Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Location of Assessment:
Clinician(s): Abbey Lovelace and Alyssa Hazlegrove
This assessment was completed as part of a class project for CSDS 522 Advanced Study in
Articulation and Phonology under direction of Lissa Power-deFur, Ph.D., CCC-SLP.
Articulation Assessment:
Error Scale Scaled Scaled Confidence Percentile Age
Score Score Interval Rank Equivalent
Points +/- (90% Level)
52 1 1 1 to 3 0.1 <3:0
1
Power-deFur, L. (2017). Adapted from plan shared by Lynn Williams at the ASHA Convention, 2008.
InterdentalGlottal:
Are consonant and vowel errors consistent at the word level? _X_ Yes ___ No
XX was not consistent in his vowel production. As seen in the chart above, XX created a variety
of errors involving vowels throughout the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology.
His most frequent errors included, backing, tensing, and raising. He exhibited significantly less
trouble when producing the back vowels.
When analyzing the data focused on consonants, XX presented with a variety of consonant
errors. One of the most prevalent consonant errors XX produced were collapses to
and . Another area of inconsistency was with consonant omission. XX had
many phonemes that were dropped within some words while producing them in others. For
example, when producing the word “bread” he said [ ] but said [ ] for duck. Within
observed conversation, XX maintained more consistent than during the assessment.
and were
produced with 0% accuracy. XX demonstrated
errors in the prevocalic, intervocalic, and
postvocalic positions with all vowels. No
phonetic environment was proved to be simulable
for XX.
Test Results:
Score Error Scaled Scaled Confidence Percentile Age
Scale Score Score Interval Rank Equivalent
Points (90%
+/- Level)
Phonology 38 5 2 3 to 7 5 <3:0
SW-CS 8 4 2 2 to 6 2 <3:0
The Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology scores correspond to the comparison
to the client’s performance in relation to a normative sample of individuals of the same age and
gender. Standard scored between the range of 7 and 13 are considered to be within normal limits.
This range representing one standard deviation above and below the mean. XX’s standard score
for the phonology was a 5 indicating that he is below the average for his age and gender. For the
connected speech section of the DEAP, XX received a standard score of 4 which also represents
a below average representation.
All findings from the Oral-facial Examination form for XX were normal. He actively
participated in all tasks and displayed typical tongue and lip strength, movement, and range. XX
demonstrated difficulty in understanding the task when the clinicians administered the
diadochokinesis portion of the oral mechanism exam. He was able to produce / / and / /a
few times, but after prompting and explanation he still did not understand that he was supposed
to carry them on until the clinicians asked him to stop. XX was unable to sequence / / and
would not attempt to produce it more than once or twice.
XX’s percentage of consonant correct was assessed by the articulation portion of the Diagnostic
Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology. The assessment environment from which this data
was derived, consisted of single and multisyllabic word utterances. XX’s percentage of
consonants correct is calculated by totaling the number of consonants within the test and
comparing them against those he did not produce correctly. According to the DEAP, XX
received a percentage of 45% consonants correct out of the 67 opportunities for consonants in
the articulation portion of the test. The Articulation Severity Rating scale classifies individuals
earning less than a 50% on percentage of consonant correct as being severe. At 45%, XX falls
within the range for a severe disorder.
Does the client have speech perception difficulties? _____ No __X__ Yes
XX made similar errors in all of his word productions, even when the word was modeled for
him. He did not attempt to self-correct and often did not repeat himself when the clinicians did
not understand him. This may mean that XX does not recognize the errors in his speech and
cannot perceive the differences between his productions and a correct production.
XX did not demonstrate to the clinicians that he was aware of his incorrect productions or
unintelligible speech in most situations. In instances when XX repeated a word more than once,
he produced it the same way.
Are there any concomitant language, voice, fluency, or hearing concerns? _X_ No __ Yes
During the DEAP, XX demonstrated that he was able to use correct word endings and tenses that
would be expected for his age, which was also noted during his language sample. XX did not
demonstrate any abnormalities with voice. The clinicians did not notice any disfluencies
throughout the testing or the language sample. Additionally, XX did not demonstrate that he had
difficulty hearing. He answered each of the clinician’s questions without requesting repetitions
and spoke at a normal volume throughout both visits.
Are there any phonological awareness or reading concerns? ____ No __X__ Unknown
____ Yes
XX did not participate in any activities that would allow the clinicians to observe his
phonological awareness or reading skills. The DEAP was administered, which does not analyze
phonological awareness, and the activities carried out during the language sample included
playing with blocks and picture cards.
GL’s variance of vowel errors was the only aspect of his speech that could suggest Childhood
Apraxia of Speech and may need to be monitored. For example, XX produced [ ] for the
word “spider” during administration of the DEAP. He did not demonstrate any unusual
phonological processes, irregular prosody, or articulatory groping. XX also appeared to have a
full inventory of vowels, although he often substituted vowels that were incorrect for the target
word. The only vowel that he was not stimulable for was / /, but he produced it in the word
XX was unable to produce the and sounds in isolation without prompting. In some
instances, he was able to produce the / / and / / sounds within words, but these occurrences
were inconsistent. Perception training could help XX to perceive the differences between his
sound errors and the sounds that are intended. It could also be used to assist in his production of
the / /, / /, / /, / /, / /, / /, and / phonemes as he acquires them.
The stimulubility probes displayed that and sounds were stimulable for XX. In order to
improve XX’s intelligibility, these sounds should be targeted in speech therapy. Both of the
sounds should be targeted in ant phonetic environment. The therapy should consist of oral
placements for each of the sounds. As XX begins to acquire/be stimulable for the / /, / /, / /,
/ /, / /, / /, and / / sounds, it may be beneficial to work on a phonetic approach involving oral
placement for these as well.
Phonological Process Approach: _____ No __X__ Yes
Cluster reduction, weak syllable deletion, and final consonant deletion should be targeted in
therapy to improve XX’s intelligibility. Phoneme omissions greatly impact intelligibility, so
working on these processes would greatly help the intelligibility of XX’s speech. Cluster
reduction should decline around age 4:5, weak syllable deletion should decline around age 3:11,
and final consonant deletion should decline around age 3. Since all of these processes should
have been remediated by XX’s current age, they play a large role in his unintelligibility.
XX would benefit from minimal pairs therapy to target his final consonant deletion. For XX’s
final consonant deletion, minimal pairs can be used to demonstrate differences between a word
that has a final sound and a word that does not. An example of this with one of the sounds that
XX is stimulable for would be “seed.” Minimal pairs could be used to demonstrate the difference
between the word “see” and the word “seed” using images to portray each so that XX can
visualize and hear how the phoneme on the end changes the meaning of the word.
Childhood Apraxia of Speech approach: __X__ No ____ Yes
Does the child need to develop an intelligible core vocabulary? __X__ No ___ Yes
G. Evaluation Plan
What tools will be used to evaluate progress? (Consider clinician-made probes tailored to
the child’s phonetic/phonological errors.) At what intervals will progress be assessed?
The clinicians will create a probe to target XX’s most frequently used error patterns. The
probe will initially target his most stimulable sounds and then progress toward sounds for which
he is least stimulable. For example, the clinicians would begin with the /b/ and /d/ phonemes
because he was 90-100% stimulable for these sounds. Following these phonemes, the clinicians
would target / and because he was 50% stimulable for these sounds. Using these
phonemes, the clinicians would create a probe list that targets XX’s most frequently used
phonological errors, which would be cluster reduction, deaffrication, final consonant deletion,
and vocalization of liquids. Assuming the client will be seen on a semester basis, the clinicians
will assess XX’s progress at the mid-way point and again at the end of the semester.
Signatures:
________________________________________________ ____________________
Abbey Lovelace, B.S. Date
Graduate Clinician
________________________________________________ ____________________
Alyssa Hazlegrove, B.S. Date
Graduate Clinician
________________________________________________ ____________________
Lissa Power-deFur, PhD, CCC-SLP Date
Professor, Communication Sciences and Disorders
Intended Actual utterance Phonological Phonetic Number of Number of
utterance (in IPA) Process (if present) environment that consonants in correct
(words) facilitated error (if intended utterance consonants
applicable)
195/305=0.639
0.639 X 10 = 63.9
PCC: 63.9%
References
Bernthal, J.E., Bankson, N.W., and Flipson, P. (2013).Articulation and phonological disorders:
Speech sound disorders in children.7th edition. Boston: Pearson.
Bleile, K. M. (2015). The Manual of Speech Sound Disorders: A Book for Students and
Clinicians (3rd ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Honor Code: