Well, I can obviously only speak from one student's perspective from one University in one particular country.....but will attempt to do so!
I might also add that our University did not provide much in the way of theoretical knowledge of the same, most of what was learnt in this area was by way of completing our clinical practicums and even then, it would depend on how strong a student was as to how much they endeavoured to learn.
The basics we were given were that artic was motoric and that phonology was cog/linguistic (although I have to say that even still some students struggle with that concept and even some practising speechies in this area....) and that in some settings (and I did my first paeds prac in a community health setting) this was assessed using a number of tools. For articulation - we could use tools such as the GFTA, or the Articulation Survey (Atkins & Fisher). The DEAP was also a handy tool to use because it encompassed both artic and phonology, and you could also utilise the SPAT-R. There are obviously numerous others out there, but those are the main tools used in the setting where I initially learnt. That was all the second year students were expected to use....however, given I have a keen interest in this area, I studied above and beyond what was expected and by my final year, I was doing speech sound assessment sessions that would last for an hour or more (much to my clinical educator's frustration at times). I may have chosen to initially use some of the abovementioned tools, but I would also gain an informal speech sample (which I would endeavour to record and analyse later, often using a computerised profiling package), and gain an independent and relational analysis.
My independent analysis would include:
- consonant inventory
- vowel inventory
- syllable shapes
- stress patterns
From this, I could gain a better understanding about what was completely absent from a child's sample.
My relational would include:
- PCC
- PVC
- Phonological processes used and their frequency of occurrence
All of this information would enable me to gain a practical insight into whether what was going on was articulation, phonological, or BOTH!
So, that is from a new-grad's perspective and I hope this was useful information to you. As I said, I do know some of my other fellow graduates do not use some of this information, or could probably not tell you what the diff was between the independent and relational analysis, which is a shame.....
As I said though, I love the area.
When you did the study on PCC, was it measured in SW or CS? Do you know of anyone who has correlated the two (SW vs CS)?
Am only asking because it came up the other day. One private practitioner told me that I was lucky to have the time to be able to do such in depth analyses (as I work in a not for profit gov. org.). She told me that she rarely has that time, and that she would still mostly assess these things at a single word level.....so I was wondering, if one needed to assign severity ratings for a SSD using PCC parameters in CS, are there any studies out there that states the same parameters can also be used at a SW level? And that was where my original post was going to lead. I would very much like to do some research in a related area to this so am just tossing ideas around in my head right now!
I graduated a year ago with Hons Class I and got offered a scholarship for PhD at the time. I decided to knock it back at the time and get some hands on experience, but am considering taking it up in the future......I love research and miss the chance to do some!
I would love and value any advice/feedback you have towards this goal??!!!
Kind regards
RACHAEL UNICOMB
---- Peter Flipsen Jr <flippete@isu.edu> wrote:
=============
Rachel,
The document I was referring to is:
"Guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of the school-based speech-language pathologist."
But I have only a paper copy of the 1999 version. This has been replaced by a 2010 version that is very different. In the 1999 version there was an Appendix G that showed the severity scale. But this is not part of the 2010 document and despite searching extensively it appears that they have deleted the old version. So I can't point you to a link. Sorry.
I'm not surprised that they have deleted the scale. As I mentioned there is no gold standard for assigning severity and the scale in the 1999 document was only "suggested" and only reflected the opinion of the expert panel.
- Peter Flipsen Jr
-----Original Message-----
From: Rachael Unicomb [mailto:rachev2003@bigpond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:44 PM
To: Peter Flipsen Jr
Subject: Re: [phono-tx] RATING OF PHONOLOGICAL DISORDERS
Great Peter, I look forward to reading the ASHA severity guidelines if you can dig them out.
Excuse any of my incorrect terminology, I am a recent graduate and very much still learning.
Having read Caroline's latest text, I am aware that there is a lean towards using the term "speech sound disorder" to encompass both artic and phono. I guess I have been taught to distinguish artic from phono in that articulation is more on a motoric level and phono is more a cognitive/linguistic area.
Rachael
Please do not forward, or publish, or distribute in ANY way,
posts to this electronic mailing list without the author's permission in writing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment