Barlow, J. (2001). Recent advances i…
Barlow, J. (2001). Recent advances in phonological theory and treatment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 225-228. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from ASHA Journals (http://journals.asha.org)
Barlow, J. (2001). Recent advances in phonological theory and treatment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 295-297. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from ASHA Journals (http://journals.asha.org)
Barlow, J. (2002). Recent advances in phonological theory and treatment: Part II. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33, 4-8.
Retrieved April 29, 2008, from ASHA Journals (http://journals.asha.org)
TAP
These articles discussed the research that exists about phonological theory and treatment. The authors explained the relationship between theory and treatment and it’s importance. The main themes discussed were selection of targets, new theories, the levels of focus (sound, word), and procedures for analysis. These articles are intended for students and SLPs interested in the treatment of phonological disorders. The purpose of these articles are to identify and introduce the theoretical and analytical frameworks that will be discussed in a forum. Another purpose was to introduce and breifly describe the research that exists which will be discussed later in the forum.
Claims
The authors make the following claims:
1. The goal of treatment is to make maximal changes in the child’s sound system in the least amount of time possible.
2. Targeting most difficult/complex sounds results in global change.
3. Phonology is a part of language development. Disorders within the two domains can coincide. Phonology should not be treated alone; language abilities need to be considered also.
Evidence
The author provides many sources that support her claims. The evidence she used consisted of studies related to theory and treatment, target selection, levels of focus, and procedures for analysis. The evidence came from articles presented within this particular forum, analytical scales, research studies, tests, and textbooks.
Connections
Text-to-Self: As I began reading these articles I thought they were very familiar to me. I then realized that I had read the first two articles already because they were assigned for the treatment unit. I feel like I know so much more about phonology after reading these articles for another time, after I have learned so much more about phonology. I have a better understanding of it all now.
Text-to-text: As mentioned above, two of these articles I had already read and wrote about. Therefore, they were very familiar to me. These articles were related to some articles I’ve found from my research about coinciding language and phonological disorders. Most of the literature I’ve read is in agreement that phonology is a part of the language system.
Text-to-world: These articles provide clinicians and students with the underlying foundation of phonology and the theories behind assessment and treatment. It’s very important that clinicians consider theories and what theories underly the approach/protocol that is being used. This allows the most efficacious approach to be used.
Williams #11
A. Lynn Williams (2000) #11
Williams, A. (2000). Multiple oppositions: Theoretical foundations for an
alternative contrastive intervention approach. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 282-288.
TAP
The topic of this article was about the different phonological treatment approaches. The approaches included were the multiple oppositions approach, the minimal pairs approach, and naturalistic speech intelligibility training. Each approach was discussed and the protocol for each was discribed. This article is intended for students and speech language pathologists. Specifically, those that are interested in phonological disorders or are providing intervention services to children with phonological disorders. The purpose of the article was to publish the findings of a case study.
Claims
The following claims were made by the author:
1. Constructs of broad training and systemic intevention in the motivation of a multiple opposition approach to phonological intervention encompass larger treatment sets of multiple phonemic contrasts and provide intervention across a broader spectrum of a child’s error pattern, rule, or phoneme collapse.
2. The multiple opposition approach allows the child to make connections about his/her phonologic strategies with what needs to be learned and be able to revise the strategies based on the confrontation of the new and focused phonologic information.
Evidence
The author presented a study to support her claims regarding the multiple opposition approach. She also cited other articles/studies that she published as well as articles/studies about the other intervention approaches for phonological disorders.
Connections
Text-to-Self: I have no experience with the multiple oppostions model. Prior to this article and the class discussions about treatment, I did not know what the multiple oppisions approach/protocol was.
Text-to-Text: I don’t recall ever reading a text/article about this approach until reading the previous article. This article connects to that article in that they are both about the multiple opposition approach and are by the same article.
Text-to-World: It is important for praciticing clinicians to have an understanding of the ideas behind the multiple oppositions approach. The author claimed that this appraoch is most beneficial for clients with a severe-profound phonological disorder. This is because these clients most likely have a lot of phonemic collapses. This is important to know so that the best intervention appraoch is chosen and system-wide occurs.
THE NATURALIST’S JOURNAL
Fulwiler, T. & Hughes, J. The naturalist’s journal. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://www.uvm.edu/~fntrlst/journalmonograph.pdf .
TAP
The topic of this article was writing, specifically writing in journals. The article described what a journal is, what a journal does, and the purpose of writing a journal. The different types of journals were also described; personal journals, dedicated journals, and field journals. The audience for this article could be broad. Anyone who is interested in writing or keeping a journal would find this article beneficial. The purpose of this article is to describe journal writing and to provide strategies and techniques for writing in journal format.
CLAIM(S)
1. A journal memorializes what you do, what you think, what you see, and what you need to do next.
2. All types of journals have three characteristics in common; sequence, audience, and language.
3. A journal is informal and flexible. There’s no set way of writing a journal entry. The writer can write whatever and however he wants without following a set writting style or paying attention to grammatical errors.
4. A journal reflects the thoughts of only the author.
EVIDENCE
The author referred to a biology professor and a botanist who both kept a journal for years. Examples of writting from each professionals journal was given in the article and described. The author included a list of additional resources about writing and journal writting.
CONNECTIONS
Text-to-self: This article is relevant to me because I am keeping a journal/writing notebook for phonology class. The information I have gained from reading this article will help me to understand why I am keeping a writing notebook and will help me to organize my writing.
Text-to-text: This article does not connect to any other text I’ve read. At least, not that I can think of right now.
Text-to-world: This article is relevant to any professional interested in documenting their work and to any person wanting to document their life. Reading this article makes me think of my sister. She has kept an electronic journal everyday since she was pregnant with her first child. This is the ninth year that she’s kept a journal. This article is something that she would be interested in reading. I will have to pass it on to her.
Tyler, Lewish, and Welch (2003)
Tyler, A., Lewis, K., & Welch, C. (2003). Predictors of phonological change following intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 289-298. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from Academic Search Premiere.
TAP
The topic of this article was variables that may be predictors of phonological change following intervention. This article is intended for students and speech language pathologists. Specifically, those that are interested in phonological disorders or are providing intervention services to children with phonological disorders. The purpose of the study described in the article was to determine the best predictor or combination of predictors of change in percent of consonants correct.
CLAIM(S)
The authors made the following claims:
1. Chronological age, inventory size, error consistency, and/or expressive language may be predictors of phonological change following intervention.
2. The results of the current study indicated that error consistency accounted for 31% of the change in the phonological system. Highly inconsistent systems result in greater change than a consistent system.
3. The results of the current study indicated that chronological age, phonetic inventory size, and expressive language did not account for any change in the phonological system.
4. There appears to be no one predictor variable strongly associated with phonological change following intervention.
5. More research regarding possible predictors of phonological change following intervention is warranted because prior research, including the present study, has not revealed any strong predictor.
EVIDENCE
The authors referred to their own research study and to others to provide support for their claims. The other sources included phonological tests/manuals, language tests/manuals, textbooks, and journal articles.
CONNECTIONS
Text-to-self: This article did not mention the stimulability being a possible predictor of change. During my research about the purpose of stimulability for my assessment position paper, I found that predicting change or prognosis is a purpose of stimulability testing. The common theme I found during my research about stimulability was that error sounds that are stimulable are more likely to improve with and even without intervention. Why didn’t this study include stimulability?
Text-to-text: I have not read any other articles that addressed the possible predictors of change other than the articles about stimulability as mentioned above. However, the current article did not include stimulability as a possible variable for prediction of change.
Text-to-world: Research about the possible predictors of phonological change following intervention is warranted because the knowledge of such predictor would assist SLPs in establishing the most appropriate targets for treatment.
Rvachew & Nowak (Response)
Rvachew, S. & Nowak, M. (2003). Clinical outcomes as a function of target selection strategy: A response to Morrisette and Gierut. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 386-390. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from ASHA Journals (http://journals.asha.org) .
TAP
The topic of this article was the effect of target-selection on phonological learning and progress. The article reviewed a previous study and expanded on the results that the treatment of early developing sounds and sounds with the most knowledge results in greater progress. This article is intended for students and speech language pathologists. Specifically, those working with children who have a phonological disorder. The purpose of this particular article is to refute the claims made by Morrisette and Gierut (2003) by showing that the traditional target selection strategy resulted in superior outcomes, in comparison to the nondevelopmental strategy.
Claim(s)
The authors made the following claims:
1. Treating sounds that are early developing and most knowledge results in the most change.
2. The change occurred in treated and untreated words and word positions, indicating generalization to nontreated contexts.
3. The results of the authors’ study cannot be taken as support for the conculsion that a nondevelopmental target selection approach facilitates system-wide changes.
4. Further research is require to determine the best means of promoting generalization.
5. Further research must employ research designs that include controls for maturation and participant effects.
Evidence
The authors referred to their previous article and study and to the article and study of Morrisette and Gierut (2003) to support the authors claims and to refute the claims of Morrisette and Gierut. Other sources were referred to such as the text by Creaghead, Newman, and Secord (1989), and other articles by Gierut and Morrisette.
Connections
Text-to-Self: This article, along with the initial article by Rvachew and Nowak and the response by Morrisette and Gierut, confuse me because each set of authors make contradicting claims but each has evidence to support their claims. Which approach, developmental sequence or the nondevelopmental sequence, is really the best for target selection and generalization?
Text-to-text: This article connected to the initial article written by Rvachew and Nowak and the response letter written by Morrisette and Gierut (2003). This article also connects with other articles regarding phonological treatment because target selection and generalization was discussed in many articles I’ve read for the course reading list and during my research for my treatment position paper.
Text-to-world: This article is relevant to clinical treatment because speech language pathologists want to elicit the most change possible during phonological treatment. This article provides information and resources that can be used for the selection of treatment targets.
Morrisette, M. & Gierut, J. (2003)
Morrisette, M. & Gierut, J. (2003). Unified treatment recommendations: A response to Rvachew and Nowak (2001). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 382-386. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from ASHA Journals (http://journals.asha.org).
TAP
The topic of this article was the selection of targets for phonological treatment and the generalizability of the targets.The article is intented for students and speech langauge pathologists. Specifically those working with children who have a phonological disorder. The purpose of this particular article is to show that the findings of Rvachew and Rowland do not challenge earlier findings but extend the generalizability of those results in positive ways.
Claim(s)
The authors made the following claims:
1. Targeting sounds that the child has the least knowledge of and sounds that are later developing results in greater change across the child’s sound system.
2. Targeting sounds that the child has the least knowledge of and sounds that are later developing results in generalization to untreated sounds.
3. Targeting sounds that the child has the least knowledge of and sounds that are later developing results in changes to sounds from other manner classes.
4. Parents were most satisfied with the changes in their child’s speech when the early developing/least knowledge sounds were targeted.
Evidence
The authors used many sources to support their claims. The sources consisted of articles in scholarly journals, texts, and studies. The main source that the authors referred to was Rvachew & Nowak (2001). The authors referred to three related studies by Gierut et al to support the claims that were made.
Connections
Text-to-self: I am confused about the contradiction between what the author claimed about more change occuring when later developing sounds are targeted and the parents being most satisfied about their child’s progress when the earlier developing sounds are targeted. As I think about this contradiction, I can only explain this as an issue with time. I assume the parents are more satisfied when early sound are targeted because the change occurs quickly. Whereas when later developing sounds are targeted the change occurs more slowly because there is more for the child to learn because was no knowledge of the targets before treatment was initiated.
Text-to-text: This article connected to a previous article written by Rvachew and Nowak. This article also connects with other articles regarding phonological treatment because target selection and generalization was discussed in many articles I have read for the course reading list and during my research for my treatment position paper.
Text-to-world: This article is relevant to clinical treatment because speech language pathologists want to elicit the most change possible during phonological treatment. This article provides information and resouces that can be used for the selection of treatment targets.
Rvachew, S. & Nowak, M. (2001)
Rvachew, S. & Nowak, M. (2001). The effect of target-selection strategy on phonological learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 610-623. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from ASHA Journals (http://journals.asha.com) .
TAP
The topic of this article was the effect of target-selection on phonological learning or progress. The article described a study that compared the treatment of targets that are early developing and associated with more phonological knowledge versus the treatment of targets that are later developing and associated with little or no phonological knowledge. This article is intented for students and speech langauge pathologists interested in the treatment of phonological disorders. The purpose of the study described was to examine whether the most change occurred when early developing sounds were targeted or when late developing sounds were targeted.
Claim(s)
The following claims were made in the article:
- The research that exists regarding target selection has limitations that need to be considered.
- The treatment of early developing targets and the targets with the most knowledge results in greater progress
- It is not necessary to target late developing sounds in order to achieve sponataneous emergence of other late-developing sounds.
Evidence
The authors provided a summarized review of the literature to let the reader know about the previous research and findings related to this issue. The authors used previous studies and their own current study to support their claims. This article directly talked about a study that the authors conducted related to target selection.
Connections
Text-to-self: This article contridicts what was discussed in class. What I remember from class is that early developing sounds result in quick success but not much is learned, the treatment mainly consists of practice. Later developing sounds result in the most change overall but it’s not quick change.
Text-to-text: During my research about stimulability testing I read a lot about target selection. I recall the articles that suggested targeting the early, easier sounds being published many years ago, maybe info decades. The most recent research suggested using the later targets. I find it odd that this article suggests selecting early and easy (more knowledge) sounds even though it was published recently (2001).
Text-to-world: This article is relevant to the field because it adds evidence and suggestions to the controversy of target selection. It’s obvious that target selection is a big issue in phonological treatment. This issue has been addressed in regards to assessment and treatment.
Gierut, J. (2001). Complexity in phon…
Gierut, J. (2001). Complexity in phonological treatment: Clinical Factors. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 229-241. Retrieved March 17 , 2008, from ASHA Journals (http://journals.asha.org) .
TAP
The topic of this article was the role of complexity in phonological treatment. More specifically the role of complexity in regards to selecting treatment targets. The article is intented for students and speech langauge pathologists interested in the treatment of phonological disorders. The purpose of this particular article is to revisit the previously published single-subject study and examine complexity associated with conventional clinical factors and it’s role in treatment efficacy.
Claim(s)
1. There are 3 clinical factors that influence complexity and should be considered when selecting treatment targets. The 3 clinical factors are consistent error, later acquired sound, and two new sounds paired with each other.
2. The consistency of errors may vary accross contexts. The treatment of sounds that are consistently in error result in broader generalization across the sound system. The treatment of consistent errors is more efficacious.
3. Select later acquired sounds as targets. This leads to broader system-wide improvements.
4. Several approaches exist regarding the number of targets to treat at a time; more than one at a time, two at a time, etc. Use evidence presented in the article with caution because the recommendations about the number of errors to target at a time were derived from comparisons of minimal pairs, not other forms of treatment.
Evidence
The author discussed and examined many studies related to each clinical factor that the author claimed influences complexity. The studies and journal articles provided support for the claims the author made.
Connections
Text-to-self: It’s so strange to me that targeting the most complex targets results in greater system-wide change and generalization. I think it would result in the least change or slower change since the complex targets are “harder” and there would be more to learn. But then if there’s more to learn, maybe that’s why there’s greater change. There’s more for the child to learn and change. I think it’s all beginning to make since.
Text-to-text: The selection of targets and the clinical factors that should be considered were discussed in many of the articles I read for my assessment position paper about stimulability testing.
Text-to-world: This article provides evidence for decisions about target selection that can help speech-language pathologists justify their clinical decisions.
Weiner, F. F. (1981). Treatment of p…
Weiner, F. F. (1981). Treatment of phonological disability using the method of meaningful minimal contrast: Two case studies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 97-103. Retrieved April 5, 2008, from ASHA Journals (http://journals.asha.org) .
TAP
The topic of this article was the use of minimal contrasts in phonological therapy. The article described a research study that looked at the effectiveness of the use minimal contrasts. The article is intented for students and speech langauge pathologists interested in the treatment of phonological disorders. The purpose of this particular article is to describe the research study that the author conducted and to publish the findings.
Claim(s)
The author made the following claims based on the findings of the research study:
1. Minimal contrast therapy is effective in reducing the frequency of phonological processes.
2. Minimal contrast therapy is an efficient treatment for reducing the frequency of phonological processes.
3. The use of minimal contrasts results in generalization of the treatment effect to words not included in the training task.
4. The use of a conceptual approach that is based on increasing communication ability is appropriate for improving the speech intelligibility of children with phonological disorders.
Evidence
The research study conducted by the author used the multi-response baseline treatment design. Two participants were used in the study. Three phonological processes were initially baselined and then treated. The processes included final consonant deletion, stopping, and word initial fronting. There were three phases of treatment. In phase 1 only final consonant deletion was treated. In phase 2 final consonant deletion and stopping were treated. In phase 3 final consonant deletion, stopping, and word initial fronting were treated. The training consisted of 4 minimal pair sets for each process and 20 target words for each process.
The analysis of the results revealed that minimal pair training improved reduced the child’s use of phonological processes without teaching phonetic placements, without addressing auditory discrimination, and without speech production practice at the sound or syllable level. This suggests that minimal pairs training is effective on it’s own.
The analysis revealed that minimal pair training proved to be efficient with both of the participants because the use of phonological processes was reduced in a relatively short amount of time with both children. It’s efficiency was also suggested by the fact that words not addressed in the treatment also improved. This also suggested that the minimal pair treatment resulted in generalization of the treatment effect to words not included in the training task.
Connections
Text-to-self: The treatment I provide to a 5-year old child with a phonological disorder consists of minimal pairs training within the cycles approach. My supervisor suggested that I use the Webber Phonology Cards as stimuli. I did not select specific treatment targets own my own. After reading this article, I question whether the target words I’m using (Webber Phonology Cards) are appropriate?
Text-to-text: I have read about minimal pairs therapy in texts/articles before in other classes, specifically the undergrad course about phonology. However, I do not remember the exact texts/articles or what they discussed. I just remember reading and talking in class about the procedure of minimal pairs. This article is the first article to discuss the purpose and evidence behind minimal pairs therapy.
Barlow, J. (2001). Prologue: Recent
Barlow, J. (2001). Prologue: Recent advances in phonological theory and treatment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 225-228. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from ASHA Journals, http://journals.asha.org .
TAP
This article discussed the recent research in regards to phonological theory and treatment. The authors explained the relationship between theory and treatment and it’s importance. The main themes discussed were selection of targets, new theories, the levels of focus (sound, word), and procedures for analysis.The article is intented for students and speech langauge pathologists interested in the treatment of phonological disorders. The purpose of this particular article is to identify and introduce the theoretical and analytical framworks that will be discussed in the forum. Another purpose was to introduce and briefly describe the research that exists which will be discussed later in the forum.
Claim(s)
The author claimed that the main goal of phonological remediation is to make maximal changes in the child’s sound system in the least amount of time possible; global change. The author’s conclusion, based on the articles reviewed, is that targeting the most difficult/complext sounds results in the greatest change. The author claims that, for the most part, professionals have focused on the individual segment, the sound. It was suggested that research needs to be conducted related to the higher order phonological units, such as the syllable and whole-word. The author claims that also focusing on the higher order phonological units will allow the clinician to identify errors related to syllable structure and/or word position.
Evidence
The author provides many sources to support her claims. The evidence she used consisted of studies related to theory and treatment, selection of targets, levels of focus, and procedures for analysis. The evidence came from articles presented within this particular forum, analytical scales, research studies, tests, and textbooks.
Connections
Text-to-self: I feel like I know little about phonological theory. This article introduced theories to me and explained how theory is important to consider when treating phonological disorders. The article only introduce the theorie to me. I am left with questions regarding the theories becuase they are still not clear to me.
Text-to-text: This article related to the articles that I recently read about the assessment of phonological disorders. The selection of targets was discussed in this article. This appears to be a hot topic within the assessment and treatment of phonological disorders. In the articles about assessment two different points of view existed about the selection of targets. One view was to select the stimulable sounds because they are easier to teach and result in success and change quickly. The other view was to address sounds that are not in the child’s inventory. This article, regarding treatment, suggested selecting targets that are the most complex in order to induce the most change. This article takes a more global approach.
Text-to-world: In the “real world” it is important to incorporate theory into assessment and treatment of phonological disorders and this is what the author of this article attempted to do in this article. Many times, clinicians do not incorporate theory and truly understand how a particular child’s phonological system develops or works. This article provides insight about the use of theory and provides references and support that can be used by practicing speech-language pathologists.
