+1 (208) 254-6996 [email protected]
  

Please refer to attachments. 

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Project Due
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Overview

Working in groups, students will research and demonstrate the administration of a published standardized speech

sounds disorder assessment tool. Students will be required to present in your selected tool in class. The presentation

should include a critique of the various components of the tool. The Instructor will assign a test instrument to each group.

Each group is required to produce slides for your presentation with relevant content. However, all components of the

presentation are to be delivered during the class period. Students are encouraged to be creative in their delivery of this

presentation. The delivery model is based on group preferences (e.g., YouTube video, Live Oral Presentation, etc.). The

Instructor will need to approve your choice of research article.

Test Critique Guidelines

1. Title and authors

2. Copyright year

3. Purpose of test, including any subtests.

4. Age range

5. Standardization information. Provide brief description followed by personal critique.

6. Administration procedures, including any accommodations or modifications for culturally and linguistically

different clients. Provide brief description followed by personal critique.

7. Recording procedures

8. Scoring procedures, including modifications for culturally and linguistically different clients.

9. Interpretation/Analysis

10.Personal critique. Include discussion of appropriateness for multicultural populations.

Note:

– Use APA-7 format

– Summarize, do not regurgitate (repeat without analyzing or comprehending) what is in the manual.

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Test Critique Outline

Below are two samples illustrating the content areas for your research article review. These areas may vary depending on

the type of research you are reviewing. Please note that the review must be in narrative and not bulleted form.

Assessment Type

Begin your review with a brief description (summary) of the particular assessment under investigation. This

section should be before the title. Do not repeat this information in the body of the review.

The Performance of Low-Income African American Children on the Preschool Language Scale-3

Qi, C. H., Kaiser, A. P., Milan, S. E., Yzquierdo, Z., & Terry B. Hancock, T. B. (2004).

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46 (3), 576-590.

This study examined the performance of low-income African American (AA) preschoolers on the preschool Language

Scale-3 (PLS-3, I. L. Zimmerman, V.G. Steiner, & R.E. Pond, 1992). The goals of the study were threefold:

1. To examine low-income AA children’s language performance on the PLS-3.

2. Investigate the reliability and validity of the PLS-3 when used with this population.

3. Examine the relationship between language performance on the PLS-3 and related SES variables (marital status,

household income, and mother’s education level) and the child’s gender.

Participants

– The participants were 701 AA boys (n=361) and girls (n=340) from Nashville, TN.

– 50 European American (EA) children from the same centers and classrooms served as a comparison group.

– Average age was 43 months, with a range of 36-53 months.

– The children were from low-income families (80% received state income, house, or child-care subsidies).

Procedure

– The PLS-3, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition (PPVT-III), and Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT)

were administered to each child.

– A spontaneous language sample was elicited and videotaped.

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Results

– The mean for the AA sample was 86.09 with a standard deviation of 12.79. This deviation from the normative mean

is statistically significant. The scores were normally distributed.

– PLS-3 total scores of AA children not significantly different from those of EA children of similar SES background.

– Significant difference in performance between AA and EA children was found on four items.

– Demographic factors accounted for only 4% of the variance.

– PLS-3 reliability is acceptable.

– There was little indication that the auditory comprehension and expressive communication subscales actually

represent distinct constructs (construct validity)

Discussion

– PLS-3 results in AA children show actual deficits in language skills.

– Item order of presentation correctly discriminates the language abilities of AA children.

Critic

– In determining PLS-3 validity in identifying AA children with language disorders, the investigators compared PLS-3

performance with PPVT-II, EVT and MLU performance. However, it is questionable whether these tests are truly

culturally unbiased.

– The investigators state that 80% of the families were low-income because they received state income, housing, or

child-care subsidies, while the remaining 20% qualified under the low-income inclusion criterion. However, the

investigators fail to explicitly state what this criterion is.

– Additionally, a rather important fact that is frequently overlooked is that the PLSD-3 correctly identifies language

disorder an average of only 72% of the time. This has huge implications for practitioners who use it as the sole

determinant of language disability.

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Assessment Type

Begin your review with a brief description (summary) of the particular assessment under investigation. This

section should be before the title. Do not repeat this information in the body of the review.

An Assessment Battery for Identifying Language Impairment in African American Children

Craig, H. K. & Washington, J. A.

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46 (2), 366-379.

This study examined the potential of a selected set of informal language measures to distinguish African American (AA)

children with language impairments (LI) from typically developing peers. The five measures were:

4. Average length of communication units (MLCU).

5. Frequencies of complex syntax.

6. Number of different words.

7. Responses to Wh-questions.

8. Responses to probes of active and passive sentence constructions.

Participants

– The participants were 72 AA children from metropolitan Detroit. 24 were language impaired and 48 were typically

developing (24 matched for chronological age (CA) and 24 matched for MLCU).

– All were speakers of African American English (AAE).

Procedure

– A spontaneous language sample was collected, a task to elicit responses to Wh- questions was administered, and a

task probing active/passive voice was administered.

Results

– The effects of SES and gender on the five measures were not significant.

– All of the children in the LI group performed lower than their CA match on at least two of the five measures.

– The battery has a sensitivity of 1.00, where sensitivity is the number of participants identified as LI, divided by the

number of LI participants.

Discussion

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

– All five measures were successful in identifying the group of children enrolled in language intervention from a group

of chronological age peers.

Critique

– It is unclear what criteria the investigators used to designate subjects as speakers of AAE. By their own admission,

“the amount of dialect evidenced in the children’s discourse varied widely.” Was there a quantitative cutoff point or

did use of even one AAE feature qualify one as a speaker of AAE? This is important information that bears directly

on data interpretation.

– What this article speaks to is the importance of dynamic assessment when assessing AA children. The use of

informal assessment tools is critical in distinguishinghttps://wrlc-doc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/openurl?institution=01WRLC_DOC&vid=01WRLC_DOC:01WRLC_DOC&?genre=article&atitle=Reading+comprehension+in+children+with+Down+syndrome&author=Laws%252C+Glynis%253BBrown%252C+Heather%253BMain%252C+Elizabeth&volume=29&issue=1&spage=21&date=2016&rft.btitle=&rft.jtitle=Reading+and+Writing&issn=0922-4777&isbn=&sid=ProQ%253Aeducation_https://www.proquest.com/docview/1703436974/fulltextPDF/593755D35830417EPQ/1?accountid=28903https://wrlc-doc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/openurl?institution=01WRLC_DOC&vid=01WRLC_DOC:01WRLC_DOC&?genre=article&atitle=Effectiveness+of+Decoding+and+Phonological+Awareness+Interventions+for+Children+With+Down+Syndrome&author=Lemons%252C+Christopher+J%253BMrachko%252C+Alicia+A%253BKostewicz%252C+Douglas+E%253BPaterra%252C+Matthew+F&volume=79&issue=1&spage=67&date=Fall+2012&rft.btitle=&rft.jtitle=Exceptional+Children&issn=0014-4029&isbn=&sid=ProQ%253Ahealthcompleteshell_

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Overview

Working in groups, students will research and demonstrate the administration of a published standardized speech

sounds disorder assessment tool. Students will be required to present in your selected tool in class. The presentation

should include a critique of the various components of the tool. The Instructor will assign a test instrument to each group.

Each group is required to produce slides for your presentation with relevant content. However, all components of the

presentation are to be delivered during the class period. Students are encouraged to be creative in their delivery of this

presentation. The delivery model is based on group preferences (e.g., YouTube video, Live Oral Presentation, etc.). The

Instructor will need to approve your choice of research article.

Test Critique Guidelines

1. Title and authors

2. Copyright year

3. Purpose of test, including any subtests.

4. Age range

5. Standardization information. Provide brief description followed by personal critique.

6. Administration procedures, including any accommodations or modifications for culturally and linguistically

different clients. Provide brief description followed by personal critique.

7. Recording procedures

8. Scoring procedures, including modifications for culturally and linguistically different clients.

9. Interpretation/Analysis

10.Personal critique. Include discussion of appropriateness for multicultural populations.

Note:

– Use APA-7 format

– Summarize, do not regurgitate (repeat without analyzing or comprehending) what is in the manual.

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Test Critique Outline

Below are two samples illustrating the content areas for your research article review. These areas may vary depending on

the type of research you are reviewing. Please note that the review must be in narrative and not bulleted form.

Assessment Type

Begin your review with a brief description (summary) of the particular assessment under investigation. This

section should be before the title. Do not repeat this information in the body of the review.

The Performance of Low-Income African American Children on the Preschool Language Scale-3

Qi, C. H., Kaiser, A. P., Milan, S. E., Yzquierdo, Z., & Terry B. Hancock, T. B. (2004).

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46 (3), 576-590.

This study examined the performance of low-income African American (AA) preschoolers on the preschool Language

Scale-3 (PLS-3, I. L. Zimmerman, V.G. Steiner, & R.E. Pond, 1992). The goals of the study were threefold:

1. To examine low-income AA children’s language performance on the PLS-3.

2. Investigate the reliability and validity of the PLS-3 when used with this population.

3. Examine the relationship between language performance on the PLS-3 and related SES variables (marital status,

household income, and mother’s education level) and the child’s gender.

Participants

– The participants were 701 AA boys (n=361) and girls (n=340) from Nashville, TN.

– 50 European American (EA) children from the same centers and classrooms served as a comparison group.

– Average age was 43 months, with a range of 36-53 months.

– The children were from low-income families (80% received state income, house, or child-care subsidies).

Procedure

– The PLS-3, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition (PPVT-III), and Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT)

were administered to each child.

– A spontaneous language sample was elicited and videotaped.

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Results

– The mean for the AA sample was 86.09 with a standard deviation of 12.79. This deviation from the normative mean

is statistically significant. The scores were normally distributed.

– PLS-3 total scores of AA children not significantly different from those of EA children of similar SES background.

– Significant difference in performance between AA and EA children was found on four items.

– Demographic factors accounted for only 4% of the variance.

– PLS-3 reliability is acceptable.

– There was little indication that the auditory comprehension and expressive communication subscales actually

represent distinct constructs (construct validity)

Discussion

– PLS-3 results in AA children show actual deficits in language skills.

– Item order of presentation correctly discriminates the language abilities of AA children.

Critic

– In determining PLS-3 validity in identifying AA children with language disorders, the investigators compared PLS-3

performance with PPVT-II, EVT and MLU performance. However, it is questionable whether these tests are truly

culturally unbiased.

– The investigators state that 80% of the families were low-income because they received state income, housing, or

child-care subsidies, while the remaining 20% qualified under the low-income inclusion criterion. However, the

investigators fail to explicitly state what this criterion is.

– Additionally, a rather important fact that is frequently overlooked is that the PLSD-3 correctly identifies language

disorder an average of only 72% of the time. This has huge implications for practitioners who use it as the sole

determinant of language disability.

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Assessment Type

Begin your review with a brief description (summary) of the particular assessment under investigation. This

section should be before the title. Do not repeat this information in the body of the review.

An Assessment Battery for Identifying Language Impairment in African American Children

Craig, H. K. & Washington, J. A.

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46 (2), 366-379.

This study examined the potential of a selected set of informal language measures to distinguish African American (AA)

children with language impairments (LI) from typically developing peers. The five measures were:

4. Average length of communication units (MLCU).

5. Frequencies of complex syntax.

6. Number of different words.

7. Responses to Wh-questions.

8. Responses to probes of active and passive sentence constructions.

Participants

– The participants were 72 AA children from metropolitan Detroit. 24 were language impaired and 48 were typically

developing (24 matched for chronological age (CA) and 24 matched for MLCU).

– All were speakers of African American English (AAE).

Procedure

– A spontaneous language sample was collected, a task to elicit responses to Wh- questions was administered, and a

task probing active/passive voice was administered.

Results

– The effects of SES and gender on the five measures were not significant.

– All of the children in the LI group performed lower than their CA match on at least two of the five measures.

– The battery has a sensitivity of 1.00, where sensitivity is the number of participants identified as LI, divided by the

number of LI participants.

Discussion

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

– All five measures were successful in identifying the group of children enrolled in language intervention from a group

of chronological age peers.

Critique

– It is unclear what criteria the investigators used to designate subjects as speakers of AAE. By their own admission,

“the amount of dialect evidenced in the children’s discourse varied widely.” Was there a quantitative cutoff point or

did use of even one AAE feature qualify one as a speaker of AAE? This is important information that bears directly

on data interpretation.

– What this article speaks to is the importance of dynamic assessment when assessing AA children. The use of

informal assessment tools is critical in distinguishinghttps://wrlc-doc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/openurl?institution=01WRLC_DOC&vid=01WRLC_DOC:01WRLC_DOC&?genre=article&atitle=Reading+comprehension+in+children+with+Down+syndrome&author=Laws%252C+Glynis%253BBrown%252C+Heather%253BMain%252C+Elizabeth&volume=29&issue=1&spage=21&date=2016&rft.btitle=&rft.jtitle=Reading+and+Writing&issn=0922-4777&isbn=&sid=ProQ%253Aeducation_https://www.proquest.com/docview/1703436974/fulltextPDF/593755D35830417EPQ/1?accountid=28903https://wrlc-doc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/openurl?institution=01WRLC_DOC&vid=01WRLC_DOC:01WRLC_DOC&?genre=article&atitle=Effectiveness+of+Decoding+and+Phonological+Awareness+Interventions+for+Children+With+Down+Syndrome&author=Lemons%252C+Christopher+J%253BMrachko%252C+Alicia+A%253BKostewicz%252C+Douglas+E%253BPaterra%252C+Matthew+F&volume=79&issue=1&spage=67&date=Fall+2012&rft.btitle=&rft.jtitle=Exceptional+Children&issn=0014-4029&isbn=&sid=ProQ%253Ahealthcompleteshell_\

Arizona-4 2

Test Critique

Summary and purpose of the test

The Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale – Fourth Revision (Arizona-4) is a standardized assessment that provides a quick way to measure speech intelligibility, articulatory impairment, and phonological impairment for children and adults age 1.5 -21 years old. It was published in 2017 and written by Janet B. Fudala, Ph.D., and Sheri Stegall, Ph.D. The evaluation was designed as an improvement to the Arizona-3 in order to provide practicing speech-language pathologists a way to evaluate speech sound disorders that will form a complete picture of the individual’s abilities. It includes tests to measure word and sentence articulation, as well as identify phonological processes. There are also 5 optional tasks for expressive and receptive language: picture description, story retell, supplemental sentences, language prompts, and imitation context.

Standardization information

The norming group was a large sample that was designed to represent the population of the United States. Based on information from the U.S. Census, the sample was chosen to mirror the American population concerning their gender, race/ethnicity, parental education, and geography. It included 3,192 children and adults aged 1 year 6 months to 21 years, 11 months. A clinical validation sample was also used for the standardization of the assessment. The sample included 50 individuals that had a current diagnosis of a speech sound disorder and currently receiving treatment.

Administration procedures

The administration of the Arizona-4 is constructed to be a quick procedure, in a digital or print format. When completing the word articulation test, the examinee is shown a colored picture and tasked to label it. The task will take between 5 and 20 minutes based on the age of the examinee, their language abilities, and the administrators’ familiarity with the assessment.

The sentence articulation test uses the same vocabulary from the word articulation test embedded in simple sentences. The individual is shown sentences that are written at a first-grade level and can either read and produce them themselves, or repeat them after a model from the administrator. The test is expected to take between 5 and 20 minutes based on the reading abilities of the examinee and the path chosen to administer it. In addition, there are no additional steps to administer the phonological measure, as it is coded from responses on the word articulation test.

In my opinion, the administration of the test is straightforward and the instructions are easy to follow. The design of the tests to be given in 5-20 minutes is convenient for speech-language pathologists and other professionals that may be short on time or have a large list of clients to evaluate. The option of having digital or paper stimuli makes it easier to carry the materials and customize the experience for the client. Certain populations such as younger children may attend more to the digital stimuli.

A pilot study was conducted in order to examine if the items on the word articulation test were manageable for children of various ages. The study included 104 children aged 4-9 years old, with different backgrounds. 72% of the children were of white origin, and only 3% of the children spoke a dialect of English. Based on that information, I am concerned about the validity of the test items for non-white children and those with dialectal differences. If they are not familiar with the test items, and cannot produce their label independently, then the clinician will have them imitate it. However, if the children are imitating words that they are not familiar with, it is not representative of their everyday speech abilities as the assessment aims to measure.

Recording Procedures

An attractive feature of the Arizona-4 is the option to record in a written or digital format. In order to manually record the results of the Word Articulation test, the examiner uses the Word Articulation Record Form. As the examinee produces responses, the administrator circles the assigned values of the in correctly produced words, and writes an IPA transcription of the production. Correctly produced targets are not circled or marked on the form. If the administrator is also testing for phonology, then they also need to record and IPA transcription of any test items flagged for phonological processes.

In order to digitally record the responses for the Word Articulation test, the administrator must create a profile for the examinee and open the corresponding test form using the WPS Online Evaluation System. There are 2 options for recording the responses. The first is that the administrator uses their keyboard to press “I” for incorrect ad “C” for correct responses. The other option is for them to select the correct box marked as “correct” or “incorrect” on the digital form.

Scoring Procedures

The Arizona-4 is designed to produce multiple scores for the clinician to compare and describe the speech abilities of the person being evaluated. In regards to the articulation tests, the administrator could’ve recorded the responses in a digital or written format. If the examiner records the responses digitally, then the WPS Online Evaluation System will generate a score report. If the examiner manually records the responses, they will total the items in order to produce the corresponding values. Scoring is expected to take 5-10 minutes based on the responses of the examinee.

The scores for the Word Articulation test include data on initial and final consonants, consonant blends, vowels, dipthongs, and vocalic r. Each target sound is weighted by its frequency of occurrence in American English, and assigned a number that describes how intelligible that persons’ speech will be. The total articulation score can also be used to get the standard score, confidence interval, percentile rank, test age equivalence, and a percentage of speech improvement for retesting.

The coding of the phonological scale is expected to take 5-20 minutes based on the errors of the examinee and experience of the administrator. The scale measures the occurrence of the following phonological processes: syllable reduction, cluster simplification, initial consonant deletion, final consonant deletion, fronting, deaffrication, stopping, gliding, vowelization, prevocalic voicing, and postvocalic devoicing. Based on the responses, the administrator can gather a percentage of occurrence for phonological error patterns.

The developers of the Arizona-4 were culturally and linguistically sensitive when creating directions for scoring. The manual includes instructions to score dialectal variations as correct productions. Though it is important that dialectal variations are included, the administrator must take it upon themselves to be aware of what dialectal variations are present in order to properly consider them and score the articulation tests appropriately.

Interpretation/Analysis

The scores generated by the measures in the Arizona-4 have various implications for practice. Clinicians can use the word articulation total score to determine a speech intelligibility interpretation value. The values range from “sound errors are absent or minimally noticed” to “speech is unintelligible,” which are easily explainable to parents and caretakers, or explain eligibility for services. Based on the percentage of occurrence of phonological error patterns, the administrator can describe how impactful phonological processes are on the overall intelligibility of the testee. The standard scores derived from the total scores allow the clinician to compare the speech productions of the individual to that of a typically developing peer, which can be used to determine eligibility for services.

Clinicians viewing the scores can use them to prioritize speech targets for individualized intervention. For example, if the testee missed all tasks involving /r/, then that sound would be an intervention target if age-appropriate. The progress report form allows the administrator to measure the percentage of speech improvement. The speech improvement score allows the clinician to quantify the gains they have made in treatment.

Personal critique

The Arizona-4 is a short and convenient measure of articulation and phonology. It has been developed to be used in a variety of settings and can be given by any masters-level clinician or teacher that is practicing speech-language pathology or a related field. Because of this, the test is accessible to a wide range of children and adults that may benefit from speech-language services.

The short nature of the assessment makes it accessible to populations that have short attention spans, such as young children or those with attention disorders. Because of the abbreviated amount of test items, it is quick to score, and that is convenient for busy clinicians.

By including tasks that measure articulation in both words and sentences, as well as identify phonological processes, the assessment will allow clinicians to form a complete picture of the examinee’s overall speech production.

The authors made an effort to include those that are culturally and linguistically different. The normative sample included children and adults from various ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. However, since the sample was representative of the United States, those who belong to minority groups will be underrepresented. The scoring of the test also reflects their inclusion efforts, as it is explicitly stated to consider dialectal differences. Although it is a considerate instruction, it will be up to the administrator of the exam to be knowledgeable of dialectal differences in order to score fairly.

A critique of the test is that there is no formal measure of consonants in the medial positions of words. As the examiner scores the test, they only circle consonant errors if they occur in the initial or final position of words. In order for a clinician to know that an individual had difficulty producing medial consonants, they would have to read IPA transcriptions of the words, which may not be written if the test is scored using the computer. In summary, the Arizona-4 is a user and tester-friendly assessment that creates a whole picture of children and young adults’ speech intelligibility.

Research Article Review

Summary of the assessment

 The Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale – Fourth Revision is a norm referenced assessment used to detect articulation and phonological errors and provides interpretation of speech sound proficiency at word and sentence level. This assessment can be used at various settings for both children and adults from 18 months to 21 years of age. The Arizonia-4 is compose of three individual test in one with the administration time of 5 to 20 minutues each test.

Comment by Telford, Sulare: Jessica & Rolanda, for this section, explain that there have been no publications on this assessment. And discuss why SLPs may need to be cautious when using this assessment and the possible reason why there have been no publications on this assessment. Is this a new assessment?

Title of Article: Presence of Late 8 Phonemes among Adolescents and Young Adults with Down Syndrome

Purpose of the Article

The article, “Presence of Late 8 Phonemes among Adolescents and Young Adults with Down  Syndrome”, Aidan Osborne seeks to analyze the phonetic lexicon of the late 8 phonemes among adolescents and young adults with Down Syndrome. The late 8 phonemes includes: /ʃ, θ, s, z, ð, l, r, ʒ/.Osborne, investigates a relational hypothesis link between age, and presence or absence of the latest developing phonemes as well as their impact on overall speech intelligibility to familiar and unfamiliar persons. Lastly, this study also creates the stimulability profile for those late 8 phonemes that were produced in error. In an effort to increase understanding of the late 8 phonemes amongst the teen to young adult population the Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale 4th addition was administered.

Participants

The participant pool consisted of 8 individuals within the ages of 13 years and 6 months to 19 years of age and 7 months. All participants held previous diagnoses of Down Syndrome with no present hearing impairment or any craniofacial anomaly. The Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale (Arizona-4) was the single assessment for this study.

Procedure

The evaluation was administered individually at a familiar learning environment. The assessment entailed the participant verbally producing 46 target words and in the initial consonant and final consonant position totaling 67 sounds. If sounds were misarticulated during the Word  Articulation task, the Speech Imitation Context Task(SICT) was administered by the administrator of the assessment. The SICT includes 16 phonemes and  phoneme blends; 9 of the phonemes were nonsense words. All responses to the Arizona-4 were audio recorded and recording was made known to each participant. Data gathered from the Arizona-4 test was then utilized to measure the  presence or absences of late 8 phonemes (e.g., /ʃ, θ, s, z, ð, l, r, ʒ/). The participants’ responses from the entire Arizona-4 test were then scored  to determine the participant’s Speech Intelligibility Interpretation Value (SIIV).

Results/Discussion

The data collected revealed mean percentage of  the late 8 phonemes: /ʃ, θ, s , z, ð, l, r, ð/ at 100% stimulable and /ʒ/ at 87.5%.  Also, results indicated 4 out of the late 8 phonemes / ʃ, s, ð, l/ were correctly articulated in the repertoire of 100% of participants. The remaining 4 phonemes among participants were as follows: /θ, ʒ/ at  87.5% , /z/ at 75%, and /r/ at 50%.  Seven was the median number of late 8 phonemes present in a sample of adolescents and young adults  with Down Syndrome. Many of the participants attained the late 8 phonemes in the repertoire which shows in the Speech Intelligibility Interpretation Value average scored of 92%.  Arizona-4 categorized the SIIV as “speech is intelligible though errors are noticeable” this is common for Down Syndrome individuals age 13-21 who still have some difficulties being completely understood. Overall, results from this research shows a higher speech accuracy of the late 8 phonemes compared to previous studies of the Down Syndrome population.

Critique

In determining Arizona-4 reliability in identifying phonetic errors of adolescents and young adults with Down Syndrome, the investigators compared Arizona-4 performance with the Goldman-Fristoe Test if Articulation 2, and Khan-Lewis Phonological Assessment Second Edition. What this article attempts extend research on the whether individuals with Down Syndrome have an articulation delay or disorders. However, by their own admission, “results of this study cannot be used to prove or disprove the hypothesis.” The context regarding participant behavior toward the assessments and whether the principal investigator was a familiar or unfamiliar person were not mentioned. With regard to the participants social economic status or any concomitant diagnosis related to speech-phonology were not disclosed. Furthermore, information regarding if the participants had received articulation intervention prior to the study would have provided additional insight. Finally, a larger number participant pool size and would have aided in the data analysis, particularly when looking for possible similarities or difference between gender.

References

(ArizonaTM-4) (2018). WPS Publish. https://www.wpspublish.com/arizona-4-arizona-articulation-and-phonology-scale-fourth-revision

Fudala, J., & Stegall, S.(2017) Arizona Articulation and Phonology ScaleTM, Fourth Revision (Arizona-4): Technical Manual. WPS Publish.

Osborne, Aidan. (2020). Presence of Late 8 Phonemes among Adolescents and Young Adults with Down syndrome. 10.13140/RG.2.2.16410.67524.

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Overview

Working in groups, students will research and demonstrate the administration of a published standardized speech

sounds disorder assessment tool. Students will be required to present in your selected tool in class. The presentation

should include a critique of the various components of the tool. The Instructor will assign a test instrument to each group.

Each group is required to produce slides for your presentation with relevant content. However, all components of the

presentation are to be delivered during the class period. Students are encouraged to be creative in their delivery of this

presentation. The delivery model is based on group preferences (e.g., YouTube video, Live Oral Presentation, etc.). The

Instructor will need to approve your choice of research article.

Test Critique Guidelines

1. Title and authors

2. Copyright year

3. Purpose of test, including any subtests.

4. Age range

5. Standardization information. Provide brief description followed by personal critique.

6. Administration procedures, including any accommodations or modifications for culturally and linguistically

different clients. Provide brief description followed by personal critique.

7. Recording procedures

8. Scoring procedures, including modifications for culturally and linguistically different clients.

9. Interpretation/Analysis

10.Personal critique. Include discussion of appropriateness for multicultural populations.

Note:

– Use APA-7 format

– Summarize, do not regurgitate (repeat without analyzing or comprehending) what is in the manual.

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Test Critique Outline

Below are two samples illustrating the content areas for your research article review. These areas may vary depending on

the type of research you are reviewing. Please note that the review must be in narrative and not bulleted form.

Assessment Type

Begin your review with a brief description (summary) of the particular assessment under investigation. This

section should be before the title. Do not repeat this information in the body of the review.

The Performance of Low-Income African American Children on the Preschool Language Scale-3

Qi, C. H., Kaiser, A. P., Milan, S. E., Yzquierdo, Z., & Terry B. Hancock, T. B. (2004).

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46 (3), 576-590.

This study examined the performance of low-income African American (AA) preschoolers on the preschool Language

Scale-3 (PLS-3, I. L. Zimmerman, V.G. Steiner, & R.E. Pond, 1992). The goals of the study were threefold:

1. To examine low-income AA children’s language performance on the PLS-3.

2. Investigate the reliability and validity of the PLS-3 when used with this population.

3. Examine the relationship between language performance on the PLS-3 and related SES variables (marital status,

household income, and mother’s education level) and the child’s gender.

Participants

– The participants were 701 AA boys (n=361) and girls (n=340) from Nashville, TN.

– 50 European American (EA) children from the same centers and classrooms served as a comparison group.

– Average age was 43 months, with a range of 36-53 months.

– The children were from low-income families (80% received state income, house, or child-care subsidies).

Procedure

– The PLS-3, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition (PPVT-III), and Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT)

were administered to each child.

– A spontaneous language sample was elicited and videotaped.

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Results

– The mean for the AA sample was 86.09 with a standard deviation of 12.79. This deviation from the normative mean

is statistically significant. The scores were normally distributed.

– PLS-3 total scores of AA children not significantly different from those of EA children of similar SES background.

– Significant difference in performance between AA and EA children was found on four items.

– Demographic factors accounted for only 4% of the variance.

– PLS-3 reliability is acceptable.

– There was little indication that the auditory comprehension and expressive communication subscales actually

represent distinct constructs (construct validity)

Discussion

– PLS-3 results in AA children show actual deficits in language skills.

– Item order of presentation correctly discriminates the language abilities of AA children.

Critic

– In determining PLS-3 validity in identifying AA children with language disorders, the investigators compared PLS-3

performance with PPVT-II, EVT and MLU performance. However, it is questionable whether these tests are truly

culturally unbiased.

– The investigators state that 80% of the families were low-income because they received state income, housing, or

child-care subsidies, while the remaining 20% qualified under the low-income inclusion criterion. However, the

investigators fail to explicitly state what this criterion is.

– Additionally, a rather important fact that is frequently overlooked is that the PLSD-3 correctly identifies language

disorder an average of only 72% of the time. This has huge implications for practitioners who use it as the sole

determinant of language disability.

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Assessment Type

Begin your review with a brief description (summary) of the particular assessment under investigation. This

section should be before the title. Do not repeat this information in the body of the review.

An Assessment Battery for Identifying Language Impairment in African American Children

Craig, H. K. & Washington, J. A.

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46 (2), 366-379.

This study examined the potential of a selected set of informal language measures to distinguish African American (AA)

children with language impairments (LI) from typically developing peers. The five measures were:

4. Average length of communication units (MLCU).

5. Frequencies of complex syntax.

6. Number of different words.

7. Responses to Wh-questions.

8. Responses to probes of active and passive sentence constructions.

Participants

– The participants were 72 AA children from metropolitan Detroit. 24 were language impaired and 48 were typically

developing (24 matched for chronological age (CA) and 24 matched for MLCU).

– All were speakers of African American English (AAE).

Procedure

– A spontaneous language sample was collected, a task to elicit responses to Wh- questions was administered, and a

task probing active/passive voice was administered.

Results

– The effects of SES and gender on the five measures were not significant.

– All of the children in the LI group performed lower than their CA match on at least two of the five measures.

– The battery has a sensitivity of 1.00, where sensitivity is the number of participants identified as LI, divided by the

number of LI participants.

Discussion

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

– All five measures were successful in identifying the group of children enrolled in language intervention from a group

of chronological age peers.

Critique

– It is unclear what criteria the investigators used to designate subjects as speakers of AAE. By their own admission,

“the amount of dialect evidenced in the children’s discourse varied widely.” Was there a quantitative cutoff point or

did use of even one AAE feature qualify one as a speaker of AAE? This is important information that bears directly

on data interpretation.

– What this article speaks to is the importance of dynamic assessment when assessing AA children. The use of

informal assessment tools is critical in distinguishinghttps://wrlc-doc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/openurl?institution=01WRLC_DOC&vid=01WRLC_DOC:01WRLC_DOC&?genre=article&atitle=Reading+comprehension+in+children+with+Down+syndrome&author=Laws%252C+Glynis%253BBrown%252C+Heather%253BMain%252C+Elizabeth&volume=29&issue=1&spage=21&date=2016&rft.btitle=&rft.jtitle=Reading+and+Writing&issn=0922-4777&isbn=&sid=ProQ%253Aeducation_https://www.proquest.com/docview/1703436974/fulltextPDF/593755D35830417EPQ/1?accountid=28903https://wrlc-doc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/openurl?institution=01WRLC_DOC&vid=01WRLC_DOC:01WRLC_DOC&?genre=article&atitle=Effectiveness+of+Decoding+and+Phonological+Awareness+Interventions+for+Children+With+Down+Syndrome&author=Lemons%252C+Christopher+J%253BMrachko%252C+Alicia+A%253BKostewicz%252C+Douglas+E%253BPaterra%252C+Matthew+F&volume=79&issue=1&spage=67&date=Fall+2012&rft.btitle=&rft.jtitle=Exceptional+Children&issn=0014-4029&isbn=&sid=ProQ%253Ahealthcompleteshell_

Arizona-4 2

Test Critique

Summary and purpose of the test

The Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale – Fourth Revision (Arizona-4) is a standardized assessment that provides a quick way to measure speech intelligibility, articulatory impairment, and phonological impairment for children and adults age 1.5 -21 years old. It was published in 2017 and written by Janet B. Fudala, Ph.D., and Sheri Stegall, Ph.D. The evaluation was designed as an improvement to the Arizona-3 in order to provide practicing speech-language pathologists a way to evaluate speech sound disorders that will form a complete picture of the individual’s abilities. It includes tests to measure word and sentence articulation, as well as identify phonological processes. There are also 5 optional tasks for expressive and receptive language: picture description, story retell, supplemental sentences, language prompts, and imitation context.

Standardization information

The norming group was a large sample that was designed to represent the population of the United States. Based on information from the U.S. Census, the sample was chosen to mirror the American population concerning their gender, race/ethnicity, parental education, and geography. It included 3,192 children and adults aged 1 year 6 months to 21 years, 11 months. A clinical validation sample was also used for the standardization of the assessment. The sample included 50 individuals that had a current diagnosis of a speech sound disorder and currently receiving treatment.

Administration procedures

The administration of the Arizona-4 is constructed to be a quick procedure, in a digital or print format. When completing the word articulation test, the examinee is shown a colored picture and tasked to label it. The task will take between 5 and 20 minutes based on the age of the examinee, their language abilities, and the administrators’ familiarity with the assessment.

The sentence articulation test uses the same vocabulary from the word articulation test embedded in simple sentences. The individual is shown sentences that are written at a first-grade level and can either read and produce them themselves, or repeat them after a model from the administrator. The test is expected to take between 5 and 20 minutes based on the reading abilities of the examinee and the path chosen to administer it. In addition, there are no additional steps to administer the phonological measure, as it is coded from responses on the word articulation test.

In my opinion, the administration of the test is straightforward and the instructions are easy to follow. The design of the tests to be given in 5-20 minutes is convenient for speech-language pathologists and other professionals that may be short on time or have a large list of clients to evaluate. The option of having digital or paper stimuli makes it easier to carry the materials and customize the experience for the client. Certain populations such as younger children may attend more to the digital stimuli.

A pilot study was conducted in order to examine if the items on the word articulation test were manageable for children of various ages. The study included 104 children aged 4-9 years old, with different backgrounds. 72% of the children were of white origin, and only 3% of the children spoke a dialect of English. Based on that information, I am concerned about the validity of the test items for non-white children and those with dialectal differences. If they are not familiar with the test items, and cannot produce their label independently, then the clinician will have them imitate it. However, if the children are imitating words that they are not familiar with, it is not representative of their everyday speech abilities as the assessment aims to measure.

Recording Procedures

An attractive feature of the Arizona-4 is the option to record in a written or digital format. In order to manually record the results of the Word Articulation test, the examiner uses the Word Articulation Record Form. As the examinee produces responses, the administrator circles the assigned values of the in correctly produced words, and writes an IPA transcription of the production. Correctly produced targets are not circled or marked on the form. If the administrator is also testing for phonology, then they also need to record and IPA transcription of any test items flagged for phonological processes.

In order to digitally record the responses for the Word Articulation test, the administrator must create a profile for the examinee and open the corresponding test form using the WPS Online Evaluation System. There are 2 options for recording the responses. The first is that the administrator uses their keyboard to press “I” for incorrect ad “C” for correct responses. The other option is for them to select the correct box marked as “correct” or “incorrect” on the digital form.

Scoring Procedures

The Arizona-4 is designed to produce multiple scores for the clinician to compare and describe the speech abilities of the person being evaluated. In regards to the articulation tests, the administrator could’ve recorded the responses in a digital or written format. If the examiner records the responses digitally, then the WPS Online Evaluation System will generate a score report. If the examiner manually records the responses, they will total the items in order to produce the corresponding values. Scoring is expected to take 5-10 minutes based on the responses of the examinee.

The scores for the Word Articulation test include data on initial and final consonants, consonant blends, vowels, dipthongs, and vocalic r. Each target sound is weighted by its frequency of occurrence in American English, and assigned a number that describes how intelligible that persons’ speech will be. The total articulation score can also be used to get the standard score, confidence interval, percentile rank, test age equivalence, and a percentage of speech improvement for retesting.

The coding of the phonological scale is expected to take 5-20 minutes based on the errors of the examinee and experience of the administrator. The scale measures the occurrence of the following phonological processes: syllable reduction, cluster simplification, initial consonant deletion, final consonant deletion, fronting, deaffrication, stopping, gliding, vowelization, prevocalic voicing, and postvocalic devoicing. Based on the responses, the administrator can gather a percentage of occurrence for phonological error patterns.

The developers of the Arizona-4 were culturally and linguistically sensitive when creating directions for scoring. The manual includes instructions to score dialectal variations as correct productions. Though it is important that dialectal variations are included, the administrator must take it upon themselves to be aware of what dialectal variations are present in order to properly consider them and score the articulation tests appropriately.

Interpretation/Analysis

The scores generated by the measures in the Arizona-4 have various implications for practice. Clinicians can use the word articulation total score to determine a speech intelligibility interpretation value. The values range from “sound errors are absent or minimally noticed” to “speech is unintelligible,” which are easily explainable to parents and caretakers, or explain eligibility for services. Based on the percentage of occurrence of phonological error patterns, the administrator can describe how impactful phonological processes are on the overall intelligibility of the testee. The standard scores derived from the total scores allow the clinician to compare the speech productions of the individual to that of a typically developing peer, which can be used to determine eligibility for services.

Clinicians viewing the scores can use them to prioritize speech targets for individualized intervention. For example, if the testee missed all tasks involving /r/, then that sound would be an intervention target if age-appropriate. The progress report form allows the administrator to measure the percentage of speech improvement. The speech improvement score allows the clinician to quantify the gains they have made in treatment.

Personal critique

The Arizona-4 is a short and convenient measure of articulation and phonology. It has been developed to be used in a variety of settings and can be given by any masters-level clinician or teacher that is practicing speech-language pathology or a related field. Because of this, the test is accessible to a wide range of children and adults that may benefit from speech-language services.

The short nature of the assessment makes it accessible to populations that have short attention spans, such as young children or those with attention disorders. Because of the abbreviated amount of test items, it is quick to score, and that is convenient for busy clinicians.

By including tasks that measure articulation in both words and sentences, as well as identify phonological processes, the assessment will allow clinicians to form a complete picture of the examinee’s overall speech production.

The authors made an effort to include those that are culturally and linguistically different. The normative sample included children and adults from various ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. However, since the sample was representative of the United States, those who belong to minority groups will be underrepresented. The scoring of the test also reflects their inclusion efforts, as it is explicitly stated to consider dialectal differences. Although it is a considerate instruction, it will be up to the administrator of the exam to be knowledgeable of dialectal differences in order to score fairly.

A critique of the test is that there is no formal measure of consonants in the medial positions of words. As the examiner scores the test, they only circle consonant errors if they occur in the initial or final position of words. In order for a clinician to know that an individual had difficulty producing medial consonants, they would have to read IPA transcriptions of the words, which may not be written if the test is scored using the computer. In summary, the Arizona-4 is a user and tester-friendly assessment that creates a whole picture of children and young adults’ speech intelligibility.

Research Article Review

Summary of the assessment

 The Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale – Fourth Revision is a norm referenced assessment used to detect articulation and phonological errors and provides interpretation of speech sound proficiency at word and sentence level. This assessment can be used at various settings for both children and adults from 18 months to 21 years of age. The Arizonia-4 is compose of three individual test in one with the administration time of 5 to 20 minutues each test.

Comment by Telford, Sulare: Jessica & Rolanda, for this section, explain that there have been no publications on this assessment. And discuss why SLPs may need to be cautious when using this assessment and the possible reason why there have been no publications on this assessment. Is this a new assessment?

Title of Article: Presence of Late 8 Phonemes among Adolescents and Young Adults with Down Syndrome

Purpose of the Article

The article, “Presence of Late 8 Phonemes among Adolescents and Young Adults with Down  Syndrome”, Aidan Osborne seeks to analyze the phonetic lexicon of the late 8 phonemes among adolescents and young adults with Down Syndrome. The late 8 phonemes includes: /ʃ, θ, s, z, ð, l, r, ʒ/.Osborne, investigates a relational hypothesis link between age, and presence or absence of the latest developing phonemes as well as their impact on overall speech intelligibility to familiar and unfamiliar persons. Lastly, this study also creates the stimulability profile for those late 8 phonemes that were produced in error. In an effort to increase understanding of the late 8 phonemes amongst the teen to young adult population the Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale 4th addition was administered.

Participants

The participant pool consisted of 8 individuals within the ages of 13 years and 6 months to 19 years of age and 7 months. All participants held previous diagnoses of Down Syndrome with no present hearing impairment or any craniofacial anomaly. The Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale (Arizona-4) was the single assessment for this study.

Procedure

The evaluation was administered individually at a familiar learning environment. The assessment entailed the participant verbally producing 46 target words and in the initial consonant and final consonant position totaling 67 sounds. If sounds were misarticulated during the Word  Articulation task, the Speech Imitation Context Task(SICT) was administered by the administrator of the assessment. The SICT includes 16 phonemes and  phoneme blends; 9 of the phonemes were nonsense words. All responses to the Arizona-4 were audio recorded and recording was made known to each participant. Data gathered from the Arizona-4 test was then utilized to measure the  presence or absences of late 8 phonemes (e.g., /ʃ, θ, s, z, ð, l, r, ʒ/). The participants’ responses from the entire Arizona-4 test were then scored  to determine the participant’s Speech Intelligibility Interpretation Value (SIIV).

Results/Discussion

The data collected revealed mean percentage of  the late 8 phonemes: /ʃ, θ, s , z, ð, l, r, ð/ at 100% stimulable and /ʒ/ at 87.5%.  Also, results indicated 4 out of the late 8 phonemes / ʃ, s, ð, l/ were correctly articulated in the repertoire of 100% of participants. The remaining 4 phonemes among participants were as follows: /θ, ʒ/ at  87.5% , /z/ at 75%, and /r/ at 50%.  Seven was the median number of late 8 phonemes present in a sample of adolescents and young adults  with Down Syndrome. Many of the participants attained the late 8 phonemes in the repertoire which shows in the Speech Intelligibility Interpretation Value average scored of 92%.  Arizona-4 categorized the SIIV as “speech is intelligible though errors are noticeable” this is common for Down Syndrome individuals age 13-21 who still have some difficulties being completely understood. Overall, results from this research shows a higher speech accuracy of the late 8 phonemes compared to previous studies of the Down Syndrome population.

Critique

In determining Arizona-4 reliability in identifying phonetic errors of adolescents and young adults with Down Syndrome, the investigators compared Arizona-4 performance with the Goldman-Fristoe Test if Articulation 2, and Khan-Lewis Phonological Assessment Second Edition. What this article attempts extend research on the whether individuals with Down Syndrome have an articulation delay or disorders. However, by their own admission, “results of this study cannot be used to prove or disprove the hypothesis.” The context regarding participant behavior toward the assessments and whether the principal investigator was a familiar or unfamiliar person were not mentioned. With regard to the participants social economic status or any concomitant diagnosis related to speech-phonology were not disclosed. Furthermore, information regarding if the participants had received articulation intervention prior to the study would have provided additional insight. Finally, a larger number participant pool size and would have aided in the data analysis, particularly when looking for possible similarities or difference between gender.

References

(ArizonaTM-4) (2018). WPS Publish. https://www.wpspublish.com/arizona-4-arizona-articulation-and-phonology-scale-fourth-revision

Fudala, J., & Stegall, S.(2017) Arizona Articulation and Phonology ScaleTM, Fourth Revision (Arizona-4): Technical Manual. WPS Publish.

Osborne, Aidan. (2020). Presence of Late 8 Phonemes among Adolescents and Young Adults with Down syndrome. 10.13140/RG.2.2.16410.67524.

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHELP