LSHSS
Clinical Focus
Stimulus Characteristics of Single-Word Tests
of Children’s Speech Sound Production
Toby Macraea
Purpose: This clinical focus article provides readers with
a description of the stimulus characteristics of 12 popular
tests of speech sound production.
Method: Using significance testing and descriptive analyses,
stimulus items were compared in terms of the number of
opportunities for production of all consonant singletons,
clusters, and rhotic and nonrhotic vowels of Standard
American English; phonetic/phonological and structural
complexity; and the presence of bound morphemes.
Results: The tests varied widely in terms of the number
of opportunities for production of consonant singletons,
clusters, and rhotic and nonrhotic vowels. Most of the
tests included only 1 opportunity, scored or unscored, to
P
revalence estimates of speech sound disorders (SSDs)
in the general U.S. population range from 15%
to 16% in 3-year-old children (Campbell et al.,
2003; Shriberg et al., 2005) to 3.8% in 6-year-old children
(Shriberg, Tomblin, & McSweeny, 1999). In Australia, the
prevalence of SSD has been estimated at 1% in children
in grades K–6 (McKinnon, McLeod, & Reilly, 2007). An
SSD is a common disorder type in speech-language pathol-
ogists’ (SLPs’) caseloads (American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association, 2011, 2014; Broomfield & Dodd,
2004; Brumbaugh & Smit, 2013; McLeod & Baker, 2014).
In the United States, 93% of preschool- and school-based
SLPs and 71% of those working with preschool-age chil-
dren in any setting reported working with children with
SSDs, more than any other disorder type (American Speech-
Language-Hearing Association, 2011, 2014). An SSD appears
to be just as common in the United Kingdom and Australia
(Broomfield & Dodd, 2004; McLeod & Baker, 2014). Given
the ubiquitous nature of the disorder, comprehensive as-
sessment of children suspected of having an SSD is a topic
a
School of Communication Science and Disorders, Florida State
University, Tallahassee
Correspondence to Toby Macrae: toby.macrae@cci.fsu.edu
Editor: Julie Liss
Associate Editor: Kathryn Drager
Received June 14, 2016
Revision received November 12, 2016
Accepted June 1, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-16-0050
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 48 • 219–233 • October 2017 • Copyright © 2017 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
produce a majority of the consonant singletons in each
word position. Only 3 of the tests included stimulus items
with 3-element clusters. The majority contained limited
opportunities to produce 3- or 4-syllable stimulus items.
The tests provided sufficient opportunities for production
of most vowels, although most did not score vowels. The
tests differed significantly in the complexity of their stimulus
items. Most, however, contained a negligible number of
items that, with the addition of a bound morpheme, resulted
in a word-final cluster.
Conclusion: Most of the tests elicit an inadequate sample
with which to conduct a comprehensive phonological
analysis.
of interest to practicing SLPs and researchers and has
been the focus of several dedicated journal issues (Beverly,
2016; Curlee, 1993; Fey, 1992; Williams, 2002).
There is not always an agreement about which com-
ponents to include in a comprehensive assessment of these
children (see Podwall & Podwall, 2003; Williams, 2002).
Conducting a standardized test of speech sound production
is, however, among the most common components used
by practicing SLPs. Among SLPs who work with children
in the United States, 74% always administer a standard-
ized test, while an additional 15% sometimes administer
one (Skahan, Watson, & Lof, 2007). Eighty-nine percent
of SLPs who work with children in Australia always ad-
minister one (McLeod & Baker, 2014). Administering a
standardized test of speech sound production serves a dual
purpose. First, it allows the SLP to obtain a percentile
rank and standard score to compare the child’s performance
with that of his or her same-age peers and determine eligi-
bility for services (Khan, 2002). Second, it allows one to
identify a child’s speech errors, and this may be the SLP’s
primary reason for administering a test (McLeod & Baker,
2014). Of course, scoring the test requires the SLP to first
determine speech errors. Identifying errors required to score
the test may be the extent of one’s analysis, although some
SLPs report conducting additional analyses. This may in-
volve simply analyzing all consonants in all words produced
during testing, not just those scored by the test (see Bankson,
Disclosure: The author has declared that no competing interests existed at the time
of publication.
219
Bernthal, & Flipsen, 2013; Elbert & Gierut, 1986; Klein,
1984; Macrae, 2016). It may also involve conducting a more
comprehensive phonological analysis. For example, 51% of
SLPs in the United States always perform a phonological
process, or error pattern,1 analysis, while an additional 34%
sometimes perform one (Skahan et al., 2007). In Australia,
76% of SLPs always perform an error pattern analysis, while
an additional 22% sometimes perform one (McLeod &
Baker, 2014). Elbert and Gierut (1986) recommended using
children’s responses to standardized tests of speech sound
production to conduct an error pattern analysis or a place–
voice–manner (PVM) analysis (see also Macrae, 2016).
Standardized tests differ in the stimulus items they
use to elicit word productions from children. These differ-
ences mean that each test allows for a unique phonological
analysis. SLPs may consider these stimulus characteristics
when deciding on a test, including the following: (a) the
frequency of occurrence of consonant singletons, consonant
clusters, and vowels; (b) the phonetic/phonological and
structural complexity of the stimulus items; and (c) the
presence of bound morphemes. With regard to frequency
of occurrence data, Eisenberg and Hitchcock (2010) com-
pared popular tests of speech sound production for their
adequacy in obtaining a phonetic inventory. These authors
reported on the number of consonants and vowels in each
of the tests they analyzed that were produced in at least
two phonetically controlled words. With regard to conso-
nants, these authors operationally defined phonetically
controlled words as those that were monosyllabic or bisylla-
bic with the consonant in a stressed syllable and that pro-
vided a “nonharmonic singleton context” (p. 492). For
example, the word cake would be avoided as it contains
the same consonant in word-initial and word-final positions.
With regard to vowels, the authors operationally defined
phonetically controlled words as those that were mono-
syllabic in which the vowel either occurred in an open syl-
lable (e.g., shoe), was followed by a nonliquid consonant
(e.g., sheep), or occurred in the stressed syllable of a bisylla-
bic word (e.g., jumping). They concluded that only 42%
of word-initial consonants, 36% of word-final consonants,
and 65% of vowels across 11 tests occurred in at least two
phonetically controlled words and that “none of the tests
are valid as the sole basis for generating a phonetic inven-
tory for consonants or vowels” (p. 496). Kirk and Vigeland
(2015) compared the stimulus items in nine tests to deter-
mine their adequacy in evaluating 11 commonly occurring
error patterns. The authors found that each test provided
at least four opportunities to assess the majority, although
not all, of the error patterns.
1
The term error pattern is preferred over phonological process for the
same reasons discussed in Kirk and Vigeland (2015) and Lof (2002).
First, error pattern is descriptive, whereas phonological process is based
on the natural theory of phonology, which attempts to explain output
errors as a result of one or more simplification processes being applied
to a child’s internal representation of a word, which is adultlike. Second,
phonological process can be confused with phonological processing, which
is a different construct altogether.
220 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 48 • 219–233 • October 2017
While the primary purpose of standardized testing
is to document the presence or absence of an SSD and de-
termine eligibility for services, a secondary purpose is to
obtain a sample for phonetic and/or phonological analysis
(Eisenberg & Hitchcock, 2010; Elbert & Gierut, 1986; Kirk
& Vigeland, 2015; Macrae, 2016). Whereas a phonetic in-
ventory, a type of independent analysis, might be more
appropriate for toddlers or children with immature speech
sound systems (Stoel-Gammon, 1987), an error pattern
analysis, a type of relational analysis, might be more ap-
propriate for older children or those with more advanced
speech sound systems (Bankson et al., 2013). Frequency of
occurrence data for consonants and vowels in each test of
speech sound production would allow SLPs to choose a
test based on the needs of their clients. For example, a test
with multiple opportunities to produce fricatives might be
chosen to test a child with reported difficulties producing
fricatives. These data would also allow SLPs to determine
which phonemes need supplemental testing and assist in
calculating measures such as percent usage of error patterns,
percent consonants correct (Shriberg & Kwiatkowski, 1982)
for a particular manner class of consonants (e.g., fricatives)
or position-specific consonants, percent vowels correct
(Shriberg, Austin, Lewis, McSweeny, & Wilson, 1997), and
speech error consistency (e.g., Tyler, Lewis, & Welch, 2003).
Information about the proportions of total sounds pro-
duced that contribute to a child’s score would also be useful.
This would allow SLPs to determine how much additional
transcription is needed over and above what is required for
scoring purposes.
The phonetic/phonological and structural complexity
of a word is known to affect its consistency and accuracy
of production in young children, such that more complex
words are produced less consistently and accurately than
less complex words (Macrae, 2013; McLeod & Hewett,
2008; Sosa & Stoel-Gammon, 2012). SLPs might choose
tests with less complex stimulus items, including those with
early developing sounds and few consonant clusters and
syllables, for younger students and those with more severe
SSDs. Tests with more complex stimulus items might be
preferred for older students or those whose difficulties are
only revealed when attempting complex utterances, for ex-
ample, those containing clusters and/or multiple syllables.
Information about the complexity of the tests’ stimulus
items would allow SLPs to choose a test to suit the needs
of their clients.
Another characteristic known to influence production
in a large subgroup of children with SSDs—those with co-
occurring language impairment (LI; Shriberg & Kwiatkowski,
1994; Shriberg et al., 1999)—is the presence of bound mor-
phemes. Children with LI have particular difficulty pro-
ducing bound morphemes, for example, plural -s, third-person
singular -s, possessive ’s, and past tense -ed (Paul, 2001).
This difficulty may confound a child’s ability to produce a
particular phonological structure in a test of speech sound
production. If, for example, a child with LI produces past
tense kicked as kick in a test, it is difficult to determine if
the child’s error is morphosyntactic (difficulty marking past
tense) or phonological (difficulty producing word-final /kt/)
in nature. It seems important to exclude stimulus items that
contain bound morphemes from tests of speech sound pro-
duction, especially when used with children with LI, and
SLPs may wish to know which tests contain them and how
common they are.
The primary purpose of this study was to supplement
earlier studies by Eisenberg and Hitchcock (2010) and Kirk
and Vigeland (2015) and provide SLPs with a description
of the following stimulus characteristics of popular stan-
dardized tests of speech sound production: (a) frequency of
occurrence data for consonant singletons, consonant clus-
ters, and vowels; (b) phonetic/phonological and structural
complexity; and (c) the presence of bound morphemes. A
secondary purpose was to determine the adequacy of the
tests in providing a sufficient sample with which to conduct
a comprehensive phonological analysis. This information
will assist SLPs in choosing the appropriate instrument(s)
for their clients. It will also assist SLPs who already use a
particular test in determining which consonants, consonant
clusters, and vowels need supplemental testing.
Method
Tests
The tests of speech sound production chosen for this
analysis were the same tests that were examined by other
researchers (Eisenberg & Hitchcock, 2010; Flipsen &
Ogiela, 2014; Skahan et al., 2007), with the following
exceptions: (a) The present analysis did not include the
Assessment of Phonological Processes–Revised (Hodson,
1986), the Assessment Link Between Phonology and Ar-
ticulation (Lowe, 1986), the Fisher–Logemann Test of
Articulation Competence (Fisher & Logemann, 1971),
and the Templin–Darley Tests of Articulation (Templin
& Darley, 1968), because they were published prior to
1990, a cutoff used by Flipsen and Ogiela (2014); (b) the
Khan–Lewis Phonological Analysis–Third Edition (Khan
& Lewis, 2015) was excluded because its analyses are
based on word productions elicited using the Goldman-
Fristoe Test of Articulation–Third Edition (GFTA-3;
Goldman & Fristoe, 2015); (c) the GFTA-2 and GFTA-3
were both included because of the recent publication of
the third edition. The following 12 tests were included in
the present analysis:
1. Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale–Third
Edition (AAPS-3; Fudala, 2000)
2. Bankson-Bernthal Test of Phonology (BBTOP;
Bankson & Bernthal, 1990)
3. Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology–
Second Edition (CAAP-2; Secord & Donahue,
2014)
4. Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and
Phonology–American Edition (DEAP-A;
Dodd, Hua, Crosbie, Holm, & Ozanne, 2006)—
Articulation Subtest
5. Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and
Phonology–American Edition (DEAP-P; Dodd
et al., 2006)—Phonology Subtest
6. GFTA-2 (Goldman & Fristoe, 2000)
7. GFTA-3 (Goldman & Fristoe, 2015)
8. Hodson Assessment of Phonological Patterns–
Third Edition (HAPP-3; Hodson, 2004)
9. LinguiSystems Articulation Test (LAT; Bowers
& Huisingh, 2010)
10. Photo Articulation Test–Third Edition (PAT-3;
Lippke, Dickey, Selmar, & Soder, 1997)
11. Smit–Hand Articulation and Phonology Evaluation
(SHAPE; Smit & Hand, 1992)
12. Structured Photographic Articulation Test–Second
Edition featuring Dudsberry (SPAT-DII; Dawson
& Tattersall, 2001).
Transcription
Seven of the 12 tests included whole-word transcrip-
tions of all stimulus items. In most cases, a test’s own tran-
scription of a stimulus item was used as the basis for all
analyses. The goal of this descriptive study was, as much as
possible, to describe the tests in their published forms, hence
the decision to use their own transcriptions in most cases.
There were some exceptions for which an online dictionary’s
(Dictionary.com) transcription was used. Dictionary.com
was used because it is based on the Random House Webster’s
Unabridged Dictionary, a reputable American English dic-
tionary. The majority of exceptions related to the use of
vocalic /ɚ/ instead of postvocalic consonantal /r/. If a test’s
transcription of a stimulus item used vocalic /ɚ/ when Dic-
tionary.com used postvocalic consonantal /r/, this study
used consonantal /r/. Examples included star (transcribed
by the BBTOP as /staɚ/ and HAPP-3 as /stɑɚ/), dinosaur
(transcribed by the BBTOP as /daɪnəsoɚ/ and the CAAP-2
and LAT as /daɪnəsɔɚ/), yard (transcribed by the BBTOP
as /jaɚd/), and horse (transcribed by the HAPP-3 as /hɔɚs/).
In addition, vowel transcriptions used by Dictionary.com
were preferred over the tests’ transcriptions. The majority
of disagreements over vowel transcriptions related to the
tests’ use of /a/ when Dictionary.com used /ɑ/ or its rounded
version, /ɒ/ (e.g., watch transcribed as /waʧ/ by the BBTOP
and /wɒʧ/ by Dictionary.com, water transcribed as /watɚ/
by the LAT and /wɒtɚ/ by Dictionary.com, and lifeguard
transcribed as /laɪfgaɚd/ by the LAT and /laɪfgɑrd/ by
Dictionary.com). In these cases, unrounded /ɑ/ was used. If
the same stimulus item was included in more than one test
but transcribed differently across tests, the transcription
used by the majority was used as the transcription in this
study (Dictionary.com was used to break ties). Five of
the 12 tests did not include whole-word transcriptions of the
stimulus items. In these cases, the researcher determined
the transcriptions, which were straightforward for most items
(e.g., pig = /pɪg/, balloons = /bəlunz/, slide = /slaɪd/). In less
clear cases, for example, when deciding whether or not to
Macrae: Stimulus Characteristics of Single-Word Tests 221
include /d/ in the transcription of sandwich or whether the
vowel in the second syllable of carrots is /ə/ or /ɪ/, and in the
cases listed earlier, Dictionary.com was used to determine
an item’s transcription.
Data Analyses
A comprehensive analysis was conducted of each
test’s stimulus items and included phonetic/phonological,
structural, and grammatical analyses. Only stimulus items
that were part of the test’s main single-word subtest or
analysis were included. Specifically, subtests that assessed
connected speech (in the CAAP-2, DEAP-P, GFTA-2,
GFTA-3, and SPAT-DII), stimulability (in the DEAP-A,
GFTA-2, GFTA-3, and LAT), and childhood apraxia of
speech (in the LAT) were excluded. Both the Articulation
and Phonology subtests from the DEAP were analyzed.
When an item included more than one acceptable response
(e.g., steps/stairs in the AAPS-3, jam/jelly in the BBTOP,
slide/sled in the HAPP-3, and this/that in the PAT-3), the
first response listed in the test was included in the analysis.
The only exceptions were the/this and the/them in the
BBTOP. In both cases, the second word listed (i.e., this
and them, respectively) was included because it is more
phonetically/phonologically and structurally complex than
the. Stimulus items that included more than one word
(e.g., Santa Claus, teddy bear, and thank you) were ana-
lyzed as one word. Additionally, the tests were examined
for aspects of their scoring procedures and how the dif-
ferent characteristics of their stimulus items contributed to
a child’s score.
Consonant Coverage
Each test was examined for the total number of occur-
rences, both scored and unscored, of each of the 24 conso-
nant singletons and two rhotic vowels (/ɝ, ɚ/) of Standard
American English (SAE) in initial, medial, and final word
positions. Consonant singletons were categorized according
to word rather than syllable position because word-medial
consonants were common. Vocalic /ɝ/ and /ɚ/ counts were
included in the word-medial and word-final consonantal /r/
counts. The proportion of total consonant singletons, con-
sonant clusters, and rhotic vowels sampled that contributed
to a child’s score was also calculated for each test.
Vowel Coverage
Each test was examined for the total number of oc-
currences, both scored and unscored, of each of the follow-
ing 17 vowels of SAE: five front vowels (/i, ɪ, e, ɛ, æ/), five
back vowels (/u, ʊ, o, ɔ, ɑ/), four central vowels (/ʌ, ə, ɝ, ɚ/),
and three diphthongs (/aɪ, aʊ, ɔɪ/). Both stressed and un-
stressed versions of the vowels were included in the count.
Diphthongs /eɪ/ and /oʊ/ were included in the counts of
their monophthong equivalents (/e/ and /o/, respectively).
In addition, the tests were compared for whether or not
nonrhotic and/or rhotic vowel errors contributed to a child’s
standard score.
222 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 48 • 219–233 • October 2017
Complexity
Stoel-Gammon’s (2010) Word Complexity Measure
(WCM) was used as a summary measure of phonetic/
phonological and structural complexity for each stimulus
item. WCM is an ordinal-level score based on the num-
ber of syllables, syllable structures, stress patterns, conso-
nant clusters, and sound classes within a word. Higher
WCM scores are associated with the following features:
more than two syllables, stress on any syllable but the first,
a word-final consonant, consonant clusters, velars, frica-
tives, affricates, liquids, and rhotic vowels. For example,
the word screwdriver received 1 point for containing more
than two syllables, 1 point for each of two consonant clus-
ters, 1 point for a velar consonant, 1 point for each of
two liquids, 1 point for a rhotic vowel, 1 point for each of
two fricatives, and 1 additional point for a voiced fricative,
resulting in a WCM score of 10. The word bed received
only 1 point for containing a word-final consonant, result-
ing in a WCM score of 1.
The number of consonant clusters in each stimulus
item, a second measure of complexity, was tallied for each
test. A consonant cluster was defined as two or more adja-
cent consonants within a syllable. In addition, each test
was examined for the total number of occurrences, both
scored and unscored, of /s/ or /z/, /r/, /l/, nasal, and glide
clusters in syllable-initial and syllable-final positions. Word-
medial clusters were categorized as either syllable-initial or
syllable-final because of their relative scarcity. While some
of the tests categorize word-medial consonant singletons
and clusters as such, others categorize them as either syllable-
initial or syllable-final. Analyzing singletons and clusters
according to syllable position may reveal error patterns not
seen when analyzing according to word position. Syllable-
final clusters containing /z/ (e.g., balloons) were combined
with syllable-final /s/ clusters. If a cluster contained more
than one phoneme of interest, it was included in the count
for each phoneme. For example, the syllable-initial /sl/
cluster in sled was included in both the /s/ cluster and /l/ clus-
ter counts.
The number of syllables in each stimulus item, a third
measure of complexity, was tallied for each test. For stim-
ulus items that contained more than one word, the total
number of syllables across all words was counted.
Bound Morphemes
Each test was examined for the number of words
with bound grammatical morphemes; the number of mor-
phemes that, when added to a stimulus item, resulted in
a word-final cluster; and the number of morphemes that
were scored by the test.
Statistical Analyses
Significance testing was used to compare the tests
in terms of the complexity of their stimulus items. WCM,
an ordinal-level score, was compared across the tests using
a Kruskall–Wallis nonparametric one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA). The groups failed Levene’s test of
homogeneity of variances (p < .05) and were therefore com-
pared using mean ranks rather than medians. All other
data were analyzed descriptively. Descriptive analyses were
used to compare the tests in terms of the number of clus-
ters and syllables within their stimulus items because of the
restricted range of the data across the tests (zero to two
clusters and one to four syllables). Descriptive analyses
were also used to provide readers with a tally of the num-
ber of opportunities for production of all consonant single-
tons, different types of consonant clusters, and rhotic and
nonrhotic vowels of SAE. Differences among the tests in
the number of stimulus items containing bound grammati-
cal morphemes, whether vowel errors contributed to a
child’s standard score, and in the proportion of scored con-
sonants were also described.
Results
Consonant Coverage
The numbers of each type of scored and unscored
consonant singleton and two rhotic vowels (/ɝ, ɚ/) of SAE
are presented for each test according to word-initial, word-
medial, and word-final positions and totaled across all
positions, in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The pho-
nemes are grouped according to manner of articulation.
For two of the tests (DEAP-A and GFTA-3), the examiner
is required to transcribe all sounds in order to calculate a
score. In other words, these tests require no additional
transcription over and above what is required to calculate
a score to analyze all speech sounds elicited by the test. All
other tests require additional transcription. The number
of scored and unscored singletons, clusters, and rhotic
vowels and the proportion of total sounds that were scored
are presented for each test in Figure 1. The tests are rank
ordered from top to bottom according to the total number
of sounds in the test (fewest to most). The DEAP-A con-
tained the fewest sounds (n = 64), whereas the PAT-3 con-
tained the most (n = 190). The test with the most sounds,
the PAT-3, was also the test with the lowest proportion of
scored consonants. Only 42% of its sounds were scored.
All other tests scored 50% or more of their consonant single-
tons, clusters, and rhotic vowels.
Vowel Coverage
The total number of occurrences, both scored and
unscored, of each of the five front vowels, five back vowels,
four central vowels (including the two rhotic vowels), and
three diphthongs of SAE, is presented for each test in Table 5.
In addition, the tests were examined for whether or not non-
rhotic and/or rhotic vowel errors contributed to a child’s
standard score. This information is also presented in Table 5.
Three of the tests scored productions of both nonrhotic and
rhotic vowels. Six of the tests scored productions of rhotic
vowels only. Three of the tests did not score any vowel
productions.
Complexity
The Kruskall–Wallis ANOVA yielded a significant
result, χ2(11) = 21.06, p = .033, indicating that the tests dif-
fered in the phonetic/phonological and structural complex-
ity of their stimulus items. The rank ordering of the tests
by the complexity of their stimulus items is presented in
Table 6, along with their mean rank scores. The HAPP-3
contained the most complex stimulus items, whereas the
AAPS-3 contained the least complex stimulus items.

Table 1. Number of occurrences of each word-initial consonant singleton of Standard American English in each test.

Stop Nasal Fricative Affricate Glide Liquid

Test p b t d k g m n f v θ ð s z ʃ h ʧ ʤ w j l r Total

AAPS-3 1 5 3 1 7 0 2 4 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 40
BBTOP 3 7 3 5 9 3 4 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 68
CAAP-2 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 2 35
DEAP-A 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27
DEAP-P 1 3 4 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 29
GFTA-2 2 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 36
GFTA-3 3 1 4 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 42
HAPP-3 1 2 2 0 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 28
LAT 4 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 35
PAT-3 3 11 5 1 8 1 3 2 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 2 1 59
SHAPE 1 6 1 3 6 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 43
SPAT-DII 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 33

Note. AAPS-3 = Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale–Third Edition (Fudala, 2000); BBTOP = Bankson-Bernthal Test of Phonology (Bankson &
Bernthal, 1990); CAAP-2 = Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology–Second Edition (Secord & Donahue, 2014); DEAP-A = Diagnostic
Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Articulation Subtest; DEAP-P = Diagnostic Evaluation of
Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Phonology Subtest; GFTA-2 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Second
Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2000); GFTA-3 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Third Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2015); HAPP-3 = Hodson
Assessment of Phonological Patterns–Third Edition (Hodson, 2004); LAT = LinguiSystems Articulation Test (Bowers & Huisingh, 2010); PAT-3 =
Photo Articulation Test–Third Edition (Lippke et al., 1997); SHAPE = Smit–Hand Articulation and Phonology Evaluation (Smit & Hand, 1992);
SPAT-DII = Structured Photographic Articulation Test–Second Edition featuring Dudsberry (Dawson & Tattersall, 2001).

Macrae: Stimulus Characteristics of Single-Word Tests 223

Table 2. Number of occurrences of each word-medial consonant singleton and rhotic vowel of Standard American English in each test.

Stop Nasal Fricative Affricate Glide Liquid

Test p b t d k g m n ŋ f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ h ʧ ʤ w j l r/ɝ/ɚ Total

AAPS-3 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 16
BBTOP 1 1 4 2 0 2 1 3 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 4 30
CAAP-2 2 1 4 0 2 1 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 28
DEAP-A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 7
DEAP-P 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 4 34
GFTA-2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 5 36
GFTA-3 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 31
HAPP-3 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 23
LAT 1 3 7 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 6 43
PAT-3 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 4 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 3 2 7 45
SHAPE 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 14
SPAT-DII 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 29

Note. AAPS-3 = Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale–Third Edition (Fudala, 2000); BBTOP = Bankson-Bernthal Test of Phonology (Bankson &
Bernthal, 1990); CAAP-2 = Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology–Second Edition (Secord & Donahue, 2014); DEAP-A = Diagnostic
Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Articulation Subtest; DEAP-P = Diagnostic Evaluation of
Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Phonology Subtest; GFTA-2 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Second
Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2000); GFTA-3 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Third Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2015); HAPP-3 = Hodson
Assessment of Phonological Patterns–Third Edition (Hodson, 2004); LAT = LinguiSystems Articulation Test (Bowers & Huisingh, 2010); PAT-3 =
Photo Articulation Test–Third Edition (Lippke et al., 1997); SHAPE = Smit–Hand Articulation and Phonology Evaluation (Smit & Hand, 1992);
SPAT-DII = Structured Photographic Articulation Test–Second Edition featuring Dudsberry (Dawson & Tattersall, 2001).

Only 18 of the total 667 stimulus items across all
tests (2.7%) contained two clusters. All other stimulus
items contained either zero or one cluster. The number of
stimulus items in each test containing zero, one, and two
clusters and the total number of clusters across all stimulus
items in each test are presented in Table 7. The SHAPE
contained the most consonant clusters across all stimulus
items. The rank ordering of the tests by the mean number
of clusters in each stimulus item is included in Table 6.
The HAPP-3 contained the highest mean number of clusters
per stimulus item, whereas the DEAP-A contained the
lowest. In addition, the total number of each type of scored
and unscored syllable-initial and syllable-final consonant
cluster in each test is presented in Tables 8 and 9, respec-
tively. The clusters are grouped according to the type of
cluster. The SHAPE contained the most syllable-initial
clusters, whereas the PAT-3 contained the most syllable-
final clusters. Only three of the tests contained stimulus
items with three-element clusters: the DEAP-P (n = 3), the
HAPP-3 (n = 3), and the SHAPE (n = 5).

Table 3. Number of occurrences of each word-final consonant singleton and rhotic vowel of Standard American English in each test.

Stop Nasal Fricative Affricate Liquid

Test p b t d k g m n ŋ f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ ʧ ʤ l r/ɝ/ɚ Total

AAPS-3 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 8 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 2 5 35
BBTOP 4 2 9 3 4 3 3 10 0 2 2 2 0 2 3 2 0 3 3 1 7 65
CAAP-2 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 4 7 41
DEAP-A 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 3 25
DEAP-P 1 2 2 1 3 3 0 4 2 2 1 1 0 2 1 2 0 2 0 2 5 36
GFTA-2 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 6 5 1 1 1 0 2 6 1 0 1 1 3 5 44
GFTA-3 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 1 1 0 3 3 1 0 1 0 5 10 50
HAPP-3 2 0 2 1 5 0 2 5 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 7 38
LAT 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 5 3 1 1 1 0 2 3 1 0 1 1 7 9 44
PAT-3 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 8 3 1 2 1 3 8 55
SHAPE 5 1 5 4 7 4 3 8 4 1 1 1 0 5 2 2 0 1 2 3 10 69
SPAT-DII 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 1 0 3 6 2 0 1 1 3 4 38

Note. AAPS-3 = Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale–Third Edition (Fudala, 2000); BBTOP = Bankson-Bernthal Test of Phonology (Bankson &
Bernthal, 1990); CAAP-2 = Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology–Second Edition (Secord & Donahue, 2014); DEAP-A = Diagnostic
Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Articulation Subtest; DEAP-P = Diagnostic Evaluation of
Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Phonology Subtest; GFTA-2 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Second
Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2000); GFTA-3 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Third Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2015); HAPP-3 = Hodson
Assessment of Phonological Patterns–Third Edition (Hodson, 2004); LAT = LinguiSystems Articulation Test (Bowers & Huisingh, 2010); PAT-3 =
Photo Articulation Test–Third Edition (Lippke et al., 1997); SHAPE = Smit–Hand Articulation and Phonology Evaluation (Smit & Hand, 1992);
SPAT-DII = Structured Photographic Articulation Test–Second Edition featuring Dudsberry (Dawson & Tattersall, 2001).

224 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 48 • 219–233 • October 2017
Table 4. Total number of occurrences of each consonant singleton and rhotic vowel of Standard American English in each test.

Stop Nasal Fricative Affricate Glide Liquid

Test p b t d k g m n ŋ f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ h ʧ ʤ w j l r/ɝ/ɚ Total

AAPS-3 3 8 4 4 9 3 4 12 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 5 11 91
BBTOP 8 10 16 10 13 8 8 15 1 6 4 3 4 6 5 4 0 2 5 5 2 4 9 15 163
CAAP-2 4 5 6 4 7 5 7 6 4 5 3 3 2 6 2 2 1 4 2 3 2 2 8 11 104
DEAP-A 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 4 1 4 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 7 59
DEAP-P 4 7 9 3 7 4 3 5 3 6 2 3 2 5 4 4 0 2 3 1 3 2 7 10 99
GFTA-2 4 7 4 3 7 4 6 11 7 6 3 3 2 5 8 3 0 1 3 3 5 2 7 12 116
GFTA-3 6 4 8 5 8 6 6 6 5 7 5 2 2 7 6 4 0 2 4 4 2 2 9 13 123
HAPP-3 3 4 4 2 9 1 5 7 4 4 4 3 1 5 4 3 1 3 2 2 2 4 4 8 89
LAT 6 8 10 3 6 4 4 8 4 6 3 2 0 5 7 3 0 2 3 3 3 2 13 17 122
PAT-3 6 13 10 5 14 5 8 11 4 5 3 5 3 7 10 5 2 5 4 3 4 4 7 16 159
SHAPE 8 8 7 9 13 6 4 12 4 2 2 3 1 7 4 4 0 2 3 3 2 2 6 14 126
SPAT-DII 5 5 4 4 8 3 6 6 3 4 3 4 2 5 8 5 0 1 2 3 2 2 8 7 100

Note. AAPS-3 = Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale–Third Edition (Fudala, 2000); BBTOP = Bankson-Bernthal Test of Phonology (Bankson &
Bernthal, 1990); CAAP-2 = Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology–Second Edition (Secord & Donahue, 2014); DEAP-A = Diagnostic
Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Articulation Subtest; DEAP-P = Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation
and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Phonology Subtest; GFTA-2 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Second Edition
(Goldman & Fristoe, 2000); GFTA-3 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Third Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2015); HAPP-3 = Hodson Assessment
of Phonological Patterns–Third Edition (Hodson, 2004); LAT = LinguiSystems Articulation Test (Bowers & Huisingh, 2010); PAT-3 = Photo
Articulation Test–Third Edition (Lippke et al., 1997); SHAPE = Smit–Hand Articulation and Phonology Evaluation (Smit & Hand, 1992); SPAT-DII =
Structured Photographic Articulation Test–Second Edition featuring Dudsberry (Dawson & Tattersall, 2001).

Only nine of the total 667 stimulus items across all
tests (1.3%) contained four syllables. Only 40 (6.0%) con-
tained three syllables. All other stimulus items contained
either one or two syllables. The number of stimulus items
in each test containing one, two, three, and four syllables
is presented in Table 10. The PAT-3 contained the most
multisyllabic stimulus items. The rank ordering of the tests
by the mean number of syllables in each stimulus item is
included in Table 6. The LAT contained the highest mean
number of syllables per stimulus item, whereas the DEAP-A
contained the lowest.
Bound Morphemes
The number of stimulus items containing bound
morphemes in each test, including those that resulted in
word-final consonant clusters and those that represented
a scored structure, is presented in Table 11, along with

Figure 1. Total number of scored and unscored consonant singletons, clusters, and rhotic vowels and percentage of total sounds that are
scored for each test. DEAP-A = Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition, Articulation Subtest; AAPS-3 = Arizona
Articulation Proficiency Scale–Third Edition; SPAT-DII = Structured Photographic Articulation Test–Second Edition featuring Dudsberry; CAAP =
Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology; HAPP-3 = Hodson Assessment of Phonological Patterns–Third Edition; DEAP-P = Diagnostic
Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition, Phonology Subtest; GFTA-2 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Second Edition;
LAT = LinguiSystems Articulation Test; GFTA-3 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Third Edition; SHAPE = Smit–Hand Articulation and
Phonology Evaluation; BBTOP = Bankson-Bernthal Test of Phonology; PAT-3 = Photo Articulation Test–Third Edition.

Macrae: Stimulus Characteristics of Single-Word Tests 225

Table 5. Number of occurrences of each monophthong and diphthong vowel of Standard American English in each test and the contribution
of vowel errors to test standardized scores.

Vowel
Front Back Central Diphthong
Test i ɪ e ɛ æ u ʊ o ɔ ɑ ʌ ə ɝ ɚ aɪ aʊ ɔɪ Total

AAPS-3a 4 8 5 6 5 1 1 5 4 2 6 5 1 5 2 1 0 61
BBTOPb 7 8 9 10 15 4 1 9 3 4 11 11 1 6 6 4 0 109
CAAP-2b 5 9 7 7 4 3 0 2 3 5 2 6 0 7 3 3 0 66
DEAP-Aa 3 6 1 4 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 0 2 1 1 36
DEAP-Pb 7 12 3 11 9 3 1 2 3 2 5 10 0 7 5 1 1 82
GFTA-2c 3 16 1 5 11 4 0 3 3 4 8 10 1 6 4 3 0 82
GFTA-3b 8 8 2 8 8 5 1 3 2 3 10 15 0 7 6 2 1 89
HAPP-3c 4 10 5 4 7 6 0 7 2 5 6 2 0 6 3 4 1 72
LATb 8 6 7 8 3 2 1 4 3 4 8 10 3 11 5 4 0 87
PAT-3a 7 8 13 9 18 6 1 3 4 6 8 14 1 10 2 2 1 113
SHAPEb 6 13 11 10 10 3 0 7 4 9 9 6 0 12 4 2 0 106
SPAT-DIIc 9 7 2 8 9 4 1 5 1 2 9 10 0 4 0 1 0 72

Note. AAPS-3 = Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale–Third Edition (Fudala, 2000); BBTOP = Bankson-Bernthal Test of Phonology (Bankson &
Bernthal, 1990); CAAP-2 = Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology–Second Edition (Secord & Donahue, 2014); DEAP-A = Diagnostic
Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Articulation Subtest; DEAP-P = Diagnostic Evaluation of
Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Phonology Subtest; GFTA-2 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Second
Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2000); GFTA-3 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Third Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2015); HAPP-3 = Hodson
Assessment of Phonological Patterns–Third Edition (Hodson, 2004); LAT = LinguiSystems Articulation Test (Bowers & Huisingh, 2010); PAT-3 =
Photo Articulation Test–Third Edition (Lippke et al., 1997); SHAPE = Smit–Hand Articulation and Phonology Evaluation (Smit & Hand, 1992);
SPAT-DII = Structured Photographic Articulation Test–Second Edition featuring Dudsberry (Dawson & Tattersall, 2001).
a
Nonrhotic and rhotic vowels contribute to the standard score. bRhotic vowels contribute to the standard score. cVowels do not contribute to
the standard score.

ranges across the tests. The number of items in each test
containing bound morphemes ranged from zero (CAAP-2) to
18 (PAT-3). The number of items in each test with bound
morphemes resulting in word-final clusters ranged from zero
(BBTOP, CAAP-2, and GFTA-3) to 10 (PAT-3). In all of
these cases, the bound morpheme was plural -s. None of
the tests contained items with third–person singular -s, pos-
sessive ’s, or past tense -ed. The number of items in each
test with bound morphemes that were scored ranged from
zero (CAAP-2, PAT-3, and SHAPE) to seven (HAPP-3).

Table 6. Rank ordering of tests by mean ranks for word complexity, mean number of clusters per stimulus item, and mean number of
syllables per stimulus item.

Order Test WCM Test Clusters Test Syllables

1 HAPP-3 399.45 HAPP-3 0.66 LAT 1.62

2 GFTA-2 367.40 DEAP-P 0.48 DEAP-P 1.60
3 CAAP-2 360.30 SHAPE 0.43 SPAT-DII 1.58
4 LAT 357.88 GFTA-2 0.42 GFTA-2 1.55
5 PAT-3 347.71 PAT-3 0.41 CAAP-2 1.50
6 DEAP-P 347.64 LAT 0.37 PAT-3 1.47
7 SPAT-DII 344.30 SPAT-DII 0.33 GFTA-3 1.47
8 GFTA-3 321.67 AAPS-3 0.33 HAPP-3 1.44
9 SHAPE 313.43 GFTA-3 0.30 BBTOP 1.38
10 BBTOP 294.26 BBTOP 0.26 AAPS-3 1.30
11 DEAP-A 283.20 CAAP-2 0.25 SHAPE 1.23
12 AAPS-3 279.22 DEAP-A 0.17 DEAP-A 1.20

Note. WCM = Word Complexity Measure; HAPP-3 = Hodson Assessment of Phonological Patterns–Third Edition (Hodson, 2004); LAT =
LinguiSystems Articulation Test (Bowers & Huisingh, 2010); GFTA-2 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Second Edition (Goldman &
Fristoe, 2000); DEAP-P = Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Phonology Subtest;
CAAP-2 = Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology–Second Edition (Secord & Donahue, 2014); SHAPE = Smit–Hand Articulation and
Phonology Evaluation (Smit & Hand, 1992); SPAT-DII = Structured Photographic Articulation Test–Second Edition featuring Dudsberry (Dawson
& Tattersall, 2001); PAT-3 = Photo Articulation Test–Third Edition (Lippke et al., 1997); GFTA-3 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Third
Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2015); AAPS-3 = Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale–Third Edition (Fudala, 2000); BBTOP = Bankson-Bernthal
Test of Phonology (Bankson & Bernthal, 1990); DEAP-A = Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al.,
2006)—Articulation Subtest.

226 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 48 • 219–233 • October 2017
Table 7. Number of stimulus items containing zero, one, and two consonant clusters and total number of consonant clusters across all
stimulus items in each test.

Test 0 1 2 Total clusters

AAPS-3 32 12 1 14
BBTOP 59 20 0 20
CAAP-2 33 11 0 11
DEAP-A 25 5 0 5
DEAP-P 28 20 2 24
GFTA-2 32 20 1 22
GFTA-3 42 18 0 18
HAPP-3 22 24 5 34
LAT 34 17 1 19
PAT-3 49 23 4 31
SHAPEa 49 29 3 35
SPAT-DII 31 13 1 15

Note. The first three columns report the number of stimulus items that contain zero, one, and two clusters. No stimulus items contain three
clusters. Total clusters refer to the total number of clusters across all stimulus items. AAPS-3 = Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale–Third
Edition (Fudala, 2000); BBTOP = Bankson-Bernthal Test of Phonology (Bankson & Bernthal, 1990); CAAP-2 = Clinical Assessment of Articulation
and Phonology–Second Edition (Secord & Donahue, 2014); DEAP-A = Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition
(Dodd et al., 2006)—Articulation Subtest; DEAP-P = Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—
Phonology Subtest; GFTA-2 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Second Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2000); GFTA-3 = Goldman-Fristoe Test
of Articulation–Third Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2015); HAPP-3 = Hodson Assessment of Phonological Patterns–Third Edition (Hodson, 2004);
LAT = LinguiSystems Articulation Test (Bowers & Huisingh, 2010); PAT-3 = Photo Articulation Test–Third Edition (Lippke et al., 1997); SHAPE =
Smit–Hand Articulation and Phonology Evaluation (Smit & Hand, 1992); SPAT-DII = Structured Photographic Articulation Test–Second Edition
featuring Dudsberry (Dawson & Tattersall, 2001).
a
Contains the most consonant clusters.

Table 8. Numbers and types of syllable-initial consonant clusters in each test.

Test /s/ /r/ /l/ Glide Nasal Total

AAPS-3 st(2) tr(2), gr pl 6

BBTOP sn, st(2), sk, sl br(2), tr, kr(2) kl(2), fl(2), sl sn 14
CAAP-2 sn, sw, sk br, tr, gr kl, gl, fl pj, sw sn 10
DEAP-A sn br, kr sn 3
DEAP-Pa sn, sw, sp, sk, skw, spl, str pr, br(4), tr, kr, fr, gl, spl kw, sw, skw sn 18
θr, str
GFTA-2 sw, sp, st, sl br, tr, dr, kr, gr, fr pl, bl, kl, gl, fl, sl kw, sw 16
GFTA-3 sw, sp, st, sl pr, br(3), tr, dr, kr, pl, bl, gl, sl kw, sw 17
gr, fr
HAPP-3a sm, sn, sw, sp, st, sl, skw, br, tr, dr, kr, gr, θr, pl, bl, kl, gl(2), fl, sl mj, kw, kj, sw, skw mj, sm, sn 24
str, skr str, skr
LAT sm, st, sk pr, br(3), tr, dr, kr, pl, bl, kl, gl, fl sm 17
gr, fr
PAT-3 sw, sp, st(2), sk br(2), tr, kr(2) bl, kl, gl, fl(2) sw 15
SHAPEa,b sm, sn(2), sw, sp(2), st, sk, pr, br(2), tr, dr, kr, gr, pl, bl, kl(2), gl(2), fl, tw, kw, sw, skw sm, sn (2) 32
sl, spl, spr, str, skw, skr fr, θr, spr, str, skr sl, spl
SPAT-DII sn, sw, st, sl br(3), tr, dr, kr bl, fl, sl sw sn 12

Note. Clusters are included in more than one column if they represent more than one type (e.g., /sl/ is included in both /s/ and /l/ columns).
Total reflects the total number of clusters in each test (e.g., while included in both /s/ and /l/ columns, /sl/ is counted only once). AAPS-3 =
Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale–Third Edition (Fudala, 2000); BBTOP = Bankson-Bernthal Test of Phonology (Bankson & Bernthal, 1990);
CAAP-2 = Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology–Second Edition (Secord & Donahue, 2014); DEAP-A = Diagnostic Evaluation
of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Articulation Subtest; DEAP-P = Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and
Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Phonology Subtest; GFTA-2 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Second Edition
(Goldman & Fristoe, 2000); GFTA-3 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Third Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2015); HAPP-3 = Hodson
Assessment of Phonological Patterns–Third Edition (Hodson, 2004); LAT = LinguiSystems Articulation Test (Bowers & Huisingh, 2010); PAT-3 =
Photo Articulation Test–Third Edition (Lippke et al., 1997); SHAPE = Smit–Hand Articulation and Phonology Evaluation (Smit & Hand, 1992);
SPAT-DII = Structured Photographic Articulation Test–Second Edition featuring Dudsberry (Dawson & Tattersall, 2001).
a
Contains three-element consonant clusters. bContains the most syllable-initial consonant clusters.

Macrae: Stimulus Characteristics of Single-Word Tests 227

Table 9. Numbers and types of syllable-final consonant clusters in each test.

/s, z/ /r/ /l/ Nasal Total

AAPS-3 st, ps, ts, ks, rs rk, rs ld mp 8

BBTOP st rd lk mp, nt, nd 6
CAAP-2 nt 1
DEAP-A gz nʤ 2
DEAP-P vz nt(2), nd, nʤ, ŋk 6
GFTA-2 nz, lz, rz rz lz mp(2), nz, nʤ 6
GFTA-3 nt 1
HAPP-3 sk, ts, ks, rs, nz, bz, dz rk, rs dl mp, nz 10
LAT nz rd nz 2
PAT-3a ts(2), ks, nz(2), lz(3), rz(2) rk, rz(2) lz(3) mp, nt, nd, nz(2), nʤ, ŋk 16
SHAPE nz(2) nt, nz(2) 3
SPAT-DII ks nt, nʤ 3

Note. Clusters are included in more than one column if they represent more than one type (e.g., /rs/ is included in both /s/ and /r/ columns).
Total reflects the total number of clusters in each test (e.g., while included in both /s/ and /r/ columns, /rs/ is counted only once). AAPS-3 =
Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale–Third Edition (Fudala, 2000); BBTOP = Bankson-Bernthal Test of Phonology (Bankson & Bernthal, 1990);
CAAP-2 = Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology–Second Edition (Secord & Donahue, 2014); DEAP-A = Diagnostic Evaluation of
Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Articulation Subtest; DEAP-P = Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and
Phonology–American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Phonology Subtest; GFTA-2 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Second Edition (Goldman
& Fristoe, 2000); GFTA-3 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Third Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2015); HAPP-3 = Hodson Assessment of
Phonological Patterns–Third Edition (Hodson, 2004); LAT = LinguiSystems Articulation Test (Bowers & Huisingh, 2010); PAT-3 = Photo
Articulation Test–Third Edition (Lippke et al., 1997); SHAPE = Smit–Hand Articulation and Phonology Evaluation (Smit & Hand, 1992);
SPAT-DII = Structured Photographic Articulation Test–Second Edition featuring Dudsberry (Dawson & Tattersall, 2001).
a
Contains the most syllable-final consonant clusters.

Discussion
Table 10. Number of stimulus items in each test containing one, The primary purpose of this study was to provide SLPs
two, three, and four syllables. with a description of the stimulus characteristics of popular
standardized tests of speech sound production, including
Test 1 syllable 2 syllables 3 syllables 4 syllables frequency of occurrence data, phonetic/phonological and
structural complexity, and the presence of bound morphemes.
AAPS-3 34 11 0 1
BBTOP 58 14 8 0 A secondary purpose was to determine if the tests provide a
CAAP-2 33 2 7 2 sufficient sample for conducting a comprehensive phono-
DEAP-A 26 3 0 1 logical analysis. The analyses performed revealed that the
DEAP-P 26 19 4 1 tests vary widely in terms of their numbers of stimulus items;
GFTA-2 27 23 3 0
GFTA-3 35 22 3 0
the syllables, consonant singletons, consonant clusters,
HAPP-3 33 13 3 1 vowels, and bound morphemes contained within their stim-
LAT 27 19 5 1 ulus items; and the phonetic/phonological and structural
PAT-3a 44 28 4 0 complexity of their stimulus items. This variety mirrors the
SHAPE 67 11 1 2
SPAT-DII 21 22 2 0
heterogeneity seen in the population of children they are
designed to assess, that is, those with SSDs. These children
Note. AAPS-3 = Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale–Third Edition represent a wide range of ages, severity levels, and subtypes
(Fudala, 2000); BBTOP = Bankson-Bernthal Test of Phonology of SSDs. The SLP’s role is to decide which test is most
(Bankson & Bernthal, 1990); CAAP-2 = Clinical Assessment of
Articulation and Phonology–Second Edition (Secord & Donahue,
appropriate for his or her client(s).
2014); DEAP-A = Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–
American Edition (Dodd et al., 2006)—Articulation Subtest; DEAP-P =
Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition Consonant Coverage
(Dodd et al., 2006)—Phonology Subtest; GFTA-2 = Goldman-Fristoe These data complement the study by Eisenberg and
Test of Articulation–Second Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2000);
GFTA-3 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Third Edition (Goldman
Hitchcock (2010), whose findings were intended to identify
& Fristoe, 2015); HAPP-3 = Hodson Assessment of Phonological which tests allowed readers to generate a valid phonetic
Patterns–Third Edition (Hodson, 2004); LAT = LinguiSystems Articulation inventory for consonants and vowels. The present study
Test (Bowers & Huisingh, 2010); PAT-3 = Photo Articulation Test– was intended to provide readers with actual numbers of
Third Edition (Lippke et al., 1997); SHAPE = Smit–Hand Articulation
and Phonology Evaluation (Smit & Hand, 1992); SPAT-DII = Structured
occurrences of each consonant and rhotic vowel in each
Photographic Articulation Test–Second Edition featuring Dudsberry test and determine the adequacy of the tests in providing
(Dawson & Tattersall, 2001). a sufficient sample with which to conduct a comprehensive
a
Contains the most multisyllabic stimulus items. phonological analysis. This information may be useful for
SLPs who are choosing a test that will be most appropriate

228 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 48 • 219–233 • October 2017
 Table 11. Number of stimulus items containing bound morphemes, bound morphemes with complex phonological
structures, and scored bound morphemes.

Test No. of bound morphemes No. of complex structures No. of scored morphemes

AAPS-3 5 3 2
BBTOP 1 0 1
CAAP-2a 0 0 0
DEAP-A 1 1 1
DEAP-P 3 1 3
GFTA-2 12 3 1
GFTA-3 4 0 4
HAPP-3 7 4 7
LAT 7 1 5
PAT-3 18 10 0
SHAPE 2 2 0
SPAT-DII 9 1 2
Range 0–18 0–10 0–7

Note. AAPS-3 = Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale–Third Edition (Fudala, 2000); BBTOP = Bankson-Bernthal Test
of Phonology (Bankson & Bernthal, 1990); CAAP-2 = Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology–Second Edition
(Secord & Donahue, 2014); DEAP-A = Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition (Dodd
et al., 2006)—Articulation Subtest; DEAP-P = Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American Edition
(Dodd et al., 2006)—Phonology Subtest; GFTA-2 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Second Edition (Goldman
& Fristoe, 2000); GFTA-3 = Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Third Edition (Goldman & Fristoe, 2015); HAPP-3 =
Hodson Assessment of Phonological Patterns–Third Edition (Hodson, 2004); LAT = LinguiSystems Articulation Test
(Bowers & Huisingh, 2010); PAT-3 = Photo Articulation Test–Third Edition (Lippke et al., 1997); SHAPE = Smit–Hand
Articulation and Phonology Evaluation (Smit & Hand, 1992); SPAT-DII = Structured Photographic Articulation Test–
Second Edition featuring Dudsberry (Dawson & Tattersall, 2001).
a
Contains the fewest bound morphemes.

for their clients and for those who already use a test in
determining which sounds need supplemental testing. The
BBTOP had the most stops across all word positions and
might be best suited to children who are suspected of hav-
ing difficulties producing stops, for example, those who
substitute voiced for voiceless stops or those who substitute
alveolar for velar stops. The PAT-3 had the most fricatives
across all word positions, including the most interdental
(/θ, ð/), alveolar (/s, z/), and palatal (/ʃ, ʒ/) fricatives. These
fricatives, in particular, are known to be problematic for
children with SSDs (Shriberg, 1993). This test might be
best suited to children with reported difficulties producing
fricatives. The LAT had the most liquids and rhotic vowels,
which are also known to cause difficulties for children
with SSDs (Shriberg, 1993) and are among the last phonemes
to be mastered by the general population (Smit, Hand,
Freilinger, Bernthal, & Bird, 1990). This test might be best
suited to children with reported difficulties producing liquids
and rhotic vowels.
A secondary aim of this study was to determine if
the tests provide a sufficient sample with which to conduct
a comprehensive phonological analysis. Examination of the
consonant occurrence data reveals one particularly note-
worthy finding. Most of the tests (AAPS-3, CAAP-2, DEAP-A,
DEAP-P, GFTA-2, HAPP-3, LAT, and SPAT-DII) included
only one opportunity, scored or unscored, to produce a
majority of the consonants in each word position. As argued
earlier, a comprehensive phonological analysis might include
an error pattern and/or PVM analysis. It seems desirable
to have at least two opportunities for production of each
consonant in each word position for these analyses. Only
four of the 12 tests (BBTOP, GFTA-3, PAT-3, and SHAPE)
had two or more opportunities for a majority of consonants
in word-initial position. None of the tests had two or more
opportunities for a majority of consonants in word-medial
position. Six tests (BBTOP, CAAP-2, DEAP-P, GFTA-3,
PAT-3, and SHAPE) had two or more opportunities for
a majority of consonants in word-final position. Further-
more, across the tests, most of the consonant occurrences ap-
peared to be for stops and nasals. Children with SSDs tend
to produce early developing speech sounds such as these
more accurately than later developing sounds, such as frica-
tives, affricates, and liquids (Shriberg, 1993). Given recent
findings of high rates of production inconsistency in chil-
dren, even those with typical development (de Castro &
Wertzner, 2011; Macrae, 2013; Macrae & Sosa, 2015; McLeod
& Hewett, 2008; Sosa, 2015; Sosa & Stoel-Gammon, 2012),
it seems important to provide children with more than one
opportunity to produce a consonant in a particular word
position by supplementing tests of speech sound production
with additional stimulus items. This is especially important
for later developing sounds, which tend to be produced less
consistently and accurately than early developing sounds
(Macrae, 2013; McLeod & Hewett, 2008; Shriberg, 1993;
Sosa & Stoel-Gammon, 2012).
The recommendation to conduct supplemental single-
word testing is not new (Bankson et al., 2013; Bernhardt
& Holdgrafer, 2001b; Macrae, 2016; Miccio, 2002, 2005).
The number of words elicited by a standardized test of speech
sound production ranges from as few as 30 (DEAP-A;

Macrae: Stimulus Characteristics of Single-Word Tests 229

Dodd et al., 2006) to as many as 81 (SHAPE; Smit &
Hand, 1992), while recommendations in the literature for
adequate single-word samples range from 100 (Bernhardt
& Holdgrafer, 2001a; Tyler, 2005) to 250 (Grunwell, 1985).
An SLP may be assessing a child with reported difficulties
producing /s/ clusters, for example. If the standardized test
provides only a limited number of opportunities to produce
these speech sounds, he or she should supplement the test
with additional words. Although supplemental single-word
testing is recommended, it is likely to present a challenge
to most SLPs due to the time constraints associated with
large clinical caseloads (Khan, 2002). The frequency of
occurrence data here will allow SLPs to determine which
sounds need supplemental testing.
Several tests had high proportions of scored consonant
singleton, consonant cluster, and rhotic vowel productions.
All of the productions in both the DEAP-A and GFTA-3
were scored. Four other tests (HAPP-3, DEAP-P, LAT, and
BBTOP) had proportions of 80% or higher. Some of the
tests included a large number of productions that did not
contribute to a child’s standard score. For example, more
than half of the productions in the PAT-3 were unscored. It
should be noted that, while only 56% of the productions in
the GFTA-2 were scored, all productions are included in an
error pattern analysis performed using the accompanying
Khan–Lewis Phonological Analysis–Second Edition (Khan
& Lewis, 2002). SLPs should use all productions, both scored
and unscored, as the basis of their phonological analyses if
these analyses are to be most comprehensive (Bankson et al.,
2013; Elbert & Gierut, 1986; Klein, 1984; Macrae, 2016).
This requires the transcription of all speech sounds produced
by a child, not just those scored by the test. These tran-
scriptions would then be used to conduct a phonetic inven-
tory, determine accuracy for different speech sounds or
manner classes (e.g., fricatives), and/or conduct error pat-
tern or PVM analyses.
Vowel Coverage
The data pertaining to the total number of occur-
rences of the vowels of SAE in each of the tests also com-
plement the findings from Eisenberg and Hitchcock (2010).
The present study provides readers with actual numbers
of occurrences of each vowel in each test. This information
may also be useful for SLPs, who may wish to provide
children with multiple opportunities to produce different
vowels. For example, a child may show particular difficulty
with front vowels. The PAT-3 provides the most oppor-
tunities for front vowel productions (n = 55), and vowel
errors also contribute to the test’s standard score. Further-
more, Eisenberg and Hitchcock (2010) reported that the
PAT-3 included at least two phonetically controlled words
for 11 of the 15 vowels they analyzed. These authors de-
fined phonetically controlled words for vowels as those that
were monosyllabic “in which the vowel either occurred in
an open syllable or was followed by a consonant other than
a liquid or occurred in the stressed syllable of a bisyllabic
230 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 48 • 219–233 • October 2017
word” (p. 493). Examples of phonetically controlled words
for /i/ include key, leap, and meeting.
One difference is apparent between the consonant
and vowel coverage data. While most of the tests included
only one opportunity to produce a majority of the conso-
nants, all of the tests included multiple opportunities to
produce a majority of the vowels. In fact, all but one of
the tests (DEAP-A) included at least three opportunities
for a majority of the vowels. Clearly, the main reason for
this difference between the consonant and vowel data is
simply that there are fewer vowels than consonants in SAE
and therefore more opportunities to produce each one. Three
vowels for which there were limited opportunities for pro-
duction, almost universally across the tests, were the monoph-
thong /ʊ/, the rhotic vowel /ɝ/, and the diphthong /ɔɪ/. This
is consistent with Eisenberg and Hitchcock (2010), who re-
ported limited opportunities in the tests they evaluated for
generating a valid phonetic inventory for these particular
vowels. While Eisenberg and Hitchcock concluded that
none of the tests are valid for obtaining a phonetic inven-
tory for vowels, the implications from the present study’s
findings are that SLPs should not have to supplement tests
of speech sound production with many additional stimulus
items if they are not concerned about sampling children’s
vowel productions in phonetically controlled words. SLPs
might be more interested in sampling vowels in a variety of
contexts than obtaining a phonetic inventory, especially for
older children or those with more advanced speech sound
systems.
SLPs have only a few options available to them for
scoring vowel productions, if they are testing children with
suspected vowel difficulties. Only three tests scored both
nonrhotic and rhotic vowels. Furthermore, it is difficult to
determine the relative contribution of vowel errors to a
child’s standard score on these tests. If a child produces
both consonant and vowel errors and scores below the
typical range (below 1 SD below the mean), it is not possi-
ble to determine whether the child’s consonant productions
or vowel productions (or both) are age inappropriate. The
DEAP-A does include a section that assists the examiner
in calculating percent vowels correct (Shriberg et al., 1997)
and assigning a severity rating based on this value. In con-
trast to Eisenberg and Hitchcock (2010), who reported
that the HAPP-3 scored vowels, the present investigation
determined that this test does not score vowel productions,
neither nonrhotic nor rhotic. The test record form does
include space for summarizing vowel productions, as does
the SPAT-DII. The GFTA-3 record form includes a sec-
tion for performing an informal analysis of 15 vowels
of SAE.
Complexity
These tests varied in terms of the phonetic/phonological
and structural complexity of their stimulus items. SLPs may
consider these data when deciding on a test to use with their
students. Tests with the most complex stimulus items, that
is, those that contain the most consonant clusters and
syllables and the most complex consonant singletons (e.g.,
HAPP-3), may be most ideal for older children or those
with mild or moderate SSDs. Tests with less complex stim-
ulus items may not sufficiently tax these children’s speech
sound production abilities. Tests with stimulus items of
low complexity, that is, those that contain few consonant
clusters and syllables and the least complex consonant
singletons (e.g., DEAP-A), may be more appropriate for
young children or those with severe SSDs. Tests with more
complex stimulus items may not be sufficiently sensitive
to these children’s immature speech sound production abil-
ities. The HAPP-3, PAT-3, or SHAPE, which included
numerous items containing one or two consonant clusters,
might be chosen to test children whose difficulties lie mainly
with clusters. Two of these tests (the HAPP-3 and SHAPE)
are among only three that contained stimulus items with
three-element clusters. This highlights the need to supple-
ment standardized tests with additional items containing
three-element clusters for children with cluster difficulties.
The PAT-3, which contained the most multisyllabic items,
and the BBTOP and CAAP-2, which included eight and
nine 3- or 4-syllable items, respectively, might be chosen
to test a child whose difficulties lie mainly with multi-
syllabic words.
There was some similarity in the rank ordering of
the tests according to the three different measures of com-
plexity (WCM, clusters, and syllables), as would be expected
given the inclusion of clusters and syllables in the calcula-
tion of WCM. Many of the tests had similar ranks for two
or all three of the measures. For example, the DEAP-P,
GFTA-2, and HAPP-3 were ranked consistently high in
terms of complexity. The BBTOP and DEAP-A were ranked
consistently low in terms of complexity. The rank ordering
according to the different measures was not, however, iden-
tical. For example, the SHAPE had the fourth lowest WCM
mean rank and second lowest mean number of syllables
per stimulus item but the third highest mean number of
clusters per stimulus item. While the stimulus items in the
SHAPE contained a relatively large number of consonant
clusters, they were predominantly within monosyllabic
words. Furthermore, upon inspection of the frequency
of occurrence data, the SHAPE had the third fewest total
number of fricatives. This is a manner class that increases
a word’s complexity, according to the WCM. This likely
contributed to the SHAPE’s low WCM mean rank. The
AAPS-3 had the lowest WCM mean rank but did not have
the lowest mean number of syllables or clusters per stimu-
lus item. Examination of the frequency of occurrence
data reveals that the AAPS-3 had the second fewest total
number of fricatives and equally fewest total number of
affricates. Both of these manner classes increase a word’s
complexity. These observations underlie the multifaceted na-
ture of word complexity, as measured using Stoel-Gammon’s
(2010) WCM. In addition to clusters and syllables, WCM
reflects the complexity of the phonemes contained within
stimulus items, and SLPs should consider all sources of
complexity when selecting a test.
Bound Morphemes
Many of the tests contained numerous stimulus items
with bound morphemes. Only one test, the CAAP-2, con-
tained no stimulus items with bound morphemes. Half of
the tests contained five or more words that included bound
morphemes. The mean number of stimulus items with bound
morphemes across the tests was 5.8. Bound morphemes
that cause particular difficulty for children with LI are those
that, when added to a word, result in complex phonological
structures, that is, word-final consonant clusters (Paul, 2001).
While many of the tests contained stimulus items with bound
morphemes that resulted in word-final clusters, the numbers
were low. Furthermore, the numbers of stimulus items with
bound morphemes that were actually scored by the tests were
even lower. These findings suggest that most tests of speech
sound production contain a negligible number of stimulus
items with bound morphemes that result in word-final clus-
ters or that contribute to a child’s score. SLPs should feel
comfortable administering these tests to children with con-
firmed or suspected LI. These children’s difficulties with
bound morphemes that result in complex phonological
structures will not have a clinically meaningful impact on
their ability to produce the tests’ stimulus items.
Clinical Implications
The many differences among these tests in the char-
acteristics of their stimulus items and their scoring proce-
dures highlight the importance of evaluating these aspects
and choosing a test that is most sensitive to a child’s reported
difficulties. SLPs should consider client characteristics, in-
cluding age and reported severity and nature of a child’s
difficulties, when deciding on a test for an assessment pro-
tocol. If the child is young and reported to have difficulties
with early-developing word or syllable structures and pho-
nemes, for example, monosyllabic words containing stop
singletons, a test containing multiple opportunities to pro-
duce these structures and phonemes should be chosen. If
the child is older and reported to have difficulties with late-
developing structures and phonemes, for example, multi-
syllabic words containing consonant clusters, fricatives,
affricates, and/or glides, a test containing multiple opportu-
nities to produce these should be chosen.
It seems apparent from the analyses performed for
this study that, while administering a standardized test
of speech sound production is important, especially for
determining eligibility for treatment, SLPs who wish to
provide their clients with multiple opportunities to produce
certain phonemes in different word positions may need
to consider additional speech sampling. A comprehensive
speech sound assessment might include additional single-
word testing and connected speech sampling (Bankson et al.,
2013; Bernhardt & Holdgrafer, 2001a; Elbert & Gierut,
1986; Grunwell, 1985; Macrae, 2016; Miccio, 2002, 2005;
Morrison & Shriberg, 1992; Tyler, 2005). Supplemental
single-word lists might be constructed to provide children
with additional opportunities to produce both two-element
Macrae: Stimulus Characteristics of Single-Word Tests 231
and three-element consonant clusters and/or consonant sin-
gletons that are insufficiently sampled using their chosen
test of speech sound production. For example, only three
of the tests included stimulus items with three-element con-
sonant clusters, and the majority contained limited oppor-
tunities to produce three- or four-syllable stimulus items.
These tests should be supplemented with additional words
containing these items. As another example, while children
with SSDs tend to have difficulty producing fricatives and
affricates (e.g., Shriberg, 1993), many of the tests analyzed
provided limited opportunities to produce each of these
sounds in each word position. When testing children with
reported difficulties producing fricatives and/or affricates,
these tests should be supplemented with additional words
containing these phonemes. While there might not be time
for additional speech sampling during an evaluation ses-
sion, this can be done after first determining that a child
qualifies for therapy in the first few therapy sessions
(Khan, 2002).
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Kenn Apel and Danielle
Brimo for their assistance with earlier versions of this study.
References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2011). National
Outcomes Measurement System: Pre-Kindergarten national data
report 2011. Rockville, MD: National Center for Evidence-
Based Practice in Communication Disorders. Available
from http://www.asha.org/content.aspx?id=8589940108&
LangType=1033
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2014). 2014
schools survey report: SLP caseload characteristics. Available
from http://www.asha.org/research/memberdata/schoolssurvey/
Bankson, N., & Bernthal, J. E. (1990). Bankson-Bernthal Test
of Phonology. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Bankson, N. W., Bernthal, J. E., & Flipsen, P., Jr. (2013). Speech
sound assessment procedures. In J. E. Bernthal, N. W. Bankson,
& P. Flipsen, Jr. (Eds.), Articulation and phonological disorders:
Speech sound disorders in children (7th ed., pp. 180–211).
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Bernhardt, B. H., & Holdgrafer, G. (2001a). Beyond the basics I:
The need for strategic sampling for in-depth phonological
analysis. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
32, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2001/002)
Bernhardt, B. H., & Holdgrafer, G. (2001b). Beyond the basics II:
Supplemental sampling for in-depth phonological analysis.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 28–37.
https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2001/003)
Beverly, B. (Ed.). (2016). Part 2. Perspectives of the ASHA Spe-
cial Interest Groups, 1(SIG 1), 37–87.
Bowers, L., & Huisingh, R. (2010). LinguiSystems Articulation Test.
East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems.
Broomfield, J., & Dodd, B. (2004). Children with speech and lan-
guage disability: Caseload characteristics. International Journal
of Language and Communication Disorders, 39(3), 303–324.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820310001625589
Brumbaugh, K. M., & Smit, A. B. (2013). Treating children ages
3–6 who have speech sound disorder: A survey. Language,
232 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 48 • 219–233 • October 2017
Speech, and Hearing Service in Schools, 44, 306–319. https://
doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2013/12-0029)
Campbell, T. F., Dollaghan, C. A., Rockette, H. E., Paradise, J. L.,
Feldman, H. M., Shriberg, L. D., . . . Kurs-Lasky, M. (2003).
Risk factors for speech delay of unknown origin in 3-year-old
children. Child Development, 74, 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1467-8624.7402002
Curlee, R. F. (Ed.). (1993). Persistent sound system disorder
[Special issue]. Seminar in Speech and Language, 14(2), e18.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1064397
Dawson, J. I., & Tattersall, P. J. (2001). Structured Photographic
Articulation Test–Second Edition featuring Dudsberry. DeKalb,
IL: Janelle Publications.
de Castro, M., & Wertzner, H. (2011). Speech inconsistency index
in Brazilian Portuguese-speaking children. Folia Phoniatrica et
Logopaedica, 63, 237–241. https://doi.org/10.1159/000323183
Dodd, B., Hua, Z., Crosbie, S., Holm, A., & Ozanne, A. (2006).
Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology–American
Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Eisenberg, S. L., & Hitchcock, E. R. (2010). Using standardized
tests to inventory consonant and vowel production: A com-
parison of 11 tests of articulation and phonology. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 488–503. https://
doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0125)
Elbert, M., & Gierut, J. (1986). Handbook of clinical phonology.
San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Fey, M. E. (Ed.). (1992). Clinical Forum: Phonological assessment
and treatment [Clinical Forum]. Language, Speech, and Hear-
ing Services in Schools, 23(3), 224–282. https://doi.org/10.1044/
0161-1461.2303.225
Fisher, H. B., & Logemann, J. A. (1971). Fisher–Logemann Test
of Articulation Competence. Iowa City, IA: Houghton Mifflin.
Flipsen, P., Jr., & Ogiela, D. A. (2014). Psychometric characteris-
tics of single-word tests of children’s speech sound production.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 46, 166–178.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_LSHSS-14-0055
Fudala, J. B. (2000). Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale–Third
Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M. (2000). Goldman-Fristoe Test of
Articulation–Second Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M. (2015). Goldman-Fristoe Test of
Articulation–Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Grunwell, P. (1985). Phonological Assessment of Child Speech
(PACS). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Hodson, B. W. (1986). The Assessment of Phonological Processes–
Revised. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Hodson, B. W. (2004). Hodson Assessment of Phonological Patterns–
Third Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Khan, L. M. (2002). The sixth view: Assessing preschoolers’ artic-
ulation and phonology from the trenches. American Journal
of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 250–254. https://doi.org/
1058-0360/02/1103-0250
Khan, L. M. L., & Lewis, N. P. (2002). Khan–Lewis Phonological
Analysis–Second Edition. Circle Pines, MN: American Guid-
ance Service.
Khan, L. M. L., & Lewis, N. P. (2015). Khan–Lewis Phonological
Analysis–Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Kirk, C., & Vigeland, L. (2015). Content coverage of single-word
tests used to assess common phonological error patterns.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 46, 14–29.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-13-0054
Klein, H. B. (1984). Procedure for maximizing phonological infor-
mation from single-word responses. Language, Speech, and
 Hearing Services in Schools, 15, 267–274. https://doi.org/
10.1044/0161-1461.1504.267
Lippke, B. A., Dickey, S. E., Selmar, J. W., & Soder, A. L. (1997).
Photo Articulation Test–Third Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Lof, G. L. (2002). Two comments on this assessment series.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 255–256.
https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2002/028)
Lowe, R. J. (1986). Assessment Link Between Phonology and
Articulation. Moline, IL: Lingui-Systems.
Macrae, T. (2013). Lexical and child-related factors in word vari-
ability and accuracy in infants. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics,
27(6–7), 497–507. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2012.752867
Macrae, T. (2016). Comprehensive assessment of speech sound
production in preschool children. Perspectives of the ASHA
Special Interest Groups, 1(SIG 1), 39–56. https://doi.org/
10.1044/persp1.SIG1.39
Macrae, T., & Sosa, A. V. (2015). Predictors of token-to-token
inconsistency in preschool children with typical speech-language
development. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 29(12), 922–937.
https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2015.1063085
McKinnon, D. H., McLeod, S., & Reilly, S. (2007). The preva-
lence of stuttering, voice, and speech-sound disorders in pri-
mary school students in Australia. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1044/
0161-1461(2007/002)
McLeod, S., & Baker, E. (2014). Speech-language pathologists’
practices regarding assessment, analysis, target selection, inter-
vention, and service delivery for children with speech sound
disorders. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 28(7–8), 508–531.
https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2014.926994
McLeod, S., & Hewett, S. R. (2008). Variability in the production
of words containing consonant clusters by typical 2- and 3-year-
old children. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 60, 163–172.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000127835
Miccio, A. W. (2002). Clinical problem solving: Assessment of
phonological disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 11, 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360
(2002/023)
Miccio, A. W. (2005). Components of phonological assessment.
In A. G. Kamhi & K. E. Pollock (Eds.), Phonological disorders
in children: Clinical decision making in assessment and inter-
vention (pp. 35–42). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Morrison, J. A., & Shriberg, L. D. (1992). Articulation testing versus
conversational speech sampling. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 35, 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3502.259
Paul, R. (2001). Language disorders from infancy through adoles-
cence: Assessment and intervention. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Podwall, A., & Podwall, M. (2003). Comments on the special
forum on phonology. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 12, 121–122. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360
(2003/058)
Secord, W., & Donahue, J. S. (2014). Clinical Assessment of Artic-
ulation and Phonology–Second Edition. Greenville, SC: Super
Duper Publications.
Shriberg, L. D. (1993). Four new speech and prosody-voice mea-
sures for genetics research and other studies in developmental
phonological disorders. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
36, 105–140. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3601.105
Shriberg, L. D., Austin, D., Lewis, B. A., McSweeny, J. L., &
Wilson, D. L. (1997). The percentage of consonants correct
(PCC) metric: Extensions and reliability data. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 708–722. https://
doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4004.708
Shriberg, L. D., & Kwiatkowski, J. (1982). Phonological disorders
III: A procedure for assessing severity of involvement. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 256–270. https://doi.org/
10.1044/jshd.4703.256
Shriberg, L. D., & Kwiatkowski, J. (1994). Developmental phono-
logical disorders I: A clinical profile. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 37, 1100–1126. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.
3705.1100
Shriberg, L. D., Lewis, B. A., Tomblin, J. B., McSweeny, J. L.,
Karlsson, H. B., & Scheer, A. R. (2005). Toward diagnostic
and phenotype markers for genetically transmitted speech
delay. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
48, 834–852. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/058)
Shriberg, L. D., Tomblin, J. B., & McSweeny, J. L. (1999). Preva-
lence of speech delay in 6-year-old children and comorbidity
with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 42, 1461–1481. https://doi.org/10.1044/
jslhr.4206.1461
Skahan, S. M., Watson, M., & Lof, G. L. (2007). Speech-language
pathologists’ assessment practices for children with suspected
speech sound disorders: Results of a national survey. American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 246–259. https://
doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2007/029)
Smit, A. B., & Hand, L. (1992). Smit–Hand Articulation and Pho-
nology Evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: Eastern Psychological
Services.
Smit, A. B., Hand, L., Freilinger, J. J., Bernthal, J. E., & Bird, A.
(1990). The Iowa articulation norms project and its Nebraska
replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55,
779–798. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5504.779
Sosa, A. V. (2015). Intra-word variability in typical speech devel-
opment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24,
24–35. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_AJSLP-13-0148
Sosa, A. V., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (2012). Lexical and phonologi-
cal effects in early word production. Journal of Speech, Lan-
guage, and Hearing Research, 55, 596–608. https://doi.org/
10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0113)
Stoel-Gammon, C. (1987). Phonological skills of 2-year-olds. Lan-
guage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 18, 323–329.
https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.1804.323
Stoel-Gammon, C. (2010). The Word Complexity Measure: Descrip-
tion and application to developmental phonology and disor-
ders. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 24(4–5), 271–282. https://
doi.org/10.3109/02699200903581059
Templin, M. C., & Darley, F. L. (1968). The Templin–Darley Tests
of Articulation. University of Iowa Press.
Tyler, A. A. (2005). Assessment for determining a communication
profile. In A. G. Kamhi & K. E. Pollock (Eds.), Phonological
disorders in children: Clinical decision making in assessment and
intervention (pp. 43–50). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Tyler, A. A., Lewis, K. E., & Welch, C. M. (2003). Predictors of
phonological change following intervention. American Journal
of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 289–298. https://doi.org/
10.1044/1058-0360(2003/075)
Williams, A. L. (Ed.). (2002). Clinical Forum: Phonology [Clinical
forum]. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(3),
211–263. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2002/020)
Macrae: Stimulus Characteristics of Single-Word Tests 233
Copyright of Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools is the property of American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.