| Summary: | In a phonological assessment, the aim is to obtain systematic and reliable data of a child's speech output, which can then serve as a basis for a decision on an appropriate intervention (Wolk & Meisler, 1998). Whether phonological assessment should be derived from an analysis of picture-naming or a conversation with the child, and whether the two methods for elicitation generate equivalent results, has been debated among clinicians and researchers for an extended time (Masterson, Bernhardt & Hofheintz, 2005). The aim of the present study was to compare two methods of speech elicitation for phonological assessment: spontaneous conversation and picture-naming, respectively. In the study, the procedures have been used when assessing children with phonological disorders as well as children with typical language development. The results are presented using two levels of phonological analysis; degree of phonological impairment, in terms of percentage of phonemes correct (PPC), and type of phonological impairment, in terms of phonological simplification processes. Eighteen (18) children participated in the study, nine (9) with phonological impairment (age 3;10 – 5;11), and nine with typical phonologic development (age 3;2 – 4;6). No significant differences were found regarding the percentage of phonemes correct between the two elicitation methods, neither for the group of children with phonological impairment, nor for the group of children with typical phonological development. Thus, the degree of speech difficulties was the same regardless of elicitation method. In assessing the type of impairment, however, a comparison between the sensitivity and the specificity obtained in the two tests indicate that there is a difference in how well the two elicitation methods intercept the phonological simplification processes. In the two elicitating methods, exactly the same processes could not be found in the speech of any child. The discussion includes the consequences of word structure, position and context of phonemes in the different speech samples. Furthermore, advantages and disadvantages of using the different elicitation methods in phonological assessment are discussed. The present study contributes to an increased knowledge about the ability to capture phonological problems sing picture-naming and conversational speech samples, respectively, in assessing a child’s speech. Furthermore, the study presents input to the on-going debate on phonological assessment, and may contribute to reflectance when selecting a clinical assessment tool.
|
|---|
