Relation of Speech-Sound Discrimination Ability to Articulation-Type Speech Defects

1963 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian H. Cohen ◽  
Charles F. Diehl
1976 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 195-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane N. Bryen

Traditional testing practices have been considered by some educators as discriminatory against minority groups. These practices are thought to have led to a disproportionate number of black and Spanish speaking children being placed in special classes as a result of their “poor performance” on tests standardized on white, middle class populations and/or in standard English. In response to this problem, one particular language ability, speech-sound discrimination, was assessed using a bilingual perspective rather than one stressing the rightness of standard English. Three parallel forms of speech-sound discrimination (standard English, black English and Spanish) were each administered to a sample of lower socio-economic white, black and Puerto Rican children. The results indicated that each language group did best on the discrimination form that most closely approximated the phonological structure of its language. Also, there were no significant differences in speech-sound discrimination ability among the three groups when performances across all language forms were considered. Educational implications for assessment were discussed.


1976 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 279-283
Author(s):  
Shigetada Suzuki ◽  
Masako Notoya ◽  
Miyako Kanasaku ◽  
Suzuko Takeshima ◽  
Tameo Miyazaki

1977 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 260-264
Author(s):  
Masako Notoya ◽  
Shigetada Suzuki ◽  
Miyako Kanasaku ◽  
Mikiko Nakajima ◽  
Tameo Miyazaki ◽  
...  

1981 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 591-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew S. Kerr ◽  
Clement P. Meunier

A 40-item speech sound discrimination test was administered to 158 children to assess the effects of socioeconomic level and administrative mode, oral or tape, on auditory discrimination ability. Results indicated a model of administration effect, age effect, and an interaction between age and socioeconomic level. Individual oral administration produced substantially fewer errors than a standardized tape. Low socioeconomic-level children made significantly fewer error scores as age increased, while mid-socioeconomic status children did not. All results were consistent across oral and tape administration.


1974 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-425
Author(s):  
Stuart I. Ritterman ◽  
Nancy C. Freeman

Thirty-two college students were required to learn the relevant dimension in each of two randomized lists of auditorily presented stimuli. The stimuli consisted of seven pairs of CV nonsense syllables differing by two relevant dimension units and from zero to seven irrelevant dimension units. Stimulus dimensions were determined according to Saporta’s units of difference. No significant differences in performance as a function of number of the irrelevant dimensions nor characteristics of the relevant dimension were observed.


1969 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 745-747 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Goldman ◽  
Macalyne Fristoe

Author(s):  
Arnold Abramovitz

It is certain that many children whose auditory perception is queried by audiologists, speech therapists, educationists and psychologists elude the diagnostic screens presently available in each of these disciplines. The need for a qualitative and quantitative psychological assessment of the child's auditory abilities and disabilities led to the development of a test which was intended to evaluate the following functions:(a) Recognition of environmental sounds, (b) Auditory figure-ground discrimination, (c) Speech-sound discrimination (phonemic and intonational) and (d) Tonal pattern discrimination (pitch, loudness, duration and interval). It was not intended to investigate threshold phenomena as such but rather to supplement and complement pure-tone and speech audiometry. The test was applied to 205 children, aged five to ten years, drawn from a normal school population, and 232 children with difficulties and handicaps varying both in degree and kind. Only the first two sub-tests were found to be clinically and experimentally viable, and data for the curtailed test are presented. The following results are noteworthy: (1) The test measures functions which are positively related to both age and intelligence. (2) Brain-injured, retarded and emotionally disturbed children generally test low on auditory figure-ground discrimination; this vulnerability is most likely due to perseveration. (3) Previously unsuspected peripheral hearing losses may sometimes be detected by the use of the test. On the other hand, some children said to have high degrees of hearing loss test at or above their age-level. (4) Many deaf and hard-of-hearing children test higher without their hearing-aids; this is probably due to amplification being achieved at the cost of distortion. (5) Children of average intelligence with reading and/or spelling difficulties often test low on auditory figure-ground discrimination. (6) Blind children who have received auditory training are equal to sighted children in recognition of environmental sounds, but superior in auditory figure-ground discrimination. This does not, however, necessarily signify superior auditory perception as such on the part of the blind. In general it is concluded that the development of tests of auditory perception could add significantly to the psycho-educational assessment of both "normal" and handicapped children.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document