Multiple Oppositions: Case Studies of Variables in Phonological Intervention The multiple oppositions approach (Williams, 1992; 2000) was incorporated as the beginning point of intervention for 10 children who exhibited moderate-to-profound phonological impairments. Several variables that potentially affect phonological change were examined in a longitudinal case study of these children. Different models of intervention (multiple oppositions, minimal pairs, and naturalistic ... Clinical Focus
Clinical Focus  |   November 01, 2000
Multiple Oppositions: Case Studies of Variables in Phonological Intervention
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • A. Lynn Williams
    East Tennessee State University, Johnson City
  • Contact author: A. Lynn Williams, PhD, Department of Communicative Disorders, P.O. Box 70643, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN 37614. E-mail: williaml@etsu.edu
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Clinical Focus
Clinical Focus   |   November 01, 2000
Multiple Oppositions: Case Studies of Variables in Phonological Intervention
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, November 2000, Vol. 9, 289-299. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0904.289
History: Received December 21, 1999 , Accepted August 2, 2000
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, November 2000, Vol. 9, 289-299. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0904.289
History: Received December 21, 1999; Accepted August 2, 2000

The multiple oppositions approach (Williams, 1992; 2000) was incorporated as the beginning point of intervention for 10 children who exhibited moderate-to-profound phonological impairments. Several variables that potentially affect phonological change were examined in a longitudinal case study of these children. Different models of intervention (multiple oppositions, minimal pairs, and naturalistic speech intelligibility training) were incorporated within different structures of treatment (vertical, horizontal, and cyclical) using a model of phonologic learning that was based on a developmental structuring of intervention. This nontraditional research paradigm is proposed as a possible bridge to link the science and practice of clinical research. Specifically, the clinical reality of providing intervention to children from their initial treatment to discharge provides a broader perspective of treatment efficacy while also serving as a foundation for future areas of more controlled investigations of specific variables.

Author Notes
The contributions of many individuals made this longitudinal intervention study possible. I am very grateful to the children and their families for their long-term participation in this study. I am also grateful to the many clinicians and graduate assistants who have contributed to the data collection, organization, analysis, and transcription reliability. Sincere appreciation is expressed to Pam Abner, Maureen Bosanko, Angela Bowen, Michelle Bower, Terri Daughtery, Kristi Dyer-Mistone, Becca Epperly, Lisa Feltes, Chris Fuchs, Shelly Galloway, Michelle Gurley, Carol Kagarise May, Missy Lasater, Kathy Nakata, Jo Pinson, and J. R. Rodgers for their tireless assistance in the clinical intervention aspects and data analysis. This work was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (DC03493) and a small grant from the Research and Development Committee at East Tennessee State University.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access