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.
