Talk:Apraxia

Apraxia is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Medicine: Neurology B‑class Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacklyn.Ang, Cpktruong, Emilyplasencia, Maludino.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dyspraxia

It seems that "apraxia" is more prevalant in the United States and "dyspraxia" is more prevalent in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. I think a merger needs to be done, along with a significant section for verbal apraxia. Arthmelow 20:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely wrong. Apraxia is the lack of the ability to carry out certain functions, whereas dyspraxia is the difficulty in performing them.Orthologist 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are completely separate things(217.42.84.166 14:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)) -Agree - this proposal is nonsense. Apraxia is a symptom of a variety of different brain pathologies, and dyspraxia is a milder version of the same. The 'Dyspraxia' page actually described one cause of dyspractic symptomatology, specifically a poorly characterised condition that might be better referred to as 'DEvelopmental co-ordination disorder'.[reply]

Apologies: I am trying my best! I was trying to find a US link for dyspraxia and may have jumped the gun a bit while on the 50th page of google results. Have removed tags on both articles Arthmelow 17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can apraxia be the result of late-stage alcoholism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.137.127 (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I recognise the possible validity of comments on apraxia/dyspraxia in general, it is certainly the case that with regard to speech, that Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS) and Developmental Verbal Dyspraxia (DVD) are US and UK names for the same diagnositc condition, with CAS holding sway in terms of terminology used in international research journals. It is not my specific area of practice, but I believe the same to be true of acquired apraxia of speech and acquired verbal dyspraxia also. It would make sense for these sections of the articles to highlight this, even if a merger is not practical. LoretteP (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can limb kinetic be counted as a subgroup of ideomotor apraxia??

the neuroanatomical areas are different but if orobuccal apraxia is listed as a subgroup of ideomotor apraxia, why not limb kinetic too??? 91.109.71.75 (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic disease?

It should be clarified that apraxia is not a "genetic condition." It is a symptom, not a diagnosis or disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.199.251 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tighten up and remove duplications

In my opinion, I am surprised that this article received the high mark that it did: B-class. To me, it seems to be a stub at best. The introductory paragraph doesn't offer a good, simple summary; it rambles on. The list of "different forms of apraxia" is overkill in the opening paragraph. That information should be moved down to the next section and duplicate info deleted. That last sentence in the paragraph would be an good second sentence. The opening paragraph is, however, jargon-free and the few terms that are used are defined. That's a big plus.

And why are only "some" or "several" forms of apraxia listed? Why those types and not others? What criteria was used for inclusion in this article?

Thanks for your time, 68.197.49.241 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! I didn't realize that my log-in wasn't. Thanks again, Wordreader (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

doi:10.1136/practneurol-2015-001354 JFW | T@lk 11:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apraxia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004193549/http://www.asha.org:80/Publications/leader/2011/110426/Acquired-Apraxia-of-Speech--A-Treatment-Overview/ to http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2011/110426/Acquired-Apraxia-of-Speech--A-Treatment-Overview/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology?

It would be interesting (to me, anyhow!) to know the etymology of the word. 24.37.29.254 (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 7c goals

1. Clean up the Types section. Bold the types and rearrange to be in alphabetical order.
2. Make sure all types of Apraxia are included and add examples of each type.
3. Add more information showing how many people are effected.
Emilyplasencia (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These goals are somewhat vague and more detail would be useful.
Please sign your posts. (~~~~) (4 tildes) Health policy (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Group 7B evaluation of Group 7C's Goals

1. This group appears to have followed Wikipedia's peer review framework throughout their contribution. However, their goals have not been completely met.

2. Goals met: Clean up "Types" section, listed examples for each type of Apraxia

3. Goals not met: Bold the types and rearrange, no information added on how people are affected.

4. Goals unclear if met: "all types of Apraxia included"

5. While the group seems to have somewhat met their goals for this article, some of the goals where not met and the aspect that should largely be focused on by pharmacy students (Treatment) was not addressed. Perhaps next time set goals up differently and more appropriately.Wrd530 (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Further edits could be made to make a more substantial improvement to the article.

2) The goals can be revisited. For example, the types of Apraxia could be rearranged into alphabetical order and describe the prevalence of Apraxia.

3) Prompt: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral POV? Yes, the edits are neutral and unbiased.Jessicabee55 (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Group 7b Student Review

The edits added clarity and detail to the types of apraxia and followed Wikipedia’s Guiding Framework.

Goals were partially met. The types of apraxia were organized with clear descriptions but were not alphabetized. More research on the epidemiology of apraxia is needed to complete goal #3.

Are the points verifiable with secondary sources that are readily available? Secondary sources were reputable and easily accessible for the most part. For reference #8, Treatment Resource Manual for Speech Pathology 5th edition, the authors and other important information are missing from the citation. Alicewu95 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny's Peer Review for UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 7c goals

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Yes, but I suggest considering breaking up the Treatment section into more paragraphs. You can also add a hyperlink or a sentence on communication boards.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

There are still edits that need to be made in order for the group's goal to be met, including putting the types of apraxia in alphabetical order. Overall, great job!

3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

Yes, the format is correct.

Fannnypack (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]