Phonological Disorders

Author(s):  
Maura Moyle ◽  
Steven Long
1992 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan G. Kamhi

My response to Fey’s article (1985; reprinted 1992, this issue) focuses on the confusion caused by the application of simplistic phonological definitions and models to the assessment and treatment of children with speech delays. In addition to having no explanatory adequacy, such definitions/models lead either to assessment and treatment procedures that are similarly focused or to procedures that have no clear logical ties to the models with which they supposedly are linked. Narrowly focused models and definitions also usually include no mention of speech production processes. Bemoaning this state of affairs, I attempt to show why it is important for clinicians to embrace broad-based models of phonological disorders that have some explanatory value. Such models are consistent with assessment procedures that are comprehensive in nature and treatment procedures that focus on linguistic, as well as motoric, aspects of speech.


1988 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen E. Pollock ◽  
Richard G. Schwartz

The relationship between syllabic structure and segmental development was examined longitudinally in a child with a severe phonological disorder. Six speech samples were collected over a 4-year period (3:5 to 7:3). Analyses revealed gradual increases in the complexity and diversity of the syllable structures produced, and positional preferences for sounds within these forms. With a strong preference for [d] and [n] at the beginning of syllables, other consonants appeared first at the end of syllables. Implications for clinical management of phonological disorders include the need to consider both structural position and structural complexity in assessing segmental skills and in choosing target words for intervention.


2002 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 1188-1201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie F. Stokes ◽  
Jessica Tse-Kay Lau ◽  
Valter Ciocca

This study examined the interaction of ambient frequency and feature complexity in the diphthong errors produced by Cantonese-speaking children with phonological disorders. A total of 611 diphthongs produced by 13 Cantonese-speaking children with speech disorders were subjected to perceptual analysis. The percentage accuracy of production and error patterns was examined. Perceptual analysis showed that /i/ and /ui/ were most frequently in error, whereas /ei/, /ou/, and /u/ were least frequently in error. Diphthong errors (usually diphthong reduction) arise as a function of both ambient frequency and feature complexity. The combination of ambient frequency and feature complexity yields a complexity metric reflecting accuracy of production. Treatment guidelines include consideration of three basic factors: ambient frequency, feature complexity, and error patterns.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-7
Author(s):  
Dana Buntová ◽  
Kristína Mocsári

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leah Fabiano-Smith ◽  
Katherine Hoffman

Purpose Bilingual children whose phonological skills are evaluated using measures designed for monolingual English speakers are at risk for misdiagnosis of speech sound disorders (De Lamo White & Jin, 2011). Method Forty-four children participated in this study: 15 typically developing monolingual English speakers, 7 monolingual English speakers with phonological disorders, 14 typically developing bilingual Spanish–English speakers, and 8 bilingual children with phonological disorders. Children's single-word speech productions were examined on Percentage Consonants Correct–Revised (Shriberg, Austin, Lewis, McSweeny, & Wilson, 1997a) and accuracy of early-, middle-, and late-developing sounds (Shriberg, 1993) in English. Consonant accuracy in English was compared between monolinguals and bilinguals with and without speech sound disorders. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to observe diagnostic accuracy of the measures examined. Results Percentage Consonants Correct–Revised was found to be a good indicator of phonological ability in both monolingual and bilingual English-speaking children at the age of 5;0. No significant differences were found between language groups on any of the measures examined. Conclusions Our results suggest that traditional measures of phonological ability for monolinguals could provide good diagnostic accuracy for bilingual children at the age of 5;0 years. These findings are preliminary, and children younger than 5;0 years should be examined for risk of misdiagnosis.


Author(s):  
Gianfranco Denes ◽  
Carlo Semenza ◽  
Emanuela Magno Caldognetto

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document