Name: XX Date(s) of Assessment: 11/9/18, 11/16/18

Location of Assessment:
Clinician(s): Abbey Lovelace and Alyssa Hazlegrove

Phonetic and Phonological Assessment Analysis and Management Plan 1

This assessment was completed as part of a class project for CSDS 522 Advanced Study in
Articulation and Phonology under direction of Lissa Power-deFur, Ph.D., CCC-SLP.

A. Analysis of Phonetic Errors.

Standardized Assessment Used: Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology

(DEAP), Miccio Simulability Probe

Articulation Assessment:
Error Scale Scaled Scaled Confidence Percentile Age
Score Score Interval Rank Equivalent
Points +/- (90% Level)
52 1 1 1 to 3 0.1 <3:0

What place, manner and voicing errors is the child making?

Place Manner Voicing Omissions

AlveolarBilabial: Stop: VoicedVoiceless
  
 
Palatal, Interdental, 
Labiodental, Fricative: 
VelarLingua-alveolar:  

 Affricate: VoicelessVoiced
  /
 Nasal:
 

Bilabial, Alveolar, Glide:

VelarPalatal: 
 


1
Power-deFur, L. (2017). Adapted from plan shared by Lynn Williams at the ASHA Convention, 2008.
 InterdentalGlottal:


Are there phoneme collapses? ____ No __X__ Yes

XX collapsed many sounds to / and . When attempting to create

and he collapses to the sound / . For example, he said [ ] for “girl,”
[ ] for “jam,” and [ ] for “thank you.” When trying to make and
he collapses to the sound . For example, he said [ ] for “fishing” and [ ] for
“feather.” When XX attempted to say and he collapses to the sound . For
example, he said [ ] for “swing,” [ ] for “train,” and [ ] for “helicopter.”

Are there vowel errors? _____ No ___X__ Yes

During the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology, XX produced a variation of

vowel errors. His most common vowel processes were backing, raising, tensing, and omitting
vowels. XX’s largest category of vowel errors was backing. For example, XX produced the word
“teeth” as [ ]. XX also demonstrated multiple errors in vowel raising. An example of this is
his speech was when he produced the word “van” as [ ]. An example of XX exhibiting vowel
tensing was when he produced the word “this” as [ ]. XX also exhibited vowel omissions, such
as when he produced the word “umbrella” as [ ].

Backing Fronting Centering Tensing Raising

    
   
  
 

Lowering Dipthongization Dipthong Omissions
Reduction
  


Are consonant and vowel errors consistent at the word level? _X_ Yes ___ No

XX was not consistent in his vowel production. As seen in the chart above, XX created a variety
of errors involving vowels throughout the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology.
His most frequent errors included, backing, tensing, and raising. He exhibited significantly less
trouble when producing the back vowels.

When analyzing the data focused on consonants, XX presented with a variety of consonant
errors. One of the most prevalent consonant errors XX produced were collapses to
and . Another area of inconsistency was with consonant omission. XX had
many phonemes that were dropped within some words while producing them in others. For
example, when producing the word “bread” he said [ ] but said [ ] for duck. Within
observed conversation, XX maintained more consistent than during the assessment.

Do errors patterns change in multisyllabic words? __X___ No ____ Yes

Do error patterns change in conversation? __X__ No ____ Yes

Client’s stimulability for phoneme errors using Miccio Stimulability Probe.

Stimulable phonemes (>70%) The clinicians used the Miccio Stimulability

(What context or strategies facilitated Probe to assess XX’s success when producing
stimulability?) each phoneme in error.

was stimulable in all positions with 100%

accuracy.

was stimulable with 90% accuracy. XX

dropped the sound in the postvocalic position
when paired with .
Non-stimulable phonemes (what context was produced with 50% accuracy. XX
or strategies influenced stimulability?) demonstrated success with isolation of the sound,
the prevocalic position of , and in the
intervocalic and postvocalic positions with the
vowel . He was unable to produce the in
all phonetic environments using the vowel ,
the intervocalic/ postvocalic positions using ,
and the prevocalic position .

was produced with 50% accuracy. XX

demonstrated success with isolation of the sound,
and all phonetic environments with the vowel ,
and in the intervocalic position with the vowel
. He was unable to produce the phoneme
in all environments using the vowel and
 the prevocalic/postvocalic positions with the
vowel .

was produced with 30% accuracy. XX

demonstrated errors in all phonetic environments
with the vowel . He was unable to produce the
/ in the prevocalic and postvocalic positions
with the vowel . The vowel / proved to be
non-stimulable in the intervocalic and postvocalic
positions.

was produced with 28% accuracy. XX

demonstrated errors in all phoneme positions
except in the intervocalic position with the vowel
.

was produced with 20% accuracy. XX

demonstrated errors with all phonetic
environments except for the intervocalic position
and in isolation.

was produced with 10% accuracy. XX

demonstrated success with this sound in the
prevocalic position with .

and were
produced with 0% accuracy. XX demonstrated
errors in the prevocalic, intervocalic, and
postvocalic positions with all vowels. No
phonetic environment was proved to be simulable
for XX.

C. Phonological Process Analysis.

Instrument Used: Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology

Test Results:
Score Error Scaled Scaled Confidence Percentile Age
Scale Score Score Interval Rank Equivalent
Points (90%
+/- Level)
Phonology 38 5 2 3 to 7 5 <3:0
SW-CS 8 4 2 2 to 6 2 <3:0
The Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology scores correspond to the comparison
to the client’s performance in relation to a normative sample of individuals of the same age and
gender. Standard scored between the range of 7 and 13 are considered to be within normal limits.
This range representing one standard deviation above and below the mean. XX’s standard score
for the phonology was a 5 indicating that he is below the average for his age and gender. For the
connected speech section of the DEAP, XX received a standard score of 4 which also represents
a below average representation.

Phonological process error: Examples:

(present (@ least 20% of opportunities)
Vowelization of liquids (44%) “sissors”  [ ], “helicopter” 
[ ], “feather” [ ], “tiger”
[ ]

Deaffrication (20%) “orange” [ ]

Cluster Reduction (48%) “zebra” [ ], “crab” [ ], “umbrella”

[ ], “elephant” [ ], “bread”
[ ], “basket” [ ]

Final Consonant Deletion (25%) “crab” [ ], “bread” [ ], “duck”

[ ], “school” [ ], “egg” [ ],
“frog” [ ], “book” [ ]

XX demonstrated the following phonological

processes under 20% of opportunities given:
Gliding (5%)
Fronting (13%)
Weak Syllable Deletion (17%)
Stopping (3%)
Prevocalic Voicing (4%)
Postvocalic Devoicing (8%)

D. Summary of Speech Sound Assessment Information

Pertinent information from the Oral Mechanism examination (including diadochokinesis):

All findings from the Oral-facial Examination form for XX were normal. He actively
participated in all tasks and displayed typical tongue and lip strength, movement, and range. XX
demonstrated difficulty in understanding the task when the clinicians administered the
diadochokinesis portion of the oral mechanism exam. He was able to produce / / and / /a
few times, but after prompting and explanation he still did not understand that he was supposed
to carry them on until the clinicians asked him to stop. XX was unable to sequence / / and
would not attempt to produce it more than once or twice.

Percentage of Consonants Correct Results: _45_ %

XX’s percentage of consonant correct was assessed by the articulation portion of the Diagnostic
Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology. The assessment environment from which this data
was derived, consisted of single and multisyllabic word utterances. XX’s percentage of
consonants correct is calculated by totaling the number of consonants within the test and
comparing them against those he did not produce correctly. According to the DEAP, XX
received a percentage of 45% consonants correct out of the 67 opportunities for consonants in
the articulation portion of the test. The Articulation Severity Rating scale classifies individuals
earning less than a 50% on percentage of consonant correct as being severe. At 45%, XX falls
within the range for a severe disorder.

Comparison of error patterns with developmental norms.

At the age of 4:7, XX should have acquired the following phonemes: / /, / /, / /, / /, / /, / /,

/ /, / /, / /, / /, and the initial position / /. Through the articulation assessment of the DEAP, XX
demonstrated that he has acquired the / /, / /, / /, / /, / /, and / / phonemes. He demonstrated
an error with the / / phoneme in the word “bird” by substituting a / / for the / /, although his
errors with / / consisted of fronting the sound to a / /. XX was stimulable for the sound, but was
unable to produce it in the correct environment in all opportunities. The / / phoneme should be
acquired in males by age 3:6. XX also demonstrated difficulty with the / / and / / phonemes by
fronting them to / / and / /. The / / phoneme should be acquired in males by age 3:6, while the
/ / phoneme should be acquired by 4:0. XX demonstrated error pattern with the / / phoneme by
backing the sound to a / / in the word “watch”. The / / phoneme should be acquired in males by
age 3:0. Lastly, XX demonstrated many errors with the initial / /. Throughout the test, XX
substituted the / / phoneme for the / / in all positions. The initial position / / should be acquired
in males by age 3:6.

Comparison of error patterns with frequency of phoneme use in Standard American

English.
XX could not consistently produce the phonemes / /, / /, / /, / /, and / /. Of these sounds, / /,
and / / are the most frequently use in Standard American English. The / / phoneme occurs in
6% of Standard American English, while the / / occurs in 5.8%. The next most frequently used
phoneme that XX exhibits errors with is / /, which is used in 4.8% of Standard American
English. XX also exhibits errors with / /, and / /. The / / phoneme is used in 4.1% Standard
American English, while the / phoneme is used in 2.4%. Due to the frequency of occurrence
for the / /, / /, / /, and / / phonemes XX’s errors with all of these sounds will greatly affect his
speech. The / phoneme is not used as frequently, so this error will not affect XX’s
intelligibility as strongly.

Are there suprasegmentals errors? ____ No __X__ Yes

Stress Intonation Duration Juncture

N/A N/A N/A N/A

E. Summary of Related Assessment Information

Does the client have speech perception difficulties? _____ No __X__ Yes

XX made similar errors in all of his word productions, even when the word was modeled for
him. He did not attempt to self-correct and often did not repeat himself when the clinicians did
not understand him. This may mean that XX does not recognize the errors in his speech and
cannot perceive the differences between his productions and a correct production.

Child’s motivation to improve his speech intelligibility:

XX did not demonstrate to the clinicians that he was aware of his incorrect productions or
unintelligible speech in most situations. In instances when XX repeated a word more than once,
he produced it the same way.

Are there any concomitant language, voice, fluency, or hearing concerns? _X_ No __ Yes

During the DEAP, XX demonstrated that he was able to use correct word endings and tenses that
would be expected for his age, which was also noted during his language sample. XX did not
demonstrate any abnormalities with voice. The clinicians did not notice any disfluencies
throughout the testing or the language sample. Additionally, XX did not demonstrate that he had
difficulty hearing. He answered each of the clinician’s questions without requesting repetitions
and spoke at a normal volume throughout both visits.

Are there any phonological awareness or reading concerns? ____ No __X__ Unknown
____ Yes
XX did not participate in any activities that would allow the clinicians to observe his
phonological awareness or reading skills. The DEAP was administered, which does not analyze
phonological awareness, and the activities carried out during the language sample included
playing with blocks and picture cards.

Is Childhood Apraxia of Speech suspected? __X__ No ____ Yes

GL’s variance of vowel errors was the only aspect of his speech that could suggest Childhood
Apraxia of Speech and may need to be monitored. For example, XX produced [ ] for the

word “spider” during administration of the DEAP. He did not demonstrate any unusual
phonological processes, irregular prosody, or articulatory groping. XX also appeared to have a
full inventory of vowels, although he often substituted vowels that were incorrect for the target
word. The only vowel that he was not stimulable for was / /, but he produced it in the word

“boy” during the connected speech portion of the DEAP.

Consistency of errors Vowel errors Trial-n-error Stress Sequencing and

(discuss productions? errors coarticulation
duration) errors
XX produced a XX exhibited None observed None None observed
minimal amount of many vowel observed
inconsistent errors errors including:
during testing and centralization,
observation. For raising, lowering,
example, XX produced fronting,
the word crab rounding,
consistently as diphthongization,
and “umbrella” and diphthong
as . reduction.
However, he showed
inconsistency when
producing the word
“giraffe” by using
 variations such as
and .

F. Recommended Intervention Approach

Speech Perception Training: _____ No ___X___ Yes

XX was unable to produce the and sounds in isolation without prompting. In some
instances, he was able to produce the / / and / / sounds within words, but these occurrences
were inconsistent. Perception training could help XX to perceive the differences between his
sound errors and the sounds that are intended. It could also be used to assist in his production of
the / /, / /, / /, / /, / /, / /, and / phonemes as he acquires them.

Phonetic Approach: _____ No ___X___ Yes

The stimulubility probes displayed that and sounds were stimulable for XX. In order to
improve XX’s intelligibility, these sounds should be targeted in speech therapy. Both of the
sounds should be targeted in ant phonetic environment. The therapy should consist of oral
placements for each of the sounds. As XX begins to acquire/be stimulable for the / /, / /, / /,
/ /, / /, / /, and / / sounds, it may be beneficial to work on a phonetic approach involving oral
placement for these as well.
Phonological Process Approach: _____ No __X__ Yes

Cluster reduction, weak syllable deletion, and final consonant deletion should be targeted in
therapy to improve XX’s intelligibility. Phoneme omissions greatly impact intelligibility, so
working on these processes would greatly help the intelligibility of XX’s speech. Cluster
reduction should decline around age 4:5, weak syllable deletion should decline around age 3:11,
and final consonant deletion should decline around age 3. Since all of these processes should
have been remediated by XX’s current age, they play a large role in his unintelligibility.

Contrastive Approach (minimal pairs, multiple oppositions, maximal opposition):

____ No __X___ Yes

XX would benefit from minimal pairs therapy to target his final consonant deletion. For XX’s
final consonant deletion, minimal pairs can be used to demonstrate differences between a word
that has a final sound and a word that does not. An example of this with one of the sounds that
XX is stimulable for would be “seed.” Minimal pairs could be used to demonstrate the difference
between the word “see” and the word “seed” using images to portray each so that XX can
visualize and hear how the phoneme on the end changes the meaning of the word.
Childhood Apraxia of Speech approach: __X__ No ____ Yes

Pair with language intervention: __X__ No ____ Yes

Does the child need to develop an intelligible core vocabulary? __X__ No ___ Yes

G. Evaluation Plan

What tools will be used to evaluate progress? (Consider clinician-made probes tailored to
the child’s phonetic/phonological errors.) At what intervals will progress be assessed?

The clinicians will create a probe to target XX’s most frequently used error patterns. The
probe will initially target his most stimulable sounds and then progress toward sounds for which
he is least stimulable. For example, the clinicians would begin with the /b/ and /d/ phonemes
because he was 90-100% stimulable for these sounds. Following these phonemes, the clinicians
would target / and because he was 50% stimulable for these sounds. Using these
phonemes, the clinicians would create a probe list that targets XX’s most frequently used
phonological errors, which would be cluster reduction, deaffrication, final consonant deletion,
and vocalization of liquids. Assuming the client will be seen on a semester basis, the clinicians
will assess XX’s progress at the mid-way point and again at the end of the semester.

Signatures:

________________________________________________ ____________________
Abbey Lovelace, B.S. Date
Graduate Clinician

________________________________________________ ____________________
Alyssa Hazlegrove, B.S. Date
Graduate Clinician

________________________________________________ ____________________
Lissa Power-deFur, PhD, CCC-SLP Date
Professor, Communication Sciences and Disorders
Intended Actual utterance Phonological Phonetic Number of Number of
utterance (in IPA) Process (if present) environment that consonants in correct
(words) facilitated error (if intended utterance consonants
applicable)

1. I wanna make [ -Weak syllable -Vowelization: /w/ 5 4

a tower deletion influenced /
]
17:20 -Final consonant
deletion
-Vowelization
2. You help me [ ] -Cluster deletion -Stopping: N/A 7 2
guys? -Final consonant -Fronting: /s/
deletion influenced /g/
-Stopping
-Fronting
3. You help me [ ] -Cluster reduction N/A 4 3

4. We need a [ ] -Final consonant -Vowelization: /w/ 6 5

tall tower deletion influenced /
-Vowelization
-Vowel lowering
5. Right here [ ] -Initial consonant -Alveolar 3 1
17:53 deletion assimilation: /t/
-Alveolar influenced /r/
assimilation
6. Me make [ -Final consonant N/A 8 5
mine so tall deletion
]
-Vowel unrounding
7. Yeah [ ] N/A N/A 1 1
8. Here [ ] -Gliding N/A 1 1

9. Me do [ -Centralization -Nasal assimilation: 8 4

something else -Nasal assimilation /m/ in “me”
]
-Cluster reduction influenced /d/ in
-Fronting “do”
-Gliding -Fronting: The /m/
in “something”
influenced .
10. Almost fell [ ] -Cluster reduction N/A 8 6
down -Final consonant
18:36 deletion
11. Them is the [ -Final Consonant N/A 8 6
same height Deletion
]
-Centralization
12. The same [ ] -Diphthongization N/A 3 2
-Backing
13. Nope [ ] N/A N/A 2 2
14. All the way [ ] -Final Consonant N/A 5 1
up here Deletion
-Diphthongization
-Vowel unrounding
-Initial consonant
deletion
-Vowelization
15. I’m gonna [ -Vowel fronting N/A 10 3
build it by my ] -Fronting
own -Weak Syllable
19:27 Deletion
-Cluster deletion
-Final Consonant
Deletion
-Vowel
fronting/raising
16. Look [ ] -Final consonant N/A 2 1
deletion
17. I think this [ ] -Diphthong N/A 10 3
one’s stuck Reduction
-Stopping
-Final Consonant
Deletion
-Cluster Reduction
-Initial consonant
deletion
-Vowel
backing/lowering
18. Match [ ] -Deaffrication N/A 2 1

19. No [ ] N/A N/A 1 1

20. This match [ ] -Deaffrication N/A 4 3
20:14
21. Cry [ ] -Gliding N/A 2 1

22. Fireman [ ] -Palatalization N/A 3 2

-Derhotization
-Centralization
23. The baby is [ -Final Consonant N/A 7 4
outside ] Deletion
24. lion [ ] -Palatalization N/A 2 1

25. Yeah, zebra [ ] -Cluster Reduction N/A 3 3

26. Bye-bye [ ] -Partial N/A 2 2

21:15 Reduplication
27. I right here [ -Gliding -Stopping: The /d/ in 10 5
under the table ] -Final Consonant “under” influenced
Deletion the in “the.”
-Derhotization
-Vowel stress
-Vowelization
-Stopping
-Centralization
28. Sleeping [ ] -Cluster Reduction N/A 4 2
-Centralization
-Fronting
29. Yep [ ] N/A N/A 2 2
30. Racecar [ ] -Gliding -Fronting: The /s/ in 3 1
21:47 -Fronting “racecar” influenced
-Vowelization the /k/.
31. So yay so [ -Cluster Deletion N/A 9 7
yay it’s so so yay ]
32. Racecar [ ] -Gliding -Fronting: The /s/ in 6 4
burning -Vowelization “racecar” influenced
-Fronting the /k/.
-Fronting: the /n/ in
“burning”
influenced the .
33. Yeah, my [ -Stridency Deletion N/A 20 16
mom’s tire was -Cluster Reduction
flat, my -Vowelization
mommy’s tire ] -Cluster Reduction
was flat so… [ ] -Gliding
[unintelligible]
34. And I still [ ] -Final Consonant N/A 9 6
don’t know Deletion
-Cluster Reduction
35. It’s at home [ -Cluster Reduction N/A 7 4
all day ] -Stridency Deletion
22:43 -Initial Consonant
Deletion
-Final Consonant
Deletion
-Vowel lowering
36. I copy you [ ] -Fronting N/A 3 2

37. Baseball [ ] -Final Consonant N/A 6 6

player Deletion
-Vowelization
38. I throw [ -Diphthong N/A 13 12
football, we play Reduction
] -Stopping
football, we play -Alveolarization
football -Centralization
-Final Consonant
Deletion
-Vowel lowering

39. Football [ ] -Alveolarization N/A 4 2

-Centralization
-Final Consonant
Deletion
-Vowel lowering
40. No no [ ] -Centralization N/A 2 2
23:12
41. They throw [ ] -Stopping N/A 7 2
football -Alveolarization
-Cluster Reduction
-Centralization
-Final Consonant
Deletion
-Vowel lowering
42. Yeah, they [ ] -Stopping N/A 6 1
throw it -Vowel lowering
-Cluster Reduction
-Alveolarization
43. Yeah, me [ -Final consonant -Alveolar 6 3
like to throw ] deletion Assimilation: The /l/
-Centralization influenced /t/ in
-Prevocalic Voicing “to” and / / in
-Alveolar “throw.”
Assimilation
44. Yeah, me [ -Centralization N/A 17 9
like the Steelers -Gliding
so bad, me ] -Final Consonant
grown up Deletion
-Vowel Rounding
-Vowel
lowering/backing
-Vowelization
-Cluster Reduction
-Palatalization
-Affrication
45. No, me do [ -Vowel lowering N/A 14 10
football player -Alveolarization
when I grow up ] -Centralization
23:37 -Final Consonant
Deletion
-Vowelization
 -Cluster Reduction
-Palatalization
-Affrication
46. Nope, me [ -Cluster Reduction N/A 7 5
grown up ] -Palatalization
-Affrication
47. Yeah, no, I [ -Alveolarization N/A 11 10
players in a -Centralization
football game ] -Vowel lowering
-Final Consonant
Deletion
-Stopping
-Vowelization
48. Hey, do you [ -Initial Consonant N/A 11 10
want to make Deletion
towers with ] -Cluster Reduction
me? -Final Consonant
Deletion
-Vowelization
-Centralization
49. I eat cat too [ ] -Final Consonant N/A 4 1
Deletion
-Fronting
50. Cat, [ -Fronting N/A 7 5
monkey, puppy ] -Cluster Reduction
24:45

Total number of consonants: 305

Total number of consonants correct: 195

195/305=0.639

0.639 X 10 = 63.9

PCC: 63.9%
 References

Bernthal, J.E., Bankson, N.W., and Flipson, P. (2013).Articulation and phonological disorders:
Speech sound disorders in children.7th edition. Boston: Pearson.

Bleile, K. M. (2015). The Manual of Speech Sound Disorders: A Book for Students and
Clinicians (3rd ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Dodd, B. (2002). Diagnostic evaluation of articulation and phonology. London: The

Psychological Corporation.

Virginia Department of Education. (2006). Iowa-Nebraska Articulation Norms. Retrieved

from http://www.rochester.k12.mn.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3083669/File/migration/
artic_norms.pdf

Honor Code: