Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Overview

Working in groups, students will research and demonstrate the administration of a published standardized speech sounds disorder assessment tool. Students will be required to present in your selected tool in class. The presentation should include a critique of the various components of the tool. The Instructor will assign a test instrument to each group. Each group is required to produce slides for your presentation with relevant content. However, all components of the presentation are to be delivered during the class period. Students are encouraged to be creative in their delivery of this presentation. The delivery model is based on group preferences (e.g., YouTube video, Live Oral Presentation, etc.). The Instructor will need to approve your choice of research article.

 

Test Critique Guidelines

1. Title and authors 2. Copyright year 3. Purpose of test, including any subtests. 4. Age range 5. Standardization information. Provide brief description followed by personal critique. 6. Administration procedures, including any accommodations or modifications for culturally and linguistically

different clients. Provide brief description followed by personal critique. 7. Recording procedures 8. Scoring procedures, including modifications for culturally and linguistically different clients. 9. Interpretation/Analysis 10. Personal critique. Include discussion of appropriateness for multicultural populations.

Note: – Use APA-7 format – Summarize, do not regurgitate (repeat without analyzing or comprehending) what is in the manual.

 

 

 

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Test Critique Outline Below are two samples illustrating the content areas for your research article review. These areas may vary depending on the type of research you are reviewing. Please note that the review must be in narrative and not bulleted form. Assessment Type Begin your review with a brief description (summary) of the particular assessment under investigation. This section should be before the title. Do not repeat this information in the body of the review.

The Performance of Low-Income African American Children on the Preschool Language Scale-3

Qi, C. H., Kaiser, A. P., Milan, S. E., Yzquierdo, Z., & Terry B. Hancock, T. B. (2004). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46 (3), 576-590.

This study examined the performance of low-income African American (AA) preschoolers on the preschool Language Scale-3 (PLS-3, I. L. Zimmerman, V.G. Steiner, & R.E. Pond, 1992). The goals of the study were threefold:

1. To examine low-income AA children’s language performance on the PLS-3. 2. Investigate the reliability and validity of the PLS-3 when used with this population. 3. Examine the relationship between language performance on the PLS-3 and related SES variables (marital status,

household income, and mother’s education level) and the child’s gender. Participants – The participants were 701 AA boys (n=361) and girls (n=340) from Nashville, TN. – 50 European American (EA) children from the same centers and classrooms served as a comparison group. – Average age was 43 months, with a range of 36-53 months. – The children were from low-income families (80% received state income, house, or child-care subsidies).

Procedure – The PLS-3, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition (PPVT-III), and Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT)

were administered to each child. – A spontaneous language sample was elicited and videotaped.

 

 

 

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Results – The mean for the AA sample was 86.09 with a standard deviation of 12.79. This deviation from the normative mean

is statistically significant. The scores were normally distributed. – PLS-3 total scores of AA children not significantly different from those of EA children of similar SES background. – Significant difference in performance between AA and EA children was found on four items. – Demographic factors accounted for only 4% of the variance. – PLS-3 reliability is acceptable. – There was little indication that the auditory comprehension and expressive communication subscales actually

represent distinct constructs (construct validity) Discussion – PLS-3 results in AA children show actual deficits in language skills. – Item order of presentation correctly discriminates the language abilities of AA children.

Critic – In determining PLS-3 validity in identifying AA children with language disorders, the investigators compared PLS-3

performance with PPVT-II, EVT and MLU performance. However, it is questionable whether these tests are truly culturally unbiased.

– The investigators state that 80% of the families were low-income because they received state income, housing, or child-care subsidies, while the remaining 20% qualified under the low-income inclusion criterion. However, the investigators fail to explicitly state what this criterion is.

– Additionally, a rather important fact that is frequently overlooked is that the PLSD-3 correctly identifies language disorder an average of only 72% of the time. This has huge implications for practitioners who use it as the sole determinant of language disability.

 

 

 

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Assessment Type Begin your review with a brief description (summary) of the particular assessment under investigation. This section should be before the title. Do not repeat this information in the body of the review.

An Assessment Battery for Identifying Language Impairment in African American Children

Craig, H. K. & Washington, J. A. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46 (2), 366-379.

This study examined the potential of a selected set of informal language measures to distinguish African American (AA) children with language impairments (LI) from typically developing peers. The five measures were:

4. Average length of communication units (MLCU). 5. Frequencies of complex syntax. 6. Number of different words. 7. Responses to Wh-questions. 8. Responses to probes of active and passive sentence constructions.

Participants – The participants were 72 AA children from metropolitan Detroit. 24 were language impaired and 48 were typically

developing (24 matched for chronological age (CA) and 24 matched for MLCU). – All were speakers of African American English (AAE).

Procedure – A spontaneous language sample was collected, a task to elicit responses to Wh-questions was administered, and a

task probing active/passive voice was administered. Results – The effects of SES and gender on the five measures were not significant. – All of the children in the LI group performed lower than their CA match on at least two of the five measures. – The battery has a sensitivity of 1.00, where sensitivity is the number of participants identified as LI, divided by the

number of LI participants. Discussion

 

 

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

– All five measures were successful in identifying the group of children enrolled in language intervention from a group of chronological age peers.

Critique – It is unclear what criteria the investigators used to designate subjects as speakers of AAE. By their own admission,

“the amount of dialect evidenced in the children’s discourse varied widely.” Was there a quantitative cutoff point or did use of even one AAE feature qualify one as a speaker of AAE? This is important information that bears directly on data interpretation.

– What this article speaks to is the importance of dynamic assessment when assessing AA children. The use of informal assessment tools is critical in distinguishing difference from disorder.

 

 

 

 

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

Rubric Excellent Good Fair Unacceptable Introduction It includes a

comprehensive introduction of the test. Elements of a comprehensive introduction include the following:

1. Title and authors

2. Copyright year 3. Purpose of

test, including any subtests.

4. Age range (5 point)

It includes a substantial (one item missing) but not comprehensive introduction of the test. Elements of a comprehensive introduction include the following:

1. Title and authors 2. Copyright year 3. Purpose of test,

including any subtests.

4. Age range (4 point)

It includes a fair (two items missing) but not comprehensive introduction of the test. Elements of a comprehensive introduction include the following:

1. Title and authors

2. Copyright year 3. Purpose of test,

including any subtests.

4. Age range (3 points)

It includes an unacceptable (more than two items missing), but not comprehensive introduction of the test. Elements of a comprehensive introduction include the following:

1. Title and authors 2. Copyright year 3. Purpose of test,

including any subtests.

4. Age range (0 points)

Standardization It provides a comprehensive summary of the standardization of the test. It includes a brief but detailed critique of the test’s standardization. (5 points)

It provides a substantial but not comprehensive summary of the standardization of the test. It includes a brief but detailed critique of the test’s standardization. (4 points)

It provides an incomplete summary of the standardization of the test. It does not include a brief but detailed critique of the test’s standardization. (3 points)

It does not provide a summary of the standardization of the test. It does not include a critique of the test’s standardization. (0 points)

Administration Procedures

It provides a comprehensive summary of the test’s administration procedures, to

It provides a substantial but not comprehensive summary of the test’s administration procedures, to include

It provides an incomplete summary of the test’s administration procedures. It provides

It does not provide a summary of the test’s administration procedures. It does not provide a personal

 

 

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

include any accommodations or modifications for culturally and linguistically different clients. It offers a brief description followed by a personal critique. (5 points)

any accommodations or modifications for culturally and linguistically different clients. It offers a brief description followed by a personal critique. (4 points)

an incomplete personal critique of test administration procedures. (3 point)

critique of test administration procedures. (0 points)

Recording & Scoring Procedures

It provides a comprehensive description of the test’s recording and scoring procedures, including modifications for culturally and linguistically different clients. (5 points)

It provides a substantial but not comprehensive summary of the test’s recording and scoring procedures, including modifications for culturally and linguistically different clients. (4 point)

It provides an incomplete summary of the test’s recording and scoring procedures. (3 points)

It does not provide a summary of the test’s recording and scoring procedures. (0 points)

Interpretation & Analysis of Test Results

It provides a brief but comprehensive summary of the interpretation and analysis of test results. (5 points)

It provides a brief but substantial summary of the interpretation and analysis of test results. (4 points)

It provides an incomplete summary of the interpretation and analysis of test results. (3 points)

It does not provide a summary of the test’s interpretation and analysis of test results. (0 points)

Overall (Group) Critique

It provides an overall comprehensive critique of the test and includes a discussion of appropriateness for

It provides an overall substantial critique of the test and includes a discussion of appropriateness for

It provides an incomplete critique of the test and includes a discussion of appropriateness for

It does not provide a critique of the test and does not include a discussion of appropriateness for

 

 

Speech Sound Disorder Assessment Project Guidelines & Rubric

multicultural populations. (5 points)

multicultural populations. (4 points)

multicultural populations. (3 points)

multicultural populations. (0 points)

Total Score: _______points out of 30 possible points. Instructor Comments: