should not be passed in its current form. The proposed amendments misinterpret the nature of lifelong communication disabilities, restrict access to evidence-based supports, and increase burden on families and other systems.
NDIS funded participants have demonstrated that appropriately funded, intensive intervention improves outcomes and reduces long-term cost. Reforms should build on this success rather than undermine it.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.
Dr Elizabeth Murray B.App.Sc.(Sp.Path)(Hons1).PhD(ChildhoodApraxiaofSpeech). Speech Pathologist | Business Owner and Director Remarkable Speech and Movement
14
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
Appendix: References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2007). Childhoodapraxiaofspeech: Technicalreport. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
Barrett, E., Gillon, G., & McNeill, B. (2019). Communication disorders and mental health outcomes in children. JournalofCommunicationDisorders,78, 1–12.
Cassar, M., McCabe, P., & Marshall, J. (2022). Long-term outcomes in childhood apraxia of speech. JournalofSpeech,Language,andHearingResearch,65(3), 1102–1118.
Chou, S. T. Y., Sutherland, R., & McCabe, P. (2024). A systematic scoping review of the literacy skills of children with childhood apraxia of speech: Recommendations for best practice and further research. Internationaljournalofspeech-languagepathology, 26(3), 346–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2024.2363935
Dawoud, M., Gomez, M., McCabe, P., & Thomas, D. C. (2025). Australian caregiver experiences when their child has childhood apraxia of speech. InternationalJournalof Speech-LanguagePathology.
Lewis, B. A., Freebairn, L. A., Hansen, A. J., Iyengar, S. K., & Taylor, H. G. (2021). Literacy and developmental outcomes in childhood apraxia of speech. JournalofSpeech,Language, andHearingResearch,64(8), 2952–2968.
Lim, J., McCabe, P., & Ballard, K. J. (2020). Parent-delivered treatment for childhood apraxia of speech: Outcomes and challenges. JournalofCommunicationDisorders,88, 106052.
Maas E. Treatment for Childhood Apraxia of Speech: Past, Present, and Future.Journalof Speech,Language,andHearingResearch. 2024 Sep 26;67(9S):3495-3520. doi: 10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00233.
Maas, E., Gildersleeve-Neumann, C., Jakielski, K. J., & Stoeckel, R. (2014). Motor-based intervention for childhood apraxia of speech. AmericanJournalofSpeech-Language Pathology,23(3), 277–283.
McCabe, P., Murray, E., & Thomas, D. (2024). Evidencesummaryofchildhoodapraxiaof speech. Retrieved from: https://rest.sydney.edu.au/wp- content/uploads/2024/01/CAS_evidence_brief_2024.pdf
Morgan, A. T., Webster, R., & McLeod, S. (2024). Genetic contributions to childhood apraxia of speech. NatureReviewsNeurology,20, 45–60.
Murray, E., McCabe, P., Heard, R., & Ballard, K. J. (2015). A randomized controlled trial of two treatments for childhood apraxia of speech. JournalofSpeech,Language,andHearing Research,58(3), 669–686.
15
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1134
Murray, E. (2017) Amovetofamily-centredintensiveservicedeliveryforchildrenwith developmentalverbaldyspraxia:outcomesandreflections. Poster presented at the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists conference, Glasgow, 27-28th September.
Murray, E., Iuzzini-Seigel, J., Maas, E., Terband, H., & Ballard, K. J. (2021). Differential Diagnosis of Childhood Apraxia of Speech Compared to Other Speech Sound Disorders: A Systematic Review. Americanjournalofspeech-languagepathology, 30(1), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00063
Murray, E., Osborne, L., MacCallion, R., & Murray, J. (2023). Intensivetherapymodelsin speechpathologypractice. Presentation at Speech Pathology Australia Conference, Hobart.
Namasivayam, A., Pukonen, M., Goshulak, D., Hard, J., Rudzicz, F., Logan, W. J., & van Lieshout, P. (2015). Treatment intensity and childhood apraxia of speech. Journalof CommunicationDisorders,54, 82–97.
Newmeyer, A., Grether, S., Grasha, C., White, J., Akers, R., Aylward, C., & Ishikawa, K. (2009). Motor and sensory differences in children with childhood apraxia of speech. Journal ofCommunicationDisorders,42(6), 404–419.
Pennington, L., Parker, N. K., Kelly, H., & Miller, N. (2013). Interventions for dysarthria in children with cerebral palsy. CochraneDatabaseofSystematicReviews.
Thomas, D. C., McCabe, P., Ballard, K. J., & Murray, E. (2014). Effects of treatment intensity in childhood apraxia of speech. JournalofSpeech,Language,andHearingResearch,57, 1865–1879.
Thomas, D. C., McCabe, P., Ballard, K. J., & Murray, E. (2018). Parent involvement in intervention for childhood apraxia of speech: A review of treatment fidelity and outcomes. InternationalJournalofSpeech-LanguagePathology,20(5), 531–543.
Thomas, D. C., Gomez, M., Muis, A., Trezise, N., Williamson, E., Choo, J. X. M., Case, J., Murray, E., Grigos, M. I., Iuzzini-Seigel, J., & Velleman, S. L. (2026). Caregivers’ Experiences of Assessment and Treatment for Their Child with Childhood Apraxia of Speech: An International Questionnaire Study. Americanjournalofspeech-languagepathology, 35(2), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_AJSLP-25-00358
16