Commentary on "Evaluating Articulation and Phonological Disorders When the Clock Is Running" In this collection of articles on phonological assessment “when the clock is running,” the need to conduct efficient assessments is not in question. Increased demands and costs have dictated this need across the profession of speech pathology. The questions of how to become efficient and what constitutes the bare ... Clinical Forum
Clinical Forum  |   August 01, 2002
Commentary on "Evaluating Articulation and Phonological Disorders When the Clock Is Running"
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Kelly Ingram, MA
    Arizona State University, Tempe
  • David Ingram
    Arizona State University, Tempe
  • Contact author: Kelly Ingram, MA, Arizona State University, LL 173, Tempe, AZ 85287-0102. E-mail: ingramk@asu.edu
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Clinical Forum: Phonology
Clinical Forum   |   August 01, 2002
Commentary on "Evaluating Articulation and Phonological Disorders When the Clock Is Running"
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, August 2002, Vol. 11, 257-258. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2002/029)
History: Received January 22, 2002 , Accepted April 5, 2002
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, August 2002, Vol. 11, 257-258. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2002/029)
History: Received January 22, 2002; Accepted April 5, 2002
Web of Science® Times Cited: 4
In this collection of articles on phonological assessment “when the clock is running,” the need to conduct efficient assessments is not in question. Increased demands and costs have dictated this need across the profession of speech pathology. The questions of how to become efficient and what constitutes the bare essentials, however, are in question. Each author shares the belief that a thorough history intake and some form of language testing are needed so that clinical decisions can include possible etiologies, concomitant issues, and prognosis. Stimulability testing and the practice of sharing preliminary results within the 60 to 90 minute session are also reflected in each paper. The authors differ, however, in the method or instruments used for collecting speech samples (i.e. standardized tests versus spontaneous speech), the extent of the phonological analysis conducted, and the amount of attention paid to intelligibility issues. Furthermore, only cursory mention of computers is made, and this is typically done as an aside with an explanation that computers were not used because they are too time consuming. Our commentary will avoid the much-debated issue of standardized tests versus spontaneous samples, and will focus on the extent of phonological assessment needed to capture a child's system, and the need to address intelligibility and whole word properties. Additionally, we believe the authors have underestimated the value of computers in this process, and thus make suggestions on how computers can increase efficiency and reliability during phonological assessments.
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