How to Administer, Score and Interpret

the ‘Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology’ (DEAP)

The DEAP includes fiveassessments: Screen, Articulation, Oromotor, Phonology, and Inconsistency.
Note:Not all assessments are given to any one child.
*Screening Assessment: A mandatoryassessment for all children.
The results of the Screenerdirect what other assessments need to be done.
Administration time: 5 minutes.
How to administer the Screen:
i. The child names all 10 pictures, clinician phonetically transcribes each word. Imitations allowed
if semantic cue fails, but ensure an imitated word is also imitated in(iii)
ii. Any speech sound produced in error is tested for stimulability. As an example, if watch is said as
[wɒt] ask the child to ‘Say [tʃ]’ Cues can be given e.g.,‘Be a train [tʃ- tʃ- tʃ]’. Write down those
sounds that are NOT stimulablein the right hand column of the scoresheet.
iii. The child names all ten pictures again, indicate same production with∝or transcribe different
production.
How to score the Screen using the scoresheet:
i. Calculate inconsistency (number of words said differently divided by the number of ALL words
said twice)
ii. Compare articulation development with normative data on scoresheet for child’s age: check if
sounds listed as not stimulable are age appropriate or indicate delayed development of phone
repertoire.
iii. Compare phonological development with normative data on scoresheet for child’s age: check if
error patterns observed are age appropriate, delayed (should no longer be evident at child’s age
but typical of younger child) or atypicalfor any age band.
How to interpret the Screen:
Is further speech assessment indicated?
 Do the articulation subtest if child is not stimulable for sounds the normative data
indicates they should be able to pronounce at their age.
 Do the Inconsistency subtest if the child produces 50% or more of lexical items
differently on the two picture naming trials.
 Do the Oromotor subtest if either the Articulation Subtest or the Inconsistency Subtest is
done.
 Do the Phonology assessment if child is using error patterns that are either delayed, or
atypical of phonological development for any age band.
If no further speech assessment is indicated, the report should explain that the child’s
performance on a standardised screening assessment was age appropriate, but that re-referral
is recommended if there are any future concerns about the child’s communication.
Do Activity A to ensure understanding of how the DEAP Screen is scored.
*Three studies have shown the Screen to be reliable: up to 10% false positives (i.e. one child
in 10 is found to be in need further assessment but then perform within normal limits) but NO
false negatives (no child with impaired speech is misidentified as typically developing.
Activity 1. Lucy, aged 3;7, referred by mother, initial assessment:Scoring example.
Target IPA Transcription 1 Transcription 2 Sounds notstimulable
watch wɒtʃ wɒt wɒts
fishing fɪʃɪŋ no response fɪsɪn ʃ
gloves ɡlʌvz dʌbz dʌbz
spider spaɪdə paɪdə paɪdə
thank you ɵæŋkju fæntu fæntu ɵ
scissors sɪzəz sɪzəz sɪzəz
helicopter hɛlikɒptə heɪtɒtə hɛlitɒtə
bridge brɪdʒ no response bɪd r, dʒ
umbrella ʌmbrɛlə bɛlə bɛlə
elephant ɛləfənt ɛfənt ɛfənt

Inconsistency calculation Number of words produced differently (a) = 2

Number of words produced twice (b) = 8
Inconsistency score (a ÷ b) x 100 = 25%
Normative Data
Age Articulation: Acceptable error patterns Inconsistency
Band All sounds except:
3;0-3;5 /ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ, θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ cluster reduction ≤50%
deaffrication frontinɡ
stoppinɡ weak syllable deletion
3;6-3;11 /ʃ, ʒ, dʒ, θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ cluster ≤50%
reductiondeaffricationfrontinɡ
weak syllable deletion
4;0-4;11 /ʃ, θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ deaffrication ≤50%
5;0-5;11 /θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ ≤50%
6;0-6;11 /θ, ð/ none ≤50%

Lucy’s:
(i) Articulation is age appropriate as she is stimulable for all sounds typical for her age.
There is therefore no need to do the Articulation Subtest.
(ii) Inconsistency score (25%), below the criterion of 50%. There is therefore no need to
do the Inconsistency Subtest.
(iii) There is no need to do the Oromotor Subtest because articulation is unimpaired (no
need to check for dysarthria) and her consistencyis typical (no need to check for apraxia
of oromotor ability).
(iv) Phonological error patterns were acceptable except for /v/ being stopped to[b] in
gloves. Additional picture naming of van, TV, andfive showed correct production of /v/,
suggesting the stopping error was perhaps confined to final clusters.
Clinical Decision: Lucy’s articulation and phonology are predominantly age appropriate. Mother
was advised that therapy is not necessary, but that she should arrange another appointment to
assess speech skills if she is concerned about Lucy’s speech at 4;0.
Articulation Assessment: This dynamic assessment*investigates children foundnot to be
stimulable for one or more speech sounds they should pronounce by their age, on the
Screening Assessment.
Administration time: 5 -10 minutes.
How to administer the Articulation Assessment:
i. Picture naming: What’s this? Use cues as necessary to elicit the word, if unsuccessful
ask for imitation, marking with (i). Circle any sounds produced in error.
ii. Speech Sound Stimulability: Attempt to elicit any speech sound produced incorrectly
when picture naming:
‘I am going to say a word and I want you to say it after me’ Give the child three
opportunities, getting them to watch your lips, and providing cues.
If the CVsyllable is not elicited, attempt to elicit the speech sound in isolation, using cues, up
to three times. As examples, these instructions work for some children: /f/ ‘Put your top teeth
on your bottom lip, like this. Now, blow’; /s/: ‘Say /t/. Good. Now say /t/ slowly, let out the
air out really slowly’; /ʃ/: ‘ Let’s practice telling people to be quiet. Put your finger up in
front of your lips, like this. Leave your tongue where it is, now just blow so the air comes
out the middle. Feel it?’
How to score the Articulation Assessment:
Mark the score sheet, as shown below with a √ or a X for total of up to six attempts.
Picture Naming Speech Sound Stimulability
I M F CV/VC T1 T2 T3 Isolation T1 T2 T3
A1 pig p ɡ pie √
A15 sheep ʃ ɪ p shy X X X X √
A12 this ð ɪ s thy X X X X X X
A13 sock s ɒ k sigh X X √ √
A19 ring r ɪ ŋ ing X X X X X X

Highlight those phones that cannot be elicited, then use the DEAP manual to determine whether
it is age appropriate or not for a child not to be stimulable for that sound. As examples, according
to normative data, at least 90% of children are stimulable for /ŋ/ after the age of 2;11, whereas
fewer than 90% of children are stimulable for /ð/ at 6;11.
How to interpret the Articulation Assessment:
If children are unable to articulate, even when given multiple opportunities and cues about
how to say the sound, then oromotor assessment is recommended to determine whether there
is any neuro-motor impairment or anatomical anomaly that is affecting articulation of speech
(see Chapter 2).If no physiological case can be identified as causing a child’s articulation
difficulty, then it is likely that the child has yet to learn the correct sequence of movements to
articulate those phones identified. See chapters 3, 4, 15, 17, 19) for treatment approaches.
*The Articulation Assessment is dynamic because it attempts to teach the child to articulate
any sound that they cannot pronounce in a CVC word in a CV syllable, and if necessary in
isolation, giving cues about manner and place of articulation.
The Oromotor Assessment:This assessment investigates diadochokinetic (DDK) ability,
examining p-t-k sequencing in terms of accuracy, precision and fluency of articulation;
isolated oromotor gestures (tongue elevation) and sequencing of two gestures (e.g., kiss and
blow). Administeringthe assessment also allows observation of oral structure.
Administration time: 5-10 minutes.
How to administer the Oromotor Assessment:
See the score sheet for instructions. Most children tested during normative data collection
were co-operative, but some refuse to make some oral gestures (e.g., tongue protrusion).
How to score the Oromotor Assessment:
See the score sheet for instructions.Reliability studies showed that clinicians needed practice
administering and scoring the Oromotor Assessment before they became reliable assessors.
How to interpret the Oromotor Assessment:
The DDK task provides normative data for eight age groups between 3;0 and 6;11 for
repetitions of patacakefor accuracy, clarity of articulation and fluency. These measures are
considered sensitive for identification of neuro-motor impairment.Isolated and sequenced oral
movements examine specific aspects of oromotor competence and provide initial evidence
justifying more in-depth oromotor assessment.

One study of the DEAP assessments using a clinical population showed that the oromotor
subtest was able to identify children previously diagnosed with oromotor difficulties by
specialist clinical staff, when the DEAP assessors were blind to that previous diagnosis (Dodd
et al., 2009).
Chapters 6 and 7 examine intervention approaches for children with speech disorders due to
dysarthria and childhood apraxia of speech.
The Phonological Assessment: This assessment is done when children are observed, on the
Screening Assessment to be using error patterns that are delayed (should no longer be evident at
the child’s age but typical of younger child) or atypical for any age band.
The assessment is scored to provide the following quantitativemeasures with standard scores:
Percent consonants correct (PCC)
Percent vowels correct (PVC)
Percent phonemes correct (PPC)
Single-words vscontinuous speech ratio (SvsC)

The assessment also analyses error types qualitatively to identify type of phonological disorder
(delay vs consistent disorder) to direct intervention (choice of therapy approach and identifying
intervention targets).
Administration time: 15-20 minutes.
How to administer the Phonological Assessment:
Children are asked to name 50 pictures. If the wrong word is given, or a child doesn’t know a
word, first provide a semantic cue, followed, if needed, by request for imitation (marking
with i). Phonetically transcribe all responses. For the picture description task, coax as much
connected speech from children as possible; comment rather than ask questions, give
response time, take conversational turns. Transcribe relevant productions onto scoresheet.
How to score the Phonological Assessment:
1. To work out quantitative severity measures:
Percent Consonants Correct
Count the number of consonants produced correctly. Divide this number by 141(total
possible) minus the number of consonants in any target words not attempted. This does NOT
include consonants deleted in attempted words (e.g., due to weak syllable deletion, cluster
reduction, final consonant deletion, etc). Then multiply by 100.
eg100 consonants correct out of 135 consonants attempted (141-6) = 0.74 x 100. PCC = 74%
Percent Vowels Correct
Count the number of vowels produced correctly. Divide this number by 78 (total possible)
minus the number of vowels in any target words not attempted. This does NOT include
vowels deleted in attempted words (e.g., due to weak syllable deletion). Multiply by 100.
eg74vowels correct out of 76vowels attempted (78-2) = 0.97 x 100. PVC = 97%
Percent Phonemes Correct can be calculated by combining consonants and vowels.
174 / 211 = 0.825 x 100. PPC = 82.5%
Single words versus continuous speech
Compare transcriptions for single word naming (P24 to P36) with the same words elicited in the
picture description task. Count the number of words produced the same in both tasks, divided by
the total number of words produced in both tasks (same + different).
eg 10 / 12 = 0.83 x 100. SvC = 83%.
Look up the normative data to determine the child standard score for the four measures.
 2. To work out qualitativemeasures:

i. Code the error type(s)for each word that contains errors: see worked example.
Some errors are coded twice. As examples: [baɪv]five, mark stopping and voicing; [tɛə] square
mark cluster reduction twice (as two members of the cluster are omitted) as well as either
fronting (if child shows velar fronting in other examples) or stopping (if word initial fricatives
are stopped in other examples). That is, the type of error is sometimes unclear, but may be
inferred from other errors.
Some errors can be coded by marking one of the columns for typical errors (gliding,
deaffrication, cluster reduction, fronting, weak syllable deletion, stopping, and (de)voicing) or
common atypical errors (assimilation, consonant deletion, backing).
Some errors need to be marked in the other column. As examples, [tʃip]sheep writeaffrication in
the far right column; [gɛg] egg should be coded as addition in the other column; [βʌvz] gloves
should be coded as cluster reduction but also in the other column as bilabial fricative.
ii. Count the number of examples coded for each type of error, writing it at the bottom of
the line labelled Total(see worked example). If there are many errors listed in the
other column, there is some blank space on the back of the scoresheet where atypical
errors can be listed, with their number of occurrences.
Typical Errors: If a child makes five errors of a particular typical developmental error pattern
(gliding, deaffrication, cluster reduction, fronting, stopping, and (de)voicing), or two examples of
weak syllable deletion, then the child is credited with using those error patterns. This is an
arbitrary criteria and reflects how the normative data were calculated. The normative data show
the ages at which more than 10% of children in each age band typically use these error patterns.

English-speaking children’suse of typical phonological error patterns (Dodd et al., 2002).

Age Band: 3;0-3;5 3;6-3;11 4;0-4;11 5;0-5;11

Typical Error Pattern
Gliding * * * *
Deaffrication * * *
Cluster Reduction * * #
Fronting * *
Weak syllable deletion * *
Stopping *
# Tri-member clusters only (str, spl, skw, ŋθs, mps)
Atypical Errors: Atypical errors are defined as being types of errors made by fewer than 90% of
the normative sample at any age between 3;0 and 6;11. Consequently, there is no criterion
number of times an atypical error pattern occurs for a child to be credited with its use. Some
atypical errors patterns affect many syllables / words (e.g., word initial consonants delete; all
word final consonant delete except nasals, all clusters are marked by a bilabial fricative). Others
occur to very restricted phonetic contexts (e.g., word final /l/ deletes after a back vowel).Clinical
judgement must be used (e.g. doing additional testing to determine the extent of an atypical error
pattern’s use).
How to interpret the Phonological Assessment:
Severity:The standard scores of severity measures allow valid and reliable identification of
children performing below the normal range for their age in terms of consonant and vowel
accuracy. Severity is useful for identifying prevalence of speech difficulties in a population and
perhaps for identifying children with priority for intervention. It provides little information,
however, about the nature of a child’s speech disorder or what should be targeted in intervention.
Single words vs Continuous Speech: All children make more errors in continuous speech as
opposed to single word production. The extent of that difference is important. The measure
comparing the two sampling approaches was included in the DEAPbecause there are a
significant number of children who made many more errors in continuous speech, to the
extent of being largely unintelligible, despite being virtually error free one word at a time.
Little is known about the nature of the deficit in speech processing that underlies this profile
of performance or how best to target it in therapy.
Types of Errors:When writing assessment reports about children with impaired speech whose
performance on the DEAP Screening Assessment results in use of the Phonological
Assessment, clinicians should list the children’s: age appropriate error patterns; delayed error
patterns (stating the age at which each error pattern is typically suppressed); and, atypical
error patterns evaluating their effect on intelligibility.
This information directs clinical management.
i. If all errors are age appropriate, no intervention is indicated for phonology.
ii. Delayed error patterns: extent of delay should affect priority for therapy; clinical
evidence (Broomfield & Dodd, 2011; Chapters 10& 11) allows choice between two
intervention approaches: group whole language therapy; and/or phonological contrast
therapy.
iii. Atypical error patterns: longitudinal studies show children with atypical error patterns
are less likely to spontaneously resolve than children with delay and more likely to
develop literacy difficulties. Treatment studies indicate they respond best to
phonological contrast therapy ((Broomfield & Dodd, 2011; Chapters 10 & 11).
The Consistency Assessment:This assessment investigates the consistency of whole word
production of children who produce ≤50% of words on the Screening Assessment differently
on its two trials. Children name 25 words on three separate occasions in the same assessment
session, each occasion separated by another activity.
Administration time: 5-10 minutes.
How to administer the Consistency Assessment:
i. Ask the child to name the 25 pictures one at a time, transcribing their production.
ii. Do another activity (e.g., assessment such as oromotor test, game, read a story)
iii. Again ask the child to name the same 25 pictures one at a time, indicate same
production with ∝ or transcribe different production.
iv. Do another activity
v. Again ask the child to name the same 25 pictures one at a time, indicate same
production with ∝ or transcribe different production.
NB Do not use imitation to elicit words as children with Inconsistent Phonological Disorder
do better in imitation than spontaneous production.
Many children protest that they have already named the pictures. Tell them they have to name
the same pictures three times before the first trial and offer a reward for each trial. Use of a
stopwatch, they can work,to measure time taken to say the words can encourage task
completion.Ifthe 40% inconsistency criterion is apparent by the second trial, no third trial is
needed, although it’s useful to know inconsistency scorefor comparison with normative data.
How to score the Consistency Assessment:
For each word that is said twice or three times, score 1 if any of the wordis said differently, and 0
if the words are produced identically. Add the scores and express as a percentage of the number
of words said on three occasions (e.g. 10 words said differently / 25 = 0.4 x 100 = 40%).
40% is the criterion for diagnosis of Inconsistent Phonological Disorder (reflecting normative
data where typically developing children have an inconsistency score of less than 11% and other
studies show delayed and consistent disordered children score less than 30%).
Inspect inconsistent words to ensure that inconsistency is not solely reflecting developmental
error / correct productions, or difficult to accurately perceive levels of voicing or phonetic
variation. A child with IPDtypically makes different types of errors when producing the same
lexical item, sometimes vowel changes, number of syllables and syllable shapes.
How to interpret the Consistency Assessment:
The Consistency Assessment identifies the 10% of all children with speech impairmentwho
produce the same lexical item indifferent ways in the absence of childhood apraxia of speech
(see comparison of CAS and IPD characteristics below). The IPD group’s strengths include:
input processing, phonological awareness, reading, receptive new word learning, executive
function tasks (rule derivation, cognitive flexibility) and oromotor skills, while weaknesses
include phonological working memory, spelling and planning of sequences of motor acts.
This profile suggests difficulty with assembling word phonology for speech output. Core
vocabulary intervention has been shown to be effective in case studies, comparison of two
therapy approaches and a randomised control trial(Chapter 12, Dodd et al, 2010).
Differential diagnosis of CAS and inconsistent phonological disorder (IPD)

Childhood Apraxia of Speech Inconsistent Phonological Disorder

Inconsistent errors Inconsistent errors
Increasing errors with increasing length Increasing errors with increasing length
Poor sequencing of sounds (eg. metathesis);Wrong choice of phoneme rather than order
marked syllable segregation. errors; no syllable segregation.
Poor oro-motor skills Oro-motor skills within normal limits
Groping; silent posturing No groping, no silent posturing
Prolongations and repetitions of speech No prolongations and no repetitions of
sounds speech sounds
Poorer in imitation than spontaneous Better in imitation than spontaneous
production production
Dysfluent, short utterance length, Fluent, normal utterance length, normal
prosodic disturbance, slow speech rate affect, normal-rapid speech rate
Best therapy focuses on phonetic gesture Best therapy focuses on word production
References
Broomfield, J. & Dodd, B. (2011) Is Speech and Language Therapy effective for children
with speech/language impairment? A report of an RCT. International Journal of
Language and Communication Disorder, 46 (6), 628-40.

Dodd, B, Holm, A. Crosbie, S. McIntosh, B. (2010) Core Vocabulary intervention for

inconsistent speech disorder In P. Williams, S. McLeod, S. & R. McCauley Interventions
for Speech Sound Disorders in Children pp 117-136. New York: Brookes.

Dodd, B., McIntosh, B., Leahy, M. & Murphy, N. (2009). Atypical Speech in Irish Children:
Identification and differential diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Speech & Language Studies, 17:
4-24.
Dodd, B., Zhu H., Crosbie, S., Holm, A., &Ozanne, A. (2002) Diagnostic Evaluation of
Articulation and Phonology. London: Psychological Corporation.
Activity A: Interpreting Diagnostic Screening Data
DEAP Diagnostic Screen: William 5;4
Instructions
1. Naming: Elicit target words and transcribe in column 1. Note if word was imitated (i).
2. Sound stimulability: Circle sounds produced incorrectly in IPA column. Ask the child
to imitate error sounds in isolation (not in clusters).
3. Naming: Repeat naming task and transcribe in column 2. Calculate inconsistency score.

Target IPA Transcription 1 Transcription 2 Speech sounds

not imitated
watch wɒtʃ wɒʔ wɒʔ
fishing fɪʃɪŋ vɪʔɪŋ vɪʔɪn
gloves ɡlʌvz βʌʔ βʌʔ
spider spaɪdə βaɪʔə βaɪʔə
thank you θæŋkju væŋ βu væŋ βu θ
scissors sɪzəz vɪβə vɪβə
helicopter hɛlikɒptə dɒʔtə dɒʔdə
bridge brɪdʒ βɪʔ βɪʔ
umbrella ʌmbrɛlə βɛʔə βɛʔə
elephant ɛləfənt ɛːəːən ɛːəːən

Inconsistency calculation Number of words produced differently (a) = _____

Number of words produced twice (b) = _____
Inconsistency score (a ÷ b) x 100 = _____
Normative Data
Age Articulation: Acceptable error patterns Inconsistency
Band All sounds except:
3;0-3;5 /ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ, θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ cluster reduction ≤50%
deaffrication fronting
stoppinɡ weak syllable deletion
3;6-3;11 /ʃ, ʒ, dʒ, θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ cluster reduction ≤50%
deaffrication frontinɡ
weak syllable deletion
4;0-4;11 /ʃ, θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ deaffrication ≤50%
5;0-5;11 /θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ ≤50%
6;0-6;11 /θ, ð/ none ≤50%

Results (Is further assessment needed? If so, what subtests does the screen indicate?)
Age appropriate speech skills
Further speech assessment indicated -> Articulation assessment
Oromotor assessment
Phonology assessment
Inconsistency assessment
DEAP Diagnostic Screen: Kelly 4;8
Instructions
1. Naming: Elicit target words and transcribe in column 1. Note if word was imitated (i).
2. Sound stimulability: Circle sounds produced incorrectly in IPA column. Ask the child
to imitate error sounds in isolation (not in clusters).
3. Naming: Repeat naming task and transcribe in column 2. Calculate inconsistency score.

Target IPA Transcription 1 Transcription 2 Speech sounds

not imitated
watch wɒtʃ lɒp jɒl
fishing fɪʃɪŋ sɪbʌʃ -
gloves ɡlʌvz dʌd dʌbʌdə
spider spaɪdə daɪdə θaɪbə
thank you θæŋkju gænju tæŋktu
scissors sɪzəz tɪdə tɪdə
helicopter hɛlikɒptə hɛlikɒptə hɛjikɒptə
bridge brɪdʒ brɪdʒ brɪdʒ
umbrella ʌmbrɛlə ʌmrɛlə ʌbɛjə
elephant ɛləfənt ɛlitɪtənt lɛlifənt

Inconsistency calculation Number of words produced differently (a) = _____

Number of words produced twice (b) = _____
Inconsistency score (a ÷ b) x 100 = _____
Normative Data
Age Articulation: Acceptable error patterns Inconsistency
Band All sounds except:
3;0-3;5 /ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ, θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ cluster reduction ≤50%
deaffrication fronting
stoppinɡ weak syllable deletion
3;6-3;11 /ʃ, ʒ, dʒ, θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ cluster reduction ≤50%
deaffrication frontinɡ
weak syllable deletion
4;0-4;11 /ʃ, θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ deaffrication ≤50%
5;0-5;11 /θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ ≤50%
6;0-6;11 /θ, ð/ none ≤50%

Results (Is further assessment needed? If so, what subtests does the screen indicate?)
Age appropriate speech skills
Further speech assessment indicated -> Articulation assessment
Oromotor assessment
Phonology assessment
Inconsistency assessment
DEAP Diagnostic Screen: Ellen 5;3
Instructions
1. Naming: Elicit target words and transcribe in column 1. Note if word was imitated (i).
2. Sound stimulability: Circle sounds produced incorrectly in IPA column. Ask the child
to imitate error sounds in isolation (not in clusters).
3. Naming: Repeat naming task and transcribe in column 2. Calculate inconsistency score.

Target IPA Transcription 1 Transcription 2 Speech sounds

not imitated
watch wɒtʃ wɒts wɒts
fishing fɪʃɪŋ fɪsɪn fɪsɪn
gloves ɡlʌvz ɡʌbz ɡʌbz
spider spaɪdə paɪdə paɪdə
thank you θæŋkju tænju tænju
scissors sɪzəz sɪzəz sɪzəz
helicopter hɛlikɒptə kɒptə heɪkɒptə
bridge brɪdʒ bɪdz bɪdz
umbrella ʌmbrɛlə ʌmbɛlə bɛjə
elephant ɛləfənt ɛfənt ɛlifənt

Inconsistency calculation Number of words produced differently (a) = _____

Number of words produced twice (b) = _____
Inconsistency score (a ÷ b) x 100 = _____
Normative Data
Age Articulation: Acceptable error patterns Inconsistency
Band All sounds except:
3;0-3;5 /ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ, ɵ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ cluster reduction ≤50%
deaffrication fronting
stoppinɡ weak syllable deletion
3;6-3;11 /ʃ, ʒ, dʒ, ɵ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ cluster reduction ≤50%
deaffrication frontinɡ
weak syllable deletion
4;0-4;11 /ʃ, ɵ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ deaffrication ≤50%
5;0-5;11 /ɵ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ ≤50%
6;0-6;11 /ɵ, ð/ none ≤50%

Results (Is further assessment needed? If so, what subtests does the screen indicate?)
Age appropriate speech skills
Further speech assessment indicated -> Articulation assessment
Oromotor assessment
Phonology assessment
Inconsistency assessment
DEAP Diagnostic Screen: Declan4;0
Instructions
1. Naming: Elicit target words and transcribe in column 1. Note if word was imitated (i).
2. Sound stimulability: Circle sounds produced incorrectly in IPA column. Ask the child
to imitate error sounds in isolation (not in clusters).
3. Naming: Repeat naming task and transcribe in column 2. Calculate inconsistency score.

Target IPA Transcription 1 Transcription 2 Speech sounds

not imitated
watch wɒtʃ wɒt wɒt tʃ
fishing fɪʃɪŋ pɪtɪn pɪtɪn f, ʃ, ŋ
gloves ɡlʌvz dʌb dʌb g, v, z
spider spaɪdə paɪdə paɪdə s
thank you θæŋkju tæntu tæntu θ, k
scissors sɪzəz dɪdə tɪdə
helicopter hɛlikɒptə tɒˈtə tɒˈtə
bridge brɪdʒ bɪd bɪd r, dʒ
umbrella ʌmbrɛlə ʌmbə ʌmbə
elephant ɛləfənt ɛpən ɛpən

Inconsistency calculation Number of words produced differently (a) = _____

Number of words produced twice (b) = _____
Inconsistency score (a ÷ b) x 100 = _____
Normative Data
Age Articulation: Acceptable error patterns Inconsistency
Band All sounds except:
3;0-3;5 /ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ, θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ cluster reduction ≤50%
deaffrication fronting
stoppinɡ weak syllable deletion
3;6-3;11 /ʃ, ʒ, dʒ, θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ cluster reduction ≤50%
deaffrication frontinɡ
weak syllable deletion
4;0-4;11 /ʃ, θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ deaffrication ≤50%
5;0-5;11 / θ, ð, r/ ɡlidinɡ ≤50%
6;0-6;11 / θ, ð/ none ≤50%

Results (Is further assessment needed? If so, what subtests does the screen indicate?)
Age appropriate speech skills
Further speech assessment indicated ->Articulation assessment
Oromotor assessment
Phonology assessment
Inconsistency assessment
Diagnostic  Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology
The DEAP is a test that assesses children’s speech and is used with children from the age of
3yrs. Whilst the DEAP has five subtests, the LOCHI study is only using one of these, the
phonology subtest. This subtest examines how children say all of the sounds in English in
isolated words.
It is important that the speech pathologist is able to elicit your child’s spontaneous production
of the target word. To do this, the speech pathologist will ask your child questions in a
specific way. Firstly the speech pathologist will try to elicit the target word by saying “What
is this?”. If your child does not respond to this, the speech pathologist will give your child a
clue without saying the target word, e.g. “you need this to protect you from the rain”. If you
child does not respond, the speech pathologist will ask your child to choose the correct word
e.g. “is it an umbrella or an elephant?”. The target word is always the first choice in the
sentence so if the child responds, he is not directly imitating the word that has just been said.
If your child doesn’t respond to this, the speech pathologist will ask him to directly imitate
the target word e.g. “say umbrella”.
The DEAP also looks at the accuracy of your child’s speech by calculating the number of
sounds your child produced correctly out of all the sounds in the test. There are three
measures used – percentage consonants correct (PCC), percentage vowels correct (PVC) and
percentage phonemes correct (PPC). The DEAP has been administered to a large number of
Australian children so it is possible to view your child’s performance in relation to his peers.