Assignment on Speech Pathology

Running head: SPEECH PATHOLOGY
1
Speech pathology
Name:
Institution:

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 2
Language and speech evaluation
02/04/2018
Clients: Max Reid
Date of birth: 02/11/2012
Parent: Mr. and Mrs. Reid
Referral questions
An inclusive speech and phonological assessment were requested to determine the severity,
extent, nature of language, speech damage, and functional limits connected to the speaking and
language loss.
Explicit referral queries are;
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?
Does Max demonstrate phonological disorders, which influence on spoken fluency and imposes
limits on his capability to talk?
Does Max exhibit a fluency and voice syndrome, which sways on voice quality and speech
eloquence and executing useful limitation on his capability to connect?
Background
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

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 3
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.
Assessment
Formal and informal evaluation gauge were used in assessment to evaluate speech and language
abilities
Language assessments
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

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 4
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).
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

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 5
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.
Summary
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

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 6
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.
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.
Recommendations
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

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 7
Prognosis
The prognosis for upgraded speech fluency is good based on parental attention and client
readiness to learn abilities to promote speech-language efficiency.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 8
Theoretical approaches
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
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.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 9
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).

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 10
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.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 11
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.