Two Comments on This Assessment Series Two of the procedures discussed in this assessment series, using phonological processes to characterize production errors (e.g., Hodson, Scherez, & Strattman, 2002; Tyler & Tolbert, 2002) and using oral mechanism assessment (e.g., Bleile, 2002; Miccio, 2002), often provide the basis for developing treatment goals. Although these are long-accepted practices, ... Clinical Forum
Clinical Forum  |   August 01, 2002
Two Comments on This Assessment Series
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Gregory L. Lof, PhD
    MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA
  • Contact author: Gregory L. Lof, PhD, Graduate Program in Communication Sciences and Disorders, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Charlestown Navy Yard, 36 First Ave., Boston, MA 02129. E-mail: glof@mghihp.edu
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosody / Clinical Forum: Phonology
Clinical Forum   |   August 01, 2002
Two Comments on This Assessment Series
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, August 2002, Vol. 11, 255-256. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2002/028)
History: Received January 22, 2002 , Accepted April 5, 2002
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, August 2002, Vol. 11, 255-256. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2002/028)
History: Received January 22, 2002; Accepted April 5, 2002
Web of Science® Times Cited: 5
Two of the procedures discussed in this assessment series, using phonological processes to characterize production errors (e.g., Hodson, Scherez, & Strattman, 2002; Tyler & Tolbert, 2002) and using oral mechanism assessment (e.g., Bleile, 2002; Miccio, 2002), often provide the basis for developing treatment goals. Although these are long-accepted practices, their current application requires examination.
Beginning in the late 1970s, phonological processes served an important role when speech-language pathologists were moving from a motor/articulation way of thinking about speech-sound errors to more linguistic approaches. Initially, Stampe (1973)  proposed that phonological processes could explain how speech-sound errors were a product of a failure to suppress natural tendencies of the perception and production systems. Although this theory ultimately failed to adequately explain production errors, clinicians continue to use phonological processes to describe the errors (Fey, 1992; Kamhi, 1992; Locke, 1983). Besides the fact that phonological processes came from a theory few currently believe, there are two other reasons why the use of phonological processes need to be modified: for clinical and terminology reasons.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access