CENTER FOR COMMUNICATIVE DISORDERS

Roseman Building Room 1011 Phone: (262) 472-1301

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Fax: (262) 472-5210
800 West Main Street
Whitewater, WI 53190

1

INFORMAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Fall 2011
I) IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Childs Name: L.K.
Date of Birth: 11/25/10
CA: 2 years, 11 months
II) INFORMAL ASSESSMENT OF SPEECH, LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS
In order to describe L.K.s current communication abilities, we observed and interacted with L.K. 3 times
over a 3 week period in October, 2013 and collected a speech and language sample on October 6.
A) On-Line Observations
We observed L.K. during down time prior to nap time. At the start of down time, L.K. set up her cot, laid
out her blankets, and took her shoes off in her assigned spot in the classroom. During this time, the
children were expected to finish cleaning up their lunch and transition into quieting down before nap
time. During this routine, L.K. laid on her cot with her book, blankets, and stuffed animal. She quietly
read the book out loud to herself and hummed along to the nursery music being played quietly in the
background. L.K. had no interactions with her teachers or her peers. During our observations, L.K. was
very willing to engage in conversation with us. She shared her books with us, willing to both listen to us
read to her as well as read the books from memory to us.
B) Speech and Language Sample Analysis
To further evaluate Luisas language and communication skills, we audio recorded a 15-minute
conversation we had with L.K. while the other children were getting ready for nap time. During this
conversation, L.K. produced 151 complete and intelligible utterances. We transcribed and analyzed the
length and complexity of Luisas language using the computer program Systematic Analysis of Language
Transcripts (SALT). Using this program, we compared her performance to a reference database of
language samples from 32 children within the same age range (-3, +6 months). The results are
summarized in the table below.
Measure L.K.
Age2;11
Peers
N=32, Ages2;-3;5
SD away
from mean
Range
Mean length of utterance in words 4.60 3.25 2.90 2.46-4.17
Mean length of utterance in morphemes 5.01 3.54 2.79 2.72 - 4.63
# Different Words 137 134.03 0.22 107-171

The average length of Luisas utterances was 4.60 words, which was above the range of values typical
for children in this age range, and is just over 2 standards deviations away from the average length of
3.25 words. Luisas language has characteristics (e.g., -ing endings on verbs and plural s) that are

CENTER FOR COMMUNICATIVE DISORDERS
Roseman Building Room 1011 Phone: (262) 472-1301
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Fax: (262) 472-5210
800 West Main Street
Whitewater, WI 53190

2

typical of Browns Language Stage II. The predicted chronological age range for this stage is 28 to 36
months. Given her chronological age of 35 months, L.K. is within normal limits compared to her peers
when it comes to combining words into sentences. She produced 137 different words in the sample
compared to an average of 134.03 words produced by her age-matched peers. In other words, she used
slightly more different words than her peers used in a similar sampling condition.
I also analyzed the sample to determine the reasons why L.K. communicates.
Communicative Intent
Used
Age of
Emergence
Example Number of
Occurrences
% of Total
Utterances
Early
vs Late
Request for Action 8 to 18 Open 6 7 66
Request for Object 8 to 18 I want pink 7 9
Protest 8 to 18 No 4 5
Comment 8 to 18 It sticks 35 45
Answer 18 - 24 Answers questions e.g.
Where do you want
it? Put it here.
13 17 34
Acknowledgement 18 - 24 Imitated clinicians
utterance So pretty
3 4
Request for Information 18 - 24 Asking about things
around her
10 13
Total 78
L.K. communicated most often (45% of the time) for the purpose of commenting or pointing out
objects or actions for the purpose of establishing joint attention. 21% of the time did she use the later
appearing communicative functions, such as answering questions appropriately or acknowledging what
her conversational partners said. These later-appearing intentions reflect more mature communicative
behavior because children are referring to what their conversational partner is saying rather than just
referring to object or events around them.
A consonant and vowel inventory was compiled of all the sounds that L.K. produced throughout the
interaction. L.K. produced 11 different vowels and 19 different consonant sounds [/g/, /k/, /b/, /d/, /s/,
/t/, /l/, /w/, /z/, /r/, /f/, /v/, /h/, /m/, /n/, and /j/ as in you, // as in shoe, /t/ as in chair, and /d/ as in
jump] in word initial position at seven major places of articulation (labial, labiodental, alveolar, palatal,
palatal-alveolar, velar and glottal) and the manner classes of stops, nasals, glides, affricates, fricatives,
and approximants. The number of consonants present in an inventory can be used as an index of
severity of phonological delay. Typically developing 2 year-olds usually produce about 14 different
consonant sounds in a 10-minute communication sample (Paul and Jennings, 1992). Therefore, Luisas
phonetic inventory is higher compared to what is expected for her age.

CENTER FOR COMMUNICATIVE DISORDERS
Roseman Building Room 1011 Phone: (262) 472-1301
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Fax: (262) 472-5210
800 West Main Street
Whitewater, WI 53190

3

III) SUMMARY OF INFORMAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS
L.K. was able to follow simple commands during her interaction with the student clinician while in the
classroom with her peers. L.K. was able to respond or acknowledge what the clinicians said. Her
response related to the clinicians questions or statements 21% of the time. Luisas language
understanding is not dependent on seeing the objects being talked about, and she is not distracted by
events and sounds in her environment.
Based on my speech/language sample analysis and observations, I conclude that Luisas speech and
language skills are within normal limits compared to her age-matched peers. Her mean length of
utterance and vocabulary size is higher than one would predict for her age. In addition, L.K. was able to
label objects using the correct word. She used her communication most often for the purpose of
commenting (i.e., pointing out objects or actions for the purpose of establishing joint attention). L.K.
communicated with moderate frequency to answer questions appropriately or acknowledge what her
conversational partner said. She used age-appropriate consonants. Based on these findings, I would not
recommend that L.K. receive intervention. She is at, if not above, the indicators of speech and language
one would predict for her age.

Tessa Clark, B.S. December 5, 2013
Nicole Compty, B.S.E. December 5, 2013
Giuliana Miolo, Ph.D., CCC-SLP December 5, 2013