Ingram & Ingram
Ingram, K. & Ingram, D. (2002). Commentary on “Evaluating Articulation and Phonological Disorders When the Clock is Running”. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 257-258. Retrieved, February 21, 2008, from the ASHA Journals database (http://journals.asha.org).
TAP
The topic of this article was the prescribed assessment protocol that the authors suggest for the phonological assesment of the 4-year old boy that has been discussed in the previous articles. The authors discuss the issues of assessment, such as timing constraints and types of assessments that should be used. This article differed in that the authors discussed the use of computers for analysis of the child’s phonological system. The article is intented for students and speech langauge pathologists interested in the assessment of phonological disorders and who read all of the articles within the special forum that was presented in the American Journal of Speech-Langauge Pathology. The purpose of the article is to present how the author, an expert in the field, would conduct an evaluation on this specific child.
Claim(s)
The authors made several claims throughout this article. The main claim is that computers can be used to collect language samples, transcribe the samples, analyze phonological rules/system, and for storage of the sample and analysis. The authors also claim that the use of computers is efficient and affordable. An additional claim that was made by the authors is that the phonological processes and/or patterns should be identified withing an assessment, not just identificaiton of each error. The use of a computer for assesment allows the therapist to efficiently identify processes and patterns.
Evidence
The articles previously presented in this special forum were cited in this article in order to compare and contrast the experts’ opinions and prescribed phonological assessment protocol. The authors also used other texts, articles, and test manuals to support the use of computers in phonological assessment.
Connections:
Text-to-self: I have heard of computer software, such as the SALT program, that collects, transcribes, analyzes, and stores speech samples but I have not had the chance to use a computer for assessment. Our world is very technological and our field is beginning to catch on to the high-tech world. I would love the opportunity to explore computer software that can be used for assessment or analysis of results.
Text-to-text: This article is similar to several of the previous articles presented in this article in that they all addressed the issues of time constraints, collecting a speech sample, using standardized tests, etc. However, this article differed in that it discussed use of computers to collect, analyze, and store speech samples.
Text-to-world: The claims and suggestions made in this text connects with the real world because time is definitely an issue in the “real world.” In an ideal situation time is unlimited but this is not practical. Most speech therapists are lucky to have even 60 to 90 minutes for an evaluation. This article provided suggestions on how to make all the important things fit into a 60 to 90 minute assessment and still have thorough results. I can see how the use of a computer to analyze the speech sample can definitely make the process of scoring the test and analyzing the phonological “habits” of the child much more effcient.
Khan, L. (2002). The sixth view: As…
Khan, L. (2002). The sixth view: Assessing preschooler’s articulation and phonology from the trenches. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 250-254. Retrieved , February 21, 2008, from the ASHA Journals database (http://journals.asha.org).
TAP
The topic of this article was the protocol that the author would follow if she were to evaluate the 4-year old boy that has been discussed in the previous articles. The author discusses the issues of assessment, such as setting, timing constraints, and areas of communication to be assessed. The article is intented for students and speech langauge pathologists interested in the assessment of phonological disorders and who read all of the articles within the special forum that was presented in the American Journal of Speech-Langauge Pathology. The purpose of the article is to present how the author, an expert in the field, would conduct an evaluation on this specific child. The author outlines the protocol step-by-step and provides justification for each component.
Claim(s)
The author claims that the school setting is an appropriate environment in which to conduct a speech and language evaluation, this is one of the few ways that this author’s opinion differs from some of the previous authors. Khan suggested that the purpose of an evaluation within the schools is to determine if a problem exists, is the child eligible for services through the school, and to initiate/plan recommendations. Khan also differed from the other authors in that she suggested the use of standardized tests for speech and language testing. She suggested providing a formal receptive/expressive language test in place of a speech sample. She also suggested the use of the Goldman-Fristoe and Khan-Lewis for articulation assessment and phonological assessment.
Evidence
Khan cited the previous authors and articles many times throughout this article in order to compare and contrast each author’s prescribed method of assessment. Assessment tools such as the Goldman-Fristoe and the Khan-Lewis were cited for the purpose of supporting the use of those assessment tools.
Connections
Text-to-self: I agree with the use of a standardized assessment tool for assessing articulation and phonological skills. Currently I see a 5-year old that is very unintelligible. I have not evaluated this child but if I were going to I would conduct a standardized assessment so that I would be knowledgable in the words the child is attempting to say. If the referent/context is unknown, how would the clinician be able to compare the child’s utterance to the target utterance?
Text-to-text: This article is similar to several of the previous articles presented in this article. All but the article by Hoffman and Norris suggested the use of standardized tests and included similar assessment tasks. However, this article differed in that it discussed assessment within the schools.
Text-to-world: The claims and suggestions made in this text connects with the real world because time is definitely an issue in the “real world.” In an ideal situation time is unlimited but this is not practical. Most speech therapists are lucky to have even 60 to 90 minutes for an evaluation. This article provided suggestions on how to make all the important things fit into a 60 to 90 minute assessment and still have thorough results. This time constraints are even more evident within the school setting.
Evaluating communicative abilities of a highly unintelligible preschooler
Hodson, B. W., Scherz, J. A., & Strattman, K. H. (2002). Evaluating communicative abilities of a highly unintelligible preschooler. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 236-242. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from http://journals.asha.org .
TAP
The topic of this article was the protocol that the authors would follow if they were to evaluate the 4-year old boy that has been discussed in the previous articles. The authors discuss the issues of assessment and how they described exactly how they would approach the assessment. The article is intented for students and speech langauge pathologists interested in the assessment of phonological disorders and who read all of the articles within the special forum that was presented in the American Journal of Speech-Langauge Pathology. The purpose of the article is to present how these professionals would conduct an evaluation on this specific child. The author outlines the protocol step-by-step and provides justification for each component.
Claim(s)
Hodson, Scherz, and Strattman agree with Bliele on most of the components that should be included in the assessment of a highly unintelligible preschooler. They all agree that the assessment should consist of gathering background information, assessing expressive and/or receptive language skills, assessing articulation/phonology, and including both standardized and nonstandardized testing tools. Bliele and authors of this article also agree that stimulability testing is a crucial part of phonological assessment. Some aspects that the authors included that were not addresses by Bliele or the other authors were percent intelligibility, mean length of response, and speech reate. Hodson, Scherz, and Strattman also added to the protocol the assessment of metaphonological awareness. This is an area that I do not recall being mentioned in any of the previous articles. They explain that this is an important component to include because research has shown that children with phonological problems often experience difficulty with phonological awareness.
Evidence
The authors provided evidence for all of the claims they made. They justify the use of standardized phonological testing by the facts that standardized assessment allows the clinician to know the target referent and allows for the clinician to judge progress over time. Hodson, Scherz, and Strattman provide justification for the inclusion of stimulability by referring to other authors and studies that suggest it’s significance.
Connections
Text-to-self: I agree with Hodson, Scherz, and Strattman that a standardized phonological assessment provides the clicnian with knowledge of the target word. Currently I see a 5-year old that is very unintelligible. I have not evaluated this child but if I were going to I would conduct a standardized assessment so that I would be knowledgable in the words the child is attempting to say. If the referent/context is unknown, how would the clinician be able to compare the child’s utterance to the target utterance?
Text-to-text: This article is similar to several of the previous articles presented in this article. All but the article by Hoffman and Norris suggested the use of standardized tests and included similar assessment tasks.
Text-to-world: The claims and suggestions made in this text connects with the real world because time is definitely an issue in the “real world.” In an ideal situation time is unlimited but this is not practical. Most speech therapists are lucky to have even 60 to 90 minutes for an evaluation. This article provided suggestions on how to make all the important things fit into a 60 to 90 minute assessment and still have thorough results.
Phonological assessment as an integral part of language assessment
Hoffman, P. R. & Norris, J. A. (2002). Phonological assessment as an integral part of language assessment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 230-235. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from http://journals.asha.org .
TAP
The topic of this article is the assessment of phonological skills as a part of language assessment. In this article, Hoffman and Norris describe the assessment protocol that they would follow if assessing Bobby’s phonological system. There assessment differed from the others in that they would conduct the assessment tasks in a more natural, functional manner. The protocol included a case history, parent interview, assessment of skills in solo play, scaffolded play, storybook reading with stimulability testing, an audiological evaluation, and conveying the results to the parents. The audience that the article is intended for is speech language pathologists, students within the field of communication disorders, and others reading the special forum on assessment of phonological disorders. The puprose of the article is for the authors to share their thoughts and expertise about the topic of assessment of phonological disorders in the special forum on assessment of phonology and to react to the preceding articles presented.
Claim(s)
Hoffman and Norris agree with Bleile about the issue that phonological problems are often associated with other underlying communication deficits. Because of this belief, Hoffman and Norris cliam that phonologist assessment is an integeral part of language assessment. They also claim that the child’s abilities should be assessed in a natural, functional manner so that the child’s errors observed during assessment are similar to the errors the child typically demonstrates.
Evidence
Hoffman and Norris cite the previous article in the forum by Bliele to support their claim that phonological issues are often associated with other underlying communication deficits, such as in language. They support their claim that assessment should be conducted within language contexts that occur typically in the child’s everyday life by citing the following pieces of work, Andrews & Fey, 1986; Dubois & Bernthal, 1978; Schumauch, Panagos, & Klich, 1978.
Connections
Text-to-self: The assessment protocol suggested in this article is not like the protocols I have followed at MUSHC and at my off-site clinical at Our Lady of Bellefonte Hospital Pediatric Rehabilitation. The evaluations I’ve conducted have consisted mainly of standardized tests, however in some instances informal assessment was use. In the university clinic and the outpatient clinic at OLBH naturalistic assessment was not conducted because the settings were not naturalistic. However, during home health evaluations at OLBH some of the testing was naturalistic. The naturalistic testing I have conducted did provide errors that were more typical of what the child demonstrates in his/her natural environment.
Text-to-text: The assessment protocol suggested and outlined by the author of this article is similar to the protocol discussed in the previous article by Bliele, however, few differences existed. The similarities between the articles were related to the components included in the assessment protocol. Their protocols included case history, parent interview, phonological assessment as a part of language assessment, hearing evaluation, etc. The way in which the data was collected differed. Bleile used both standardized and nonstandardized tests to gather data on the child’s abilities. Hoffman and Norris did not incorporate standardized testing in their protocol. They used naturalistic tasks instead.
Text-to-world: I can see how naturalistic testing in the child’s everyday context results in errors that are most typical of that child. When standardized testing is conducted the results only show those errors that the test was set out to find. Standardized tests do not take into account the child’s normal environment, speaking partners, communicative intent, etc. The errors found during natrualistic assessment most likely resemble the actual errors the child exhibits in their normal environment.
Miccio, A. (2002). Clinical problem s…
Miccio, A. (2002). Clinical problem solving: Assessment of phonological disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 221-229. Retrieved on February 21, 2008, from http://journals.asha.org .
TAP
The topic of this article is much like the previous articles. It addresses the time constraint that exists the assessment. Typically, ninety minutes is alloted for assessment. Like the previous authors, this author describes the assessment protocol that she would use if she were to evaluate Bobby’s speech and language skills. The protocol described in this article is different than the ones in the previous articles because the evaluation was based on a set of problems that the assessment would solve. The protocol included a background questionnaire and interview to gather background information, audiological screening and oral mechanism examination, standardized assessment of receptive language, either standardized assessment of expressive langauge or language sample, standardized assessment of articulation/phonology, a consonant inventory, stimulability testing, and informal assessment of voice and fluency, hearing screening. The audience that the article is intended for is speech language pathologists, students within the field of communication disorders, and others reading the special forum on assessment of phonological disorders. The puprose of the article is for the authors to share their thoughts and expertise about the topic of assessment of phonological disorders in the special forum on assessment of phonology.
Claim(s)
Unlike Bleile, Miccio believes that an assessment should be planned around the suspected problem. In Bobby’s case, the assessment should be based on the suspected phonological disorder. Miccio explained that if during phonological assessment other issues such as other speech, language, or developmental problems arise then the assessment plan should be modified at that time. The author also claims that the assessment consists of solving a series of problems that exist within the child’s communication development. The author discussed six problems. These problems ranged from the the absence of prerequisite behaviors for spoken language to the nature and severity of the problem.
Evidence
The author provided references to justifiy the inclusion of the different components of her suggested assessment, such as hearing screening and the oral mechanism examination. The author also referenced the assessment tools and strategies that she suggested for use during assessment. The references included reasons why those assessment tools were suggested over others, such as the ones suggested in the previous articles. In regards to the sounds should be targeted during treatment, Miccio provided references that suggested that stimulable sounds do not need direct treatment because the studies she referenced indicated that the stimulable sounds will develop with time, experiences, and opportunities for use of the sounds in different contexts.
Connections
Text-to-self: The assessment protocol suggested in this article is not like the protocols I have followed at MUSHC and at my off-site clinical at Our Lady of Bellefonte Hospital Pediatric Rehabilitation. The evaluations I’ve conducted have been multidiminsional, consisting of both standardized and nonstandardized testing, and all aspects of communication were assessed; not just the area of communication that was questioned or in deficit.
Text-to-text: The assessment protocol suggested and outlined by the author of this article is similar to the protocol discussed in the previous article by Bliele, however, few differences existed. The similarities between the articles were related to the components included in the assessment protocol. Both articles suggested including background information, assessment of articulation/phonology, assessment of language, collection of a speech/language sample, stimulability testing, assessment of voice and fluency, heearing screening, and a review of results and recommendations with the parents. All of these aspects are important and were included in each article, however, the way that each component was assessed differed slightly between the authors. The author of this particular article suggested approaching the assessment based on the suspected deficit area. Other protocols suggested in the previous articles and textbooks I’m familiar with suggets a holistic approach.
Text-to-world: The claims and suggestions made in this text connects with the real world because time is definitely an issue in the “real world.” In an ideal situation time is unlimited but this is not practical. Most speech therapists are lucky to have even 60 to 90 minutes for an evaluation. This article provided suggestions on how to make all the important things fit into a 60 to 90 minute assessment and still have thorough results.
Tyler, A. & Tolber, L. (2002). Speech-language assessment in the clinical setting.
Tyler, A. & Tolbert, L. (2002). Speech-language assessment in the clinical setting. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 215-220. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from http://journals.asha.org .
TAP
The topic of this article is the time constraint that exists during assessment. Typically, ninety minutes is alloted for assessment. The authors describe an assessment protocol that they would use if they were to evaluate Bobby’s speech and language skills. The protocol described included a parent questionnaire and interview to gather background information, standardized assessment of articulation and phonology, stimulability testing, standardized assessment of receptive language, nonstandardized assessment of expressive language via a language sample, informal assessment of voice and fluency, hearing screening, and a recommendation session with the child’s parents. The audience that the article is intended for is speech language pathologists, students within the field of communication disorders, and others reading the special forum on assessment of phonological disorders. The puprose of the article is for the authors to share their thoughts and expertise about the topic of assessment of phonological disorders in the special forum on assessment of phonology.
Claim(s)
The initial claim that the authors made is that the assessment should be multidiminsional, including both standardized and nonstandardized assessments. The authors claim that a multidiminsional approach will enable the clinician to obtian information regarding all of the factors that may be contributing to the child’s communication deficits. The second claim made by the authors regarded the purpose of the assessment; which is to compare the Bobby’s speech with that expected of peers of the same age, identify the presence or absence of a disorder, and to determine if any other communication deficits exist. The third claim made by the authors was that a 50-utterance sample, as suggested by Bleile, does not provide a variety of contexts in which to analyze the child’s speech and errors. Tyler and Tolbert suggest atleast a 100-utterance sample.
Evidence:
The authors provided references from many studies to justify assessing language along with phonology and articulation. The studies referenced showed that language is an important component of assessment because 40% to 60% of children with phonological problems have co-occuring language problems. The authors also reference the assessment tools that they suggested for use during assessment. The references included reasons why those assessment tools were suggested over others, such as the ones suggested in the article by Bleile.
Connections
Text-to-self: The assessment protocol suggested in this article is very similar to the protocols I have followed at MUSHC and at my off-site clinical at Our Lady of Bellefonte Hospital Pediatric Rehabilitation. The evaluations I’ve conducted have been multidiminsional, consisting of both standardized and nonstandardized testing, and all aspects of communication were assessed.
Text-to-text: The assessment protocol suggested and outlined by the author of this article is similar to the protocol discussed in the previous article by Bliele, however, few differences existed. The similarities between the articles were related to the components included in the assessment protocol. Both articles suggested including background information, assessment of articulation/phonology, assessment of language, collection of a speech/language sample, stimulability testing, assessment of voice and fluency, heearing screening, and a review of results and recommendations with the parents. All of these aspects are important and were included in each article, however, the way that each component was assessed differed slightly between the authors.
Text-to-world: The claims and suggestions made in this text connects with the real world because time is definitely an issue in the “real world.” In an ideal situation time is unlimited but this is not practical. Most speech therapists are lucky to have even 60 to 90 minutes for an evaluation. This article provided suggestions on how to make all the important things fit into a 60 to 90 minute assessment and still have thorough results.
Bleile, K. (2002). Evaluating articul…
Bleile, K. (2002). Evaluating articulation and phonological disorders when the clock is running. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 243-249.
TAP
The topic of this article is the assessment of a 4-year old boy who was referred because of concerns with his artciulation and phonology. The author discusses the issues of assessment and how he described exactly how he would approach the assessment. The article is intented for students and speech langauge pathologists interested in the assessment of phonological disorders and who read all of the articles within the special forum that was presented in the American Journal of Speech-Langauge Pathology. The purpose of the article is to present how this particular author would conduct an evaluation. The author outlines his step-by-step protocol and provides justification for each step.
Claim(s)
The author claims that 60 to 90 minutes is not enough time to complete a thorough evaluation in order to understand the nature of an articulation or phonological disorder. The author believes that a thorough evaluation should consist of gathering background information (communication history, birth/medical history, social history, and educational history), assessing speech and language, assessing articulation and phonology, identifying the most prominent speech errors, and probing to find the child’s better abilities, screening the child’s hearing, and conveying the results to the parents. Again, the author cliams that 60-90 minutes is not enough time for an assessment. Along with the author’s protocol for assessment, he provided an suggestions regarding what is most important to examine/probe within each of the components he included in his assessment. An important suggestion that the author makes is that further assessment may be conducted concurrently with therapy once therapy is initiated.
Evidence
The author provided references to other texts, assesment manuals, and journals to support the inclusion of the compenents in his suggested assessement protocol. He provided research/evidence in regards to the type of information to gather in the parent interview, the standardized tests he recommended for use, the specific sound errors to focus on, and probing for better abilities.
Connections
Text-to-self: The assessment protocol that the author outlined was dead on with the previous evaluations that I have conducted at the MUSHC and at my prior off-site practicum, Our Lady of Bellefonte Hospital Pediatric Rehabilitation. The evaluations I conducted at these two places lasted between one to two hours consisted of the exact components as the author suggested. However, the evaluations I have conducted in the school setting did not following this particular protocol. Although all aspects of communciation were looked at, typically the area that was of concern (reason for referral) was thoroughly addressed but the other areas were only informally assessed. I think this had to do with tighter time constraints than what the author suggested.Text-to-text: The assessment protocol suggested and outlined by the author of this article is similar to the protocol discussed in the Rhea Paul textbook about language disorders. Rhea Paul suggested a thorough assessment that consists of all aspects of communication. The article is also related to the previous articles published in this form on phonology.Text-to-world: The claims and suggestions made in this text connects with the real world because time is definitely an issue in the “real world.” In an ideal situation time is unlimited but this is not practical. Most speech therapists are lucky to have even 60 to 90 minutes for an evaluation. This article provided suggestions on how to make all the important things fit into a 60 to 90 minute assessment and still have thorough results.
Tyler, A., Tolbert, L., Miccio, A.,
Tyler, A., Tolbert, L., Miccio, A., Hoffman, P., Norris, J., Hodson, B., et al, (2002). Five views of the elephant: Perspectives on the assessment of articulation and phonology in preschoolers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 213-214.
TAP
The authors discusses assessment of communication disorders and the discripency that exists between the efficiency and the thoroughness of assessments in this article. The The authors also provide a preview of the forum that follows the article. The audience that the article is intented for is professionals within the field of communication disorders, specifically speech langauge pathologists. The purpose of this article is to make an attempt to close the gap between the efficiency and thoroughness of communication assessment.
Claim(s)
The initial clalim that the author presented was that all assessments should be completed thoroughly and efficiently. A thorough assessment provides the clinician with a reasonable basis for making clincial judgements. The efficiancy of an assessment depends on the amount of time it takes to administer, the cost of administration, etc. The selection of assessment tools/protocols should include taking the following information into conisideration; clients time and financial status, as well as the time demands placed on the speech-language pathology. The author also claimed that many speech-language pathologists are lacking in the area of consistently providing efficient and thorough assessments due to maxed-out caseloads and the lack of time for preparation and administration.
Evidence
No specific evidence or support for the claims were given in this article. It was mentioned in the article that “best practice,” in regards to assessment and treatment is required in order to provide efficient and thorough assessments and interventions. This claim is supported by the fact that insurance agencies reveiw speech therapy documents looking for “key words” and efficient and thorough practices in order to approve or deny reimbursement of services.
Connections
Text-to-self: The claim that thorough and efficient assessments provide a good basis for which a speech-language pathologist can make appropraite clinical decisions and treatment goals relates to me in that I question the efficiency and thoroughness of previous child evaluations I have completed. I am confident that the evaluations I have conducted at the Marshall University Speech and Hearing Center (MUSHC) have been efficient and thorough. The evaluations at MUSHC seem to be conducted in a more “ideal” environment in which time is not usually an issue. At my previous off-site practicum, time was lacking. High productivity was encouraged and did not allow for enough time to plan and carry-out a thorough assessment. Just by reading this short prelude I am more aware of the effort and time that needs to be spent on planning and administering assessments.
Text-to-text: Many textbooks and journal articles that I have read have addressed or even commented on the importance of efficiency, thoroughness, effectively, and efficacy of speech/language evaluations and/or treatments. I look forward to reading the suggestions made in the forum about how to conduct thorough and efficient assessments.
Text-to-world: This article is relevant to the real world because many times clinicians are stuck in a rut and are pushed with time. This caused them to be unable to provide assessments that are efficient or even more so, thorough. The article re-emphasizes that the clinicians need to take out more time in order to provide thorough evlaution or adapt new ways of assessment [these adaptations/strategies/ideas will be discussed later in the forum].
Williams, A. (2002). Prologue: Perspe…
Williams, A. (2002). Prologue: Perspectives in the assessment of children’s speech. American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 211-212.
TAP
This article provides a brief overview of the assessment of phonological disorders and the theories relevant to speech language pathologists. Five theories are discussed. The theories include the theory of Natural Phonology, the whole-language perspective, the phonomotor perspective, and a theory that integrates a rule-based system and speech production. The audience that the article is intented for is professionals within the field of communication disorders, specifically speech langauge pathologists. The purpse of the article is to introduce issues within the area of phonological assessment and to provide an overview of a forum about phonology that follows.
Claim(s)
The initial claim that the author of this article makes is that the assessment of phonological disorders, or speech disorders, has become a routine procedure. It seems that most professionals conduct the same assessment procedures on all clients and do not think of or provide strong rationales for the use of those procedures. The author claims that it is best to conduct an assessment based on a specific theory. When assessment procedures are backed up by theory and the selection of treatment targets are based on the phonological assessment, the treatment outcomes are maximized. The final claim the author makes is that professionals will begin to question some of the procedures they use in phonological assessment after participating in the proceding forum. This is important so that professionals will rethink the assessment procedures and the means of treatment target selection they use.
Evidence
This article provides minimal evidence since it’s purpose is only to provide an overview of the proceding forum. The claim that the assessment has become a routine procedure and the claim that professionals will soon begin to question some of their procedures seem to be more opinion than evidence. The author cites several pieces of published work to support the claim that treatment outcomes are maximized when the targets are based on phonological assessment based on theoretical rationales. The citations that support this claim include Dinnsen & Connor, 2001; Gierut, Morrisette, Hughes, & Rowland, 1996; Miccio, Elbert, & Forrest, 1999; Rvachew & Nowak, 2001; and Williams, 2000.
Connections
Text-to-self: The claim that professionals will begin to question some of their assessment procedures is relevant to myself. I have conducted one phonological assessment in my academic/professional career thus far and after reading this article, I am questioning the procedure(s) I used during that assessment. The planning for that particular assessment consisted of going to the clinic office and finding a standardized test for phonological disorders. I ended up choosing the Kahn Lewis Phonological Analysis which is a supplement to the Goldman-Fristoe (an articulation test). The selection of the Kahn Lewis was not backed up by any rationale or theory.
Text-to-text: The author of this article makes an important claim that treatment outcomes are maximized when the assessment procedures and treatment goals are based on theory and evidence. This is not true only for phonological disorders. This claim has been made within all areas of the field of speech language pathology; motor speech disorders, dysphagia, language, aphasia, articulation, phonology, neurological disorders, etc. An example is that in both dysphagia and motor speech disorders the use of oral motor exercises is controversial. One theory that comes to mind related to this issue is that oral motor exercises are only effective when they are used within the context that the expected behavior should occur in. In regards to dysphagia, oral motor exercises should be done while eating/swallowing so that the exercises are as close to the target behavior as possible.
Text-to-world: This claims/points discussed in this article relates to the “real world” because many times clinicians do get stuck in a rut and fail to individualize assessment and treatment. The article re-emphasizes that clinicians need to take the time to individualize both assessment and treatment and also conduct research to aid in sound clinical decisions.
