Implementing Speech Perception and Phonological Awareness Intervention for Children With Speech Sound Disorders

Five Additional Evidence-Based Principles to Facilitate Grammar Development for Children With Developmental Language Disorder

PURPOSE

Because the development of grammatical forms is difficult for many children with developmental language disorder (DLD), language interventions often focus on supporting children's use of grammatical language. This article proposes five additional principles to those suggested by Fey et al. (2003) to facilitate the development of grammatical forms by children with DLD. Three of the five additional principles address the selection and presentation of linguistic contexts to be used with target grammatical forms (Principles 11-13); two principles encourage the incorporation of additional intervention components: auditory bombardment and explicit instruction (Principles 14 and 15, respectively).

METHOD

We present empirical evidence and, when available, describe the theoretical motivations to support each of the five additional principles. We then describe how we have integrated the five principles into 20- to 30-min intervention sessions that target regular past tense -ed, third-person singular -s, present progressive is/are verb+ing, or do/does questions for 4- to 8-year-olds with DLD. Each session includes four activities: sentence imitation, story retell, structured play, and auditory bombardment. We provide details of each activity, relevant materials, and illustrative examples that highlight the incorporation of each of the principles.

RESULTS

When targeting the development of grammatical forms in intervention, current evidence supports the use of a high degree of linguistic variability (Principle 11), the presentation of target forms in contexts that vary in difficulty (Principle 12), the presentation of target forms in sentences that vary in syntactic structure (Principle 13), the use of auditory bombardment (Principle 14), and the incorporation of explicit instruction (Principle 15). Clinicians can use these principles when targeting a range of grammatical forms in relatively short intervention sessions comprising a variety of activities.

CONCLUSIONS

This article encourages the employment of five additional principles into grammatical language intervention. Descriptions, materials, and examples demonstrate how the principles can all be addressed within a single intervention session.

Comparing online versus laboratory measures of speech perception in older children and adolescents

Given the increasing prevalence of online data collection, it is important to know how behavioral data obtained online compare to samples collected in the laboratory. This study compares online and in-person measurement of speech perception in older children and adolescents. Speech perception is important for assessment and treatment planning in speech-language pathology; we focus on the American English /ɹ/ sound because of its frequency as a clinical target. Two speech perception tasks were adapted for web presentation using Gorilla: identification of items along a synthetic continuum from rake to wake, and category goodness judgment of English /ɹ/ sounds in words produced by various talkers with and without speech sound disorder. Fifty typical children aged 9-15 completed these tasks online using a standard headset. These data were compared to a previous sample of 98 typical children aged 9-15 who completed the same tasks in the lab setting. For the identification task, participants exhibited smaller boundary widths (suggestive of more acute perception) in the in-person setting relative to the online setting. For the category goodness judgment task, there was no statistically significant effect of modality. The correlation between scores on the two tasks was significant in the online setting but not in the in-person setting, but the difference in correlation strength was not statistically significant. Overall, our findings agree with previous research in suggesting that online and in-person data collection do not yield identical results, but the two contexts tend to support the same broad conclusions. In addition, these results suggest that online data collection can make it easier for researchers connect with a more representative sample of participants.

Introduction: Innovations in Treatment for Children With Speech Sound Disorders

PURPOSE

There is a clear need for effective and efficient interventions for children with speech sound disorder (SSD) that can be implemented in both clinical and school-based settings.

METHOD

This forum was created for any clinician who treats SSDs. We asked the invited authors to include immediately actionable information, such as therapy activities, tips for goal writing or progress monitoring, assessment processes, and frameworks for conversations with parents.

RESULTS

We have curated nine scientifically based articles that highlight the heterogeneity of SSDs and how various subpopulations require uniquely tailored interventions. Some children with SSDs require treatment approaches that are more heavily embedded in phonological theories (e.g., maximal or multiple oppositions) or that extend beyond speech production and include speech perception and phonological awareness skills. Clinicians also need to be mindful of not only which sounds are affected, but which kinds of errors a child is making. For instance, lateral lisps and residual speech sound errors should be evaluated and treated differently from other kinds of speech sound errors. There are certainly subpopulations of children with SSDs for whom there is extremely limited data upon which speech-language pathologists can base clinical decisions, such as children under the age of 3 years or children who are multilingual. Finally, there is a crucial need to better understand the social-emotional impacts of SSDs. Tools to aid in including social-emotional data within assessment and intervention outcomes are also included in this forum.

CONCLUSION

The traditional articulation approach is the most commonly used approach in school-based settings; however, there are many children for whom this approach is not appropriate. We hope to provide a robust resource for busy school-based speech-language pathologists who treat children with SSD-specifically, we hope clinicians embrace the opportunity to "think outside the box" of traditional articulation therapy.