Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Phonological Process Norms Chart/Reference?
doc
post Jan 21 2007, 07:33 PM
Post #1


Newbie
*

Group: members
Posts: 2
Joined: 21-January 07
Member No.: 174



[FONT=Times][SIZE=7][COLOR=blue] Hello fellow SLP's-
Would anyone know of a handy chart or table which outlines the ages at which children typically eliminate phonological processes (i.e. consonant cluster reduction, fronting, ect)! Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Guest_*
post Jan 21 2007, 07:59 PM
Post #2





Guests






There's a nice one in "Assessment and Treatment of Articulation and Phonological Disorders in Children" (Pena-Brooks & Hegde, 2000), on page 155, if you have a way of getting ahold of that text. It shows both the age frame during which the processes are typically active, and the age frame during which they're typically fading out (the end of this, of course, indicating the age of suppression).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Paul_*
post Jan 22 2007, 11:09 AM
Post #3





Guests






Our district uses Shriberg's 1993 normative data for sound system disorder. The predominant phonological processes and ages that they are considered delayed are as follows:

Age 3
vowel distortion, final consonant deletion, initial consonant deletion, stopping, glottal replacement

Age 4
any consonant deletion, fronting palatals, velar deficiency, cluster reduction, syllable reduction, deaffrication

Age 7
gliding l and r, dental distortions

Some things may be deficient earlier (esp. gliding) if they are very severe.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_SLP_*
post Jan 22 2007, 12:52 PM
Post #4





Guests






I think those norms are very misleading and causing a lot of problems where I work, so I would like to have a little input. If you have a child that is 3;3 and tested with the HAPP-3 (which is normed on three-year olds) that is severe at the first percentile, wouldn't you want to place that child? The only process over 40% that would be eligible for therapy, based on the above mentioned norms, would be final consonants. However, when you use a program like Cycles (that is incredible for this age) and you look at the other four processes that were at 80% usage and above (consonant sequence reduction, gliding, stridency deletion, and velars), would you wait?

I understand that you are not supposed to be working on the above processes b/c of developmental norms, but it seems to me those norms lend themselves more to articulation therapy than to phonological therapy. Also, if you have ever used Cycles, you would know you can fix these errors and possibly have this child in and out of therapy in 1 1/2 years (yes, three-year olds can and will correct /r/, /l/, and s-blends believe it or not). So, would you place? If not, can you tell me why?

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Paul_*
post Jan 22 2007, 04:02 PM
Post #5





Guests






I would qualify the child based on final consonant deletion. I would work on the velar deficiency and consonant sequence reduction if, once in therapy, it appeared as though it wouldn't resolve by age 4. If those are under 40% at age three, there's a pretty good chance that they'll resolve soon without a lot of work. Either way, you wouldn't dismiss the child until their speech is age appropriate. If I were working private practice I'd fix all the errors as soon as I could using the Cycles approach - which is a great approach in my opinion - but these are our research based eligibility guidelines.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_SLP_*
post Jan 22 2007, 08:31 PM
Post #6





Guests






They are not under 40%, they are ALL (consonant sequence reduction, gliding, stridency deletion, and velars) over 80% at age three. I understand the norms, but Hodson's test is normed as well on that age range. Doesn't that account for anything? Severe at three is severe at three when you are talking about age-based norms. We shouldn't be saying "Yes, he is severe, but we aren't worried about it until he turns four." That doesn't make sense to me. Why wouldn't you want to fix the child as soon as possible even if you work in the school system? Why would you only do that in private practice. I have implemented Cycles at each school I work at with amazing success. It is actually easy to use at school, even in groups of three children.

Also, Cycles isn't meant to work on one process. It is for severely unintelligible children that need to work on multiple processes like this kid does.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Paul_*
post Jan 23 2007, 09:45 AM
Post #7





Guests






I'm sorry SLP, I misunderstood your earlier post. If indeed the child is over 80% on each of those processes, then yes, I would use professional judgment and work on all the processes on the assumption that it would not soon "fix itself." So, I think we agree on this. I also believe that Hodson's criteria is anything aver 40% at anytime should be worked on. However, many normally developing children glide at age three. Many normally developing children omit the s in s consonant clusters much of the time at age three, and don't at all, without intervention at age 4. The norms that we use are the ages at which, if the child still demonstrates the process over 40% of the time, then the process has evolved from normal to abnormal. I think we agree that kids that are severe should be eligible for therapy. I don't think that all processes should be treated equally rather than developmentally. In considering eligibility some (but not all) weight should be placed on when normally developing children continue to demonstrate that process. For example, you shouldn't spend just as much time working with gliding r and l as you would spend on final consonant omission at age three because gliding is more developmentally appropriate at that age.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_SLP_*
post Jan 23 2007, 09:36 PM
Post #8





Guests






Thanks for your reply. However, if you use Cycles, you would spend the exact same amount of time (60 minutes per phoneme within each pattern) on each process. Hodson recommends and highly advocates targeting /l/ and /r/ in the first Cycle with all children. Does that mean the child will fix it, not necessarily. You are only working to suppress gliding and hopefully limit the amount of time in therapy or them having to work on lingering liquid problems at the end of therapy. I didn't believe this at first, I but I have seen it first-hand. Targeting these sounds early leads to better development. I have had 4-year olds remediate /r/ and /l/ within a year using Cycles on top of correcting all of their other sounds. However, one must remember these children were phonologically delayed. I do not work on /r/ and /l/ with children that young if those are their only errors.

One child that I didn't target /r/ early is still working on /r/ in second grade, even though she fixed all of her other sounds in two school years. She was profound and used /h/ for most sounds. She is now able to produce vocalic /r/ and is almost done, but I know I wouldn't be in this situation if I had started it with her earlier.

Thanks again for your input. I appreciate it.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
« Next Oldest · Speech-LanguagePathologist.org SLP Issues · Next Newest »
 

Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd September 2014 - 11:43 AM