This study explored whether or not standard administration and scoring of conventional articulation tests accurately identified children as phonologically disordered and whether or not information from these tests established severity level and programming needs. Results of standard scoring procedures from the Assessment of Phonological Processes-Revised, the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation, the Photo Articulation Test, and the Weiss Comprehensive Articulation Test were compared for 20 phonologically impaired children. All tests identified the children as phonologically delayed/disordered, but the conventional tests failed to clearly and consistently differentiate varying severity levels. Conventional test results also showed limitations in error sensitivity, ease of computation for scoring procedures, and implications for remediation programming. The use of some type of rule-based analysis for phonologically impaired children is highly recommended.
Analysis of Centroid Variation of Three-floating Gyroscope Based on Error Sensitivity