Assessing Speech And Language Capabilities In Max: A Case Study

Background Information

Does Max reveal an expressive and receptive language disorder, which influence use of verbal, compressive or written linguistic and enforces function boundaries on his capability to converse?

Max was reported by his mother to suffer multiple ear infection during the initial years of life.  It is reported that Max was ‘okay’ but an audiology assessment indicated no further hearing concerns.  Max’s father, Reid, reports that he himself was slow to talk when he was a child and had issues with learning to read. Mrs. Reid reports that the kid had no difficulties at school. Max enjoys outdoors and loves listening to nursery rhymes with his parents.

Max seemed to babble and coo as a baby; however, he did not use his first word until around17 months of age. The child attended a group pathology programs when he was 3 years and 2 months, which concentrate on teaching his parents on strategies to follow in leading and promoting Max’s language in daily operations. Max’s parents requested a speech pathology review as his preprimary noted that he appeared to not progress as quickly as other students in the class, specifically with his sentence complexity and emerging literacy skills.

The current speech pathology review assessment comprised informal play, administering the Sutherland phonological awareness test- Revised (SPAT-R) and CELF- P2 and interacted readily with the speech pathologist (Hoff  & Tian, 2005, pp. 276). The pathologist engaged Max in play with a farm set which he appeared to enjoy. He showed sufficient attention during all evaluation tasks and his mother felt that Max’s reactions were representative of his true capabilities.

Formal and informal evaluation gauge were used in assessment to evaluate speech and language abilities

SPAT-R assess both expressive and audience communication from children between birth and years of age (Abe, Bretanha, Bozza, Ferraro & Lopes-Herrera, 2013, pp. 78). The test is planned to evaluate a youngster's level of phonological comprehending and expressive communiqué strength and challenges. The standard score from the acoustic understanding part of this specific assessment is below the usual for his age class.  The Max is successfully able to complete all the comprehension tasks of his group of 24 to 29 months.

The designed standard score for Max’s expressive communication is lower than the average of his age set.  Max demonstrate the capability to efficaciously name items within a photograph, appeal assistance and answering yes/ no enquiries all takes within the 24 to 29 months age group for expressive communiqué (Kent  & Vorperian, 2013, pp. 180). Max did not exhibit the use of constant-vowel-constant sound communication in an impulsive speech during the clinical verbal action.  According to CELF-P2, the expressive language capability falls below the language expectations of Max’s age set (Lamônica & Ferreira-Vasques, 2015, pp. 1478).

Formal and Informal Evaluation

Max’s entire phonological standard score of 100, communication of aural command and expressive statement is below the standard score of his class. Max’s deceptive and expressive language skills are deliberated typical. Through the evaluation, Max produced correctness to a class approximation of the words. The finding is steady with parent report on Max’s expressive vocabulary comprising of more than 36 words.

Max’s mean length of utterance in morphemes was designed based on colloquial speech sample got from the reflection of clinician-kid collaboration. The probable MLU from a kid between the ages of two and threes is about 2-5 morphemes per utterances. Therefore, Max shows an MLU in between the score.

Informally, Max was assessed on gestures, interaction-attachment, play, language comprehension, pragmatics, and language expression (Bento & Befi-Lopes, 2010, pp. 505). The section analysed to offer more information about the child's complete language expression. The data was collected using the parent observation and report during the evaluation.

Max’s level of interaction-attachment is age-appropriate. Both the gesture and play parts were incapable to be completely evaluated, as there were scarce chances to observe and get parent report during the assessment. But, the kid did respond appropriately to use of signals and play. Language knowledge was assessed as age-suitable, within the array of 21-30 months and every item. The Kid phonological expression best fit within the suitable age scope. But, he did not get full recognition for utilising three words phrases denoting to self by pronoun steadily.  According to the model, abilities are commonly established within the 24-30 month range.

Speech assessment and lucidness Max and pathologist involved in play during this investigative assessment.  Clinician gathered data on child speech centered on his doctor-child contact. Max’s speech is described by the steady use of constant-vowel. Max produced constant sounds, singular vowels, and vowel sounds through the evaluation. The child displays numerous phonological fault sequences with his language.

Max Reid is an energetic and engaging schoolboy who collaborated throughout the assessment. Due to developmental and sequential age, informal and formal evaluation gears were used in the appraisal.

Max’s receptive and expressive language capabilities, as assessed by the formal method, fall within the projected for kids of his consecutive and evolving age. His expressive language capabilities displayed lower standard as compared to his receptive linguistic skills. Max’s expressive and receptive verbal skills and his composite score indicate that Max’s receptive and expressive language capabilities are consistent with normally emergent kid of his age set. Items were reported, elicited by Mrs Reid. Levels of play, language knowledge, play were all reflected to be age-suitable. The results from the phonological expression subtest indicate the child has met numerous standard, but no complete expressive language signposts frequently presented by kids of his age (Aguado-Orea & Pine, 2015, pp. 14). Particularly, he did not use three-word axioms consistently nor frequently refer to himself using a pronoun.

Phonological Awareness Test

Max's phonological blunder sequence contributes to a level of speech lucidity that his below his age set. Gliding, as a phonological error array, is deliberated developmentally suitable for kid up to 5.5 years of age.  Vocalization of liquids is suitable for a person of 4 years (Ambridge & Rowland, 2013, pp. 151).

Max’s speech fluency is below the level projected for his age set.  Although the above revealed phonological designs are age suitable, the blend considerably influences the complete intelligibility. The steady constant-vowel setting of Max’s sounds specifically considers his sequence of final consonant deletion. Max shows no indication of fluency or voice illness. In addition, Max does not present with expressive or receptive linguistic illness based on the data got during the assessment.

Based on the finding on Max's assessment, the following matters are commended:

The parents would like to look for customised speech treatment to work on progressively speech intelligent throughout on last consonant deletion. The remedy should be held at least 6 times per two weeks for 30 minutes either in daycare or home. Parental training for improved communication chances is commended to make sure continued language and speech growth

The prognosis for upgraded speech fluency is good based on parental attention and client readiness to learn abilities to promote speech-language efficiency.

SPAT-R developed by the Dr. Roslyn Neilson assesses the student’s phonological awareness skills at the levels of phonemes (Bird, Cleave, Trudeau, Thordardottir, Sutton & Thorpe, 2005, pp. 189). Phonology is the sound sequence patterns constraints that make up words in a specific language. Phonological awareness is the know-how of sound inventory that are arranged according to phonological constraints in a language (Bird et al., 2005, pp. 189).  Therefore, if children are taught phonics at very initial stage it becomes easier for reading in particular language.  Alongside with the learning of phonics, vocabulary requires to be learnt which can lead to the comprehension of a text.  The  components  that are evaluated  though this test  are  onset deletion,  syllable  counting,  rhyme  detection, CVC  blending and  segmentation,  deletion of final and internal consonant.  SPAT-R identifies learners who have difficulties with phonological awareness, expressed in percentiles, and offers normed statistics (Huttenlocher, Waterfall, Vasilyeva, Vevea & Hedges, 2010, pp. 345). This assessment is sensitive to improvement of phonological awareness skills at the very initial stage.  Phonological awareness test offers casual connection in reading and spelling acquisition. SPAT-R assesses a child on aspects such has rhyme detection, syllable counting and production.  For non-word reading, the child  is asked to  read a word list and for  non-word  spelling  the kid is asked  to write  non-words  by listening  to it

CELF-P2 Assessment

CELP-P2 assessment uses picture book to engage the child and does not require many supports. The task and stimuli are school-focused (Cleland, Wood, Hardcastle, Wishart & Timmins, 2010, pp. 85). Reaction to test stimuli can be recorded using video for qualitative measurement.  The program takes 15-20 minutes to administer the core language score.

SPAT and CELF-P2 offer raw scores and complete scores. For the SPAT, other variable such has percentage of the correct consonants and vowel inventory are additionally analysed. The descriptive analyses are utilised to describe behaviors. The medium and mean for each point of interest is calculated. 

Generally, the CELF preschool is the best option for children in Kindergarten. The format in the test is more supportive and child-friendly for the young kids.  This is particularly of a kid who is five ears old (5.0 to 5.5) and as had little preschool experience, and scarce verbal capability (Chapman, Schwartz & Bird, 1991, pp. 1108). There is more in depth content coverage for younger kids in CELF preschool than one which cover the content mostly older children between ages 5 to 8.  Choice of the assessment depends on the child maturity, previous preschool experience, experience with normalised assessment methods such as social verbal ability (Friederici, Brauer & Lohmann, 2011, pp. 55).

References

Abe, C. M., Bretanha, A. C., Bozza, A., Ferraro, G. J. K., & Lopes-Herrera, S. A. (2013). Verbal communication skills in typical language development: a case series. Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia, . In CoDAS (Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 76-83.

Aguado-Orea, J., & Pine, J. M. (2015). Comparing different models of the development of verb inflection in early child Spanish. PLOS one, 10(3), e0119613, pp. 12-19.

Ambridge, B., & Rowland, C. F. (2013). Experimental methods in studying child language acquisition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(2), 149-168.

Bento, A. C. P., & Befi-Lopes, D. M. (2010). Story organization and narrative by school-age children with typical language development. Pró-Fono Revista de Atualização Científica, 22(4), 503-508.

Bird, E. K. R., Cleave, P., Trudeau, N., Thordardottir, E., Sutton, A., & Thorpe, A. (2005). The language abilities of bilingual children with Down syndrome. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14(3), 187-199.

Chapman, R. S., Schwartz, S. E., & Bird, E. K. R. (1991). Language skills of children and adolescents with Down syndrome: I. Comprehension. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 34(5), 1106-1120.

Cleland, J., Wood, S., Hardcastle, W., Wishart, J., & Timmins, C. (2010). Relationship between speech, oromotor, language and cognitive abilities in children with Down's syndrome. International journal of language & communication disorders, 45(1), 83-95.

Friederici, A. D., Brauer, J., & Lohmann, G. (2011). Maturation of the language network: from inter-to intrahemispheric connectivities. PLoS One, 6(6), e20726, pp. 51-62.

Hoff, E., & Tian, C. (2005). Socioeconomic status and cultural influences on language. Journal of communication Disorders, 38(4), 271-278.

Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J., & Hedges, L. V. (2010). Sources of variability in children’s language growth. Cognitive psychology, 61(4), 343-365.

Kent, R. D., & Vorperian, H. K. (2013). Speech impairment in Down syndrome: A review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(1), 178-210.

Lamônica, D. A. C., & Ferreira-Vasques, A. T. (2015). Communicative and lexical skills in children with Down syndrome: reflections for inclusion in school. Revista CEFAC, 17(5), 1475-1482.