1 / 95

Unintelligible Young Children: Assessment and Treatment

Unintelligible Young Children: Assessment and Treatment. Peter Flipsen Jr., PhD, CCC-SLP, S-LP(C) Idaho State University http://www.isu.edu/~flippete/default.html http://www.SLPinfo.org. Part A. Assessment. Intelligibility.

kasen
Download Presentation

Unintelligible Young Children: Assessment and Treatment

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. Unintelligible Young Children: Assessment and Treatment Peter Flipsen Jr., PhD, CCC-SLP, S-LP(C) Idaho State University http://www.isu.edu/~flippete/default.html http://www.SLPinfo.org Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  2. Part A. Assessment Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  3. Intelligibility • How well a normal hearing listener is able to recover the intended message from a speaker. • How understandable are they? • Not the same as “severity” though clearly related. • Severity usually relates to particular disorders. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  4. Becoming intelligible? • Making yourself understood = the ultimate goal of communication. • We’re not born with the ability to do this. • It takes time to develop. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  5. Becoming intelligible? • Normal hearing, typically-developing children develop this ability fairly quickly. • From Flipsen (2006) and Coplan & Gleason (1988): • Age (years) % Understood * • 1 25 • 2 50 • 3 75 • 4 100 ** • * in conversational interaction with unfamiliar listeners. • ** still some speech sound errors likely. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  6. Being intelligible? • Getting a message across requires a complex interaction of: • 1. Good listening conditions, and • 2. A listener who • is paying attention, • has normal hearing, and • speaks the same language, and • 3. A speaker who effectively and efficiently integrates their knowledge of how the language works and how speech is produced. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  7. Our Focus • For our purposes we will assume: • 1. The problem lies primarily with the speaker. • 2. The speaker has normal hearing. • 3. The speaker has no other obvious or documented reason for having difficulty with speech. • No significant cognitive, structural, or neurological impairment. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  8. An intelligible speaker must: • 1. have something to say (cognitive skill). • 2. know the rules of the language (syntax, morphology, phonology) and word meanings (linguistic skill). • 3. know how to convert the message into a motor plan (praxis skill). • 4. be able to carry out the motor plan (articulatory skill). Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  9. Intelligibility and Speech Sound Accuracy • Intelligibility = % words understood by normal hearing listeners. • Clearly the biggest factor involved is accuracy of speech sound production. • Not the only thing involved. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  10. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  11. The Role of Context • Intelligibility also varies a lot depending on the message. • In connected speech, if a few details are incorrect the rest of the utterance can help listeners “fill in the blanks”. • Some speakers therefore do better in conversation than they might in single words. • But context may get in the way for speakers who get many details wrong. • May be easier to understand in single words. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  12. The Role of Context • For speakers with lots of errors, we should pay most attention to intelligibility in single words. • Change should appear here first. • Won’t immediately transfer to conversation. • As they progress we will also want to monitor how they do in conversation. • WE WILL NEED TO USE MULTIPLE TOOLS. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  13. Measuring Intelligibility Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  14. General Guidelines for Measuring Intelligibility • Clinician working with the child should NOT act as the judge if at all possible. • Record all measurement events and SAVE them! • Best to use unfamiliar, untrained listeners each time. • OK to use parents, older siblings if you use them each time (social validity). Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  15. General Guidelines for Measuring Intelligibility • Record the same type of material each time. • Use the same tape recorder each time for recording. • Record in the same place each time. • Have judgments done under the same conditions each time. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  16. Specific Procedures for Measuring Intelligibility • A widely used approach = informal ratings. • After a diagnostic session, clinician makes a decision about ‘how intelligible’ the child was. • Often a % estimate. • May be a general statement. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  17. Exercise #1 Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  18. Specific Procedures • Labeled rating scales. • Many available. • Usually make judgments based on a connected speech sample (conversation or reading). • May also be done as a ‘general impression’ at the end of an assessment session. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  19. Labeled Scales • A typical 3-point scale: • 1 = readily intelligible • 2 = intelligible if topic known • 3 = unintelligible, even with careful listening • Source: Bleile (1996) Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  20. Labeled Scales • A typical 5-point scale: • 1 = completely intelligible • 2 = mostly intelligible • 3 = somewhat intelligible • 4 = mostly unintelligible • 5 = completely unintelligible • Source: Bleile (1996) Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  21. Labeled Scales • A typical 7-point scale: • 1 = intelligible • 2 = listener attention needed • 3 = occasional repetition of words needed • 4 = repetitions/rephrasing necessary • 5 = isolated words understood • 6 = occasionally understood by adult • 7 = unintelligible • Source: Shprintzen & Bardach (1995) Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  22. Concerns with Rating Scales • 1. Different listeners interpret the labels differently. • 2. Listeners don’t treat all points on the scale equally. • E.g., Amount of change needed to move between points is usually unequal. • 3. Often not sensitive enough to use for monitoring change. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  23. Specific Procedures • Several more formal procedures are available. • Involve either preset stimuli or transcription of connected speech. • May use “forced-choice” or “write-down” procedures. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  24. Specific Procedures • Yorkston-Beukelman test • Assessment of the Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech • Acronym = A.I.D.S. • Prefer to call it the Y-B test Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  25. Y-B Test • Has both single word and sentence forms • Sentence form only useful for older children and adults. • Single words = choose 1 randomly from each of 50 sets of 12 words. • Client repeats the words (or reads if older). • Listener’s task = transcription or multiple choice. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  26. Figure 10 Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  27. Exercise #2 • 26 27 28 29 • 30 31 32 33 • 34 35 36 37 • 38 39 40 41 • 42 43 44 45 • 46 47 48 49 • 50 Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  28. Children’s Speech Intelligibility Measure (CSIM) • Wilcox & Morris (1999). • Modified the single word version of the Y-B test (no sentences). • Changed some of the words that were not appropriate for young children. • Published by the Psychological Corporation. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  29. Beginners’ Intelligibility Test (BIT) • Osberger et al (1994). See handout. • Originally designed for children with hearing loss. • OK to use with young, normal hearing children. • Four sets of 10 short sentences. • Randomly choose one list each time. • Child imitates the clinician; ask listeners to transcribe. • Calculate % words understood. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  30. Shriberg’s Intelligibility Index (II) • Transcribe a conversational sample of at least 100 words. • Only need regular spelling! • Put X for each word not understood. • Report % words understood. • Probably the best overall way to look at intelligibility since conversational speech is the most socially valid context. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  31. So where’s the problem? • Remember that an intelligible speaker must: • 1. have something to say (cognitive skill). • 2. know the rules of the language (syntax, morphology, phonology) and word meanings (linguistic skill). • 3. know how to convert the message into a motor plan (praxis skill). • 4. be able to carry out the motor plan (articulatory skill). • PROVIDES US WITH A MODEL FOR IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  32. Possible sources of Reduced Intelligibility? • 1. Linguistic issues – not being able to correctly translate the intended message into a conventional language form. • Problems with semantics, syntax, morphology, or phonology. • 2. Praxis issues – not being able to translate the form into a motor program. • 3. Articulatory issues – not being able to physical produce the message. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  33. Possible sources of Reduced Intelligibility? • For our purposes here, we’ll assume we know how to identify problems with language above the phoneme level. • Problems at the phoneme level could be: • Praxis problems (i.e., CAS)to be dealt with separately later. • Phonological or articulatory – often the most difficult to separate. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  34. Artic vs. Phonology: A Quick Historical Review • Up until the mid 1970s we assumed speech sound problems were all about “articulation”. • Applied traditional artic therapy. • Then we learned about “phonology” and we realized children were learning a “sound system”. • Assessment shifted to looking for ‘patterns of errors’ (also called “processes”). • Treatment shifted to ‘contrasts’ and ‘meaning’ and ‘minimal pairs’. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  35. Current Status: Some “shaky” assumptions • 1. Perhaps we don’t need to worry about perceptual errors. No. • It’s true, these children don’t have general perceptual problems. • Perceptual problems related to specific errors are not that common but we should check! • 2. We can assume that the child with many errors must have a phonological problem. • No. Child could have a “motor learning” problem. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  36. More “shaky” assumptions. • 3. We can assume that the child with few errors must have an articulatory problem. • No. Child may not have figured out where that sound fits in the sound system. • 4. Calling an error a “phonological process” means the problem is phonological. • No. By themselves these labels tell us NOTHING about what is going on inside the child’s head. • E.g., “velar fronting” only says that velar sounds are being replaced by sounds further back in the mouth. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  37. Phonological Processes? • Phonological process terms can be useful. • They do help us look for WHAT MIGHT BE systematic patterns of errors. • They can help us focus our intervention efforts if we do eventually determine the nature of the problem. • BUT without further detailed analysis, we can’t know for certain whether the problem is articulatory or phonological. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  38. More “shaky” assumptions. • 5. We can assume that if a sound is stimulable, the problem must be phonological. • Not necessarily, though it might be. • Stimulability in isolation or nonsense syllables may only signal the beginnings of motor skill learning. • Stimulability in more than one word position makes it more likely that the problem is phonological. • Also depends on how stimulability is measured. • Should use a verbal imitation model only. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  39. How Speech is Learned • Need to be able to hear the differences among the speech sounds of the language. • Perceptual skills. • Need to be able to physically produce the sounds. • Articulatory (motor) skills. • Need to know how the sounds are used to contrast meaning in the language. • Phonological knowledge. • Happens gradually and at different rates for different sounds. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  40. Speech Sound Problems • Could be perceptual. • Could be articulatory. • Could be phonological. • And because of different rates of development: • THE PROBLEM MAY BE DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT SPEECH SOUNDS – even within the same child. • We need to evaluate each error independently. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  41. Identifying Perceptual Problems • At least two ways to do this: • 1. Same/different tasks – present a pair of words (or syllables or sounds) and ask child to judge if they are the same or different. • Child must understand the concepts of ‘same’ and ‘different’ • not always true for very young children. • Only requires the child to hold items in working memory and compare them. • Doesn’t get at ‘underlying representation’ (what is stored in long-term memory). Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  42. Identifying Perceptual Problems • 2. Judgment tasks – present child with a word (correct production or containing their usual error). Child has to decide if the word was produced correctly. • Requires use of working memory BUT also requires them to compare what they heard to their underlying representation. • Better approach. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  43. Identifying Perceptual Problems • Need several examples to control for guessing. • Need a way to ensure that the child understands the task. • Use a sound that is similar to the error sound but which the child has no difficulty with. • Locke (1980) developed his “Speech Production – Perception Task” (SP-PT). • Allows you to create a unique criterion-referenced test for each error sound. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  44. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  45. Is the error articulatory or phonological? • Relatively few errors are perceptual BUT: • Should still check (may save time later). • Some evidence that for SOME children working on perception alone may solve the problem. • The big problem is usually separating articulatory and phonological errors. • Need to ask a series of questions (none sufficient alone). • 1. Stimulability – across word positions and levels (discussed previously). Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  46. Articulatory or Phonological? • 2. Is the sound ever correct? • If correct in particular words: • May just be an over-learned word (doesn’t tell us much). • If correct in particular word positions: • May be an articulatory problem. • May not have learned the co-articulatory aspects in particular word positions. • May be a phonological problem. • May not have figured out that the sound can be used in more than one position. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  47. Articulatory or Phonological? • 3. Does the sound ever appear accidentally? • Is the sound ever used as a substitute for something else. • E.g., /c/ never correct but used in place of /s/. • Suggests child is capable of producing /c/. • But could just be an over-learned word. • If never used accidentally: • Sound likely not in inventory suggesting a phonological problem. • But may not have learned to physically produce it. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  48. Articulatory or Phonological? • 4. Is contrast between target and substitution being “marked” in some other way? • Narrow transcription may reveal subtle differences: • E.g., t/s substitution (stopping error). • Have them produce minimal pairs: nice/night. • Listen for a difference in final /s/. • May produce /ne]t(//ne]t)/ • May be marking the difference using aspiration vs. no aspiration rather than fricative vs. stop. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  49. Marking? • With omission errors, look for evidence that the child at least knows that the missing sound is supposed to be there. • Some limitation may be preventing them from actually producing it. • E.g., omits final /n/. • Have them produce minimal pair: can / cat • Listen for differences in nasal quality on the vowel. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

  50. No One Question Provides all the Answers! • Led to the development of the decision tree. • Can use data from an artic test or transcription of connected speech. • Look at each error separately. • Treat each sound depending on what the problem is for that sound. • With multiple errors of the same type, look for patterns. • May be able to treat some of the errors and see generalization to other related errors. Flipsen - SC Scottish Rite Centers - Sept 08

More Related