1 / 17

Possible Factors Influencing /R/ Production Ability In Children

Possible Factors Influencing /R/ Production Ability In Children. By: Jill Vogt Eastern Illinois University Faculty Chairs: Rebecca Throneburg , PhD., CCC-SLP and Beth Bergstrom, M.S., CCC-SLP. Research Related to /r/ Production Skills. Auditory Discrimination/Image for /r/

trung
Download Presentation

Possible Factors Influencing /R/ Production Ability In Children

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Possible Factors Influencing /R/ Production Ability In Children By: Jill Vogt Eastern Illinois University Faculty Chairs: Rebecca Throneburg, PhD., CCC-SLP and Beth Bergstrom, M.S., CCC-SLP

  2. Research Related to /r/ Production Skills • Auditory Discrimination/Image for /r/ • Poor auditory discrimination skills between /r/, /w/, and /l/ (Aungst & Frick, 1964). • Poor auditory image for how a correct /r/ should sound (Aungst & Frick, 1964; Shuster, 1998; Hoffman, Stager, & Daniloff, 1983). • Sub-Types of Errors • Possible subtypes based on the nature of speech sound errors – Shriberg Type 1 or Type 2 (Shriberg, 1980). • Clinical implications from Marshalla (2007) suggested some children misarticulate /r/ due to incorrect articulator placement of the tongue, lips, and/or jaw. • Foundational motor skills require stabilization/isolation.

  3. Most Related Study • McNutt (1977) investigated oral-sensory motor skills of children who misarticulate /r/ compared to children with normal articulation. • The investigator reported that children who misarticulated /r/ had: • fewer syllables produced per second on syllable repetition tasks revealing deficient oral alternate motion rates • sensory discrimination deficits that resulted in sensory motor difficulties • McNutt suggested that /r/ articulation disorders may not simply be a functional articulation disorder.

  4. Purpose of Current Study • 1) Is there a difference in oral-motor skills and discrimination skills between children with typical articulation, children with /r/ errors who are stimulable for correct /r/, and children with /r/ errors who are not stimulable for /r/? 2) Is a difference in the number and type of other speech errors between children who are and are not stimulable for /r/ production?

  5. Participants (Mean and Range of Scores)

  6. Dependent Variables (Shriberg’s 1980 speech tasks) • Speech Sound Discrimination and Awareness for /r/ • An informal discrimination task was administered to evaluate the participants ability to discriminate • /r/ presence in words • Word placement of /r/ (I,M,F) • Correctness of /r/ from recordings of investigator • Shriberg’s (1980) liquids, glides, vowel assessment • (Type 1/Type 2 Errors)- Number and type of additional speech sound errors

  7. Dependent Variables • Structure and Function of the Oral Mechanism • The Marshalla Oral Sensorimotor Test (MOST) was administered, along with informal supplementary tasks developed by the current investigator. • Tongue Tasks • Jaw Tasks • Lip Tasks • Oscillation Tasks

  8. Dependent Variables • A protocol for obtaining Maximum Performance Tasks developed by Thoonen et al. (1999) was administered to evaluate maximum duration tasks and rate of syllable repetition tasks. • Maximum Duration (ah, mama) • Maximum Fricative Duration (f,s,z) • Monosyllable Repetition Rate (papapapa, tatatata, kakaka) • Trisyllable Repetition Rate and Accuracy (pataka- at least 5 with accurate place) Accurate /pataka/ Inaccurate /pataka/

  9. Discrimination Results

  10. Number/Type of Additional Speech Errors Produced by Children with /r/ Errors • Children in the Stimulable Group produced 0-3 (M= 1.00) additional phonemes in error on the GFTA • Children in the Nonstimulable Group produced 0-7 (M= 1.67) additional phonemes in error on the GFTA

  11. Oral Motor Skills on the MOST and Supplemental Tasks

  12. Thoonen Tasks

  13. Percentage of Children with Indications of Possible Oral-Motor Difficulty(on MOST or Thoonan Tasks)

  14. Discussion • The data supports previous research. • Shriberg (1980) & Marshalla (2007) suggested some children with /r/ errors used exaggerated jaw movements and had trouble holding the jaw stable. • McNutt (1977) & Marshalla (2007) suggested that children with /r/ articulation difficulties were different based on their oral-motor skills. • (Slower syllable repetition rate) • Shriberg (1980) suggested children are either Type 1 or Type 2 based on type of speech sound errors.

  15. Clinical Implications • The data suggest • Some children with /r/ errors have subtle oral-motor deficits (planning/accuracy ptk, stabilization, tongue movements) • There may be subgroups of children with /r/ errors who have different patterns of strengths and weaknesses. • The main suggestion is that a thorough assessment should be administered to a child with /r/ difficulties. • The assessor should be aware of those foundational skills (stabilization, isolation, and disassociation). • The assessor should look for patterns of strengths and weaknesses for each individual /r/ client. • Also, make sure the assessor is aware of the child’s oral-motor skills. • For example does the child have difficulties with discrimination of /r/, planning control for articulators, tongue and jaw disassociation. • Further research on the impact of oral-motor skills on children’s abilities to produce a correct /r/ is needed.

  16. References • Aungst, L. F. & Frick, J. V. (1964). Auditory discrimination ability and consistency of articulation of /r/. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,29, 76-84. • Dunn., L, & Dunn., D. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson, Inc. • Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M. (2000). Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation, Second Edition (GFTA-2). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, Inc. • Hoffman, P. R., Stager, S., & Daniloff, R. G. (1983). Perception and production of misarticulated /r/. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,48, 210-215. • Marshalla, P. (2004). Oral-motor techniques in articulation & phonological therapy. Kirkland, WA: Marshalla Speech and Language. • Marshalla, P. (2007). Successful /r/ therapy. Kirkland, WA: Marshalla Speech and Language. • Marshalla, P. (2007). Marshalla Oral Sensorimotor Test. Greenville, SC: Super Duper Publications.

  17. References • McNutt, J. C. (1977). Oral sensory of motor behaviors of children with /s/ or /r/ misarticulations. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,20, 694-703. • Ristuccia, C. (2006). The Entire World of R Advanced Screening. Tybee Island, GA: Say It Right. • Secord, W., & Shine, R. (1997). Secord Contextual Articulation Test (S-CAT) Storytelling Probes of Articulation Competence. Sedona, AZ: Red Rock Educational Publications. • Shriberg, L. D. (1980). An intervention procedure for children with persistent /r/ errors. Language Speech Hearing Services in Schools,11, 102-110. • Shuster, L. I. (1998). The perception of correctly and incorrectly produced /r/. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,41, 941-950. • Thoonen, G., Maassen, B., Gabreels, F., Schreuder, R. (1999). Validity of maximum performance tasks to diagnose motor speech disorders in children. Journal of Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 13, 1-23.

More Related