ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessAmerican Journal of Speech-Language PathologyResearch Article1 Feb 1999

Stimulability, Speech Perception Skills, and the Treatment of Phonological Disorders

    https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0801.33

    The relationship between stimulability, speech perception ability, and phonological learning was examined in two descriptive studies. In Study 1, the children received 9 group treatment sessions targeting 3 phonological processes using the cycles approach. Treatment progress was not observed for sounds that were unstimulable before treatment. Given stimulability, treatment progress was greater for sounds that were well perceived before treatment in contrast with sounds that were poorly perceived before treatment. In Study 2, the cycles approach was modified so that each child received 3 brief, individual treatment sessions followed by 6 group treatment sessions. Each individual session targeted stimulability of target sounds, using phonetic placement, and perception of target sounds, using the Speech Assessment and Interactive Learning System (SAILS). In Study 2, good progress was observed for most target phonemes, including those that were unstimulable or poorly perceived before treatment.

    References

    • Broen, P., Strange, W., Doyle, S., & Heller, J. H. (1983). Perception and production of approximant consonants by normal and articulation delayed preschool children.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 26, 601–608.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Carter, E. T., & Buck, M. (1958). Prognostic testing for functional articulation disorders among children in the first grade.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 23, 124–133.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Chaney, C. (1988). Identification of correct and misarticulated semivowels.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 252–261.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Cohen, J. H., & Diehl, C. F. (1963). Relation of speech-sound discrimination ability to articulation-type speech defects.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 28, 187–190.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Dickson, S. (1962). Differences between children who spontaneously outgrow and children who retain functional articulation errors.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 5, 263–271.
      Google Scholar
    • Diedrich, W., & Bangert, J. (1980). Articulation learning. Houston, TX: College-Hill.
      Google Scholar
    • Farquhar, M. S. (1961). Prognostic value of imitative and auditory discrimination tests.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 26, 342–347.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M. (1986). Test of Articulation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
      Google Scholar
    • Hodson, B. W. (1989). Phonological remediation: A cycles approach.In N. A. Creaghead, P. W. Newman, & W. A. SecordAssessment and remediation of articulatory and phonological disorders (2nd ed., pp. 323–334). New York: Macmillan.
      Google Scholar
    • Hodson, B. W., & Paden, E. P. (1983). Targeting intelligible speech: A phonological approach to remediation. Boston: College-Hill.
      Google Scholar
    • Hoffman, P. R., Daniloff, R. G., Bengoa, D., & Shuckers, G. H. (1985). Misarticulating and normally articulating children’s identification and discrimination of synthetic [r] and [w].Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 50, 46–53.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Hoffman, P. R., Stager, S., & Daniloff, R. G. (1983). Perception and production of misarticulated /r/.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 48, 210–215.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Irwin, R. B., West, J. F., & Trombetta, M. A. (1966). Effectiveness of speech therapy for second grade children with misarticulations: Predictive factors.Exceptional Children, 251, 471–479.
      Google Scholar
    • Jamieson, D. G., & Rvachew, S. (1992). Remediation of speech production errors with sound identification training.Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 16, 201–210.
      Google Scholar
    • Kwiatkowski, J., & Shriberg, L. D. (1993). Speech normalization in developmental phonological disorders: A retrospective study of capability-focus theory.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 24, 10–18.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Locke, J. L. (1980). The inference of speech perception in the phonologically disordered child. Part I: A rationale, some criteria, the conventional tests.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 45, 431–444.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Lof, G. L. (1996). Factors associated with speech-sound stimulability.Journal of Communication Disorders, 29, 255–278.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • McKercher, M., McFarlane, L., & Schneider, P. (1995). Phonological treatment dismissal: Optimal criteria.Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 115–123.
      Google Scholar
    • Miccio, A. W., & Elbert, M. (1996). Enhancing stimulability: A treatment program.Journal of Communication Disorders, 29, 335–351.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Olswang, L., & Bain, B. (1985). Monitoring phoneme acquisition for making treatment withdrawal decisions.Applied Psycholinguistics, 6, 17–37.
      Google Scholar
    • Powell, T. W. (1996). Stimulability considerations in the treatment of a child with a persistent disorder of speech sound production.Journal of Communication Disorders, 29, 315–333.
      Google Scholar
    • Powell, T. W., Elbert, M., & Dinnsen, D. D. (1991). Stimulability as a factor in the phonological generalization of misarticulating preschool children.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1318–1328.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Powell, T. W., & Miccio, A. W. (1996). Stimulability: A useful clinical tool.Journal of Communication Disorders, 29, 237–253.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Rvachew, S. (1994). Speech perception training can facilitate sound production learning.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 347–357.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Rvachew, S., & Jamieson, D. G. (1989). Perception of voiceless fricatives by children with a functional articulation disorder.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 193–208.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Rvachew, S., & Jamieson, D. G. (1995). Learning new speech contrasts: Evidence from adults learning a second language and children with speech disorders.In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues in cross-language speech research (pp. 411–432). Timonium, MD: York Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Shriberg, L. D., Gruber, F. A., & Kwiatkowski, J. (1994). Developmental phonological disorders III: Long-term speech sound normalization.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 1151–1177.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Speech Assessment and Interactive Learning System [Computer software]. (. (1995). London, Ontario, Canada: AVAAZ Innovations.
      Google Scholar
    • Tyler, A. A., Edwards, M. L., & Saxman, J. H. (1990). Acoustic validation of phonological knowledge and its relationship to treatment.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 251–261.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Van Riper, C. (1963). Speech correction: Principles and methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
      Google Scholar
    • Wepman, J. M. (1958). Auditory Discrimination Test. Chicago: Language Research Associates.
      Google Scholar

    Additional Resources