|WikiProject Medicine / Neurology||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Disability||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
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)
- 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)
They are completely separate things(184.108.40.206 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'.
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)
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)
can limb kinetic be counted as a subgroup of ideomotor apraxia??
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?