Bleile, K. (2002). Evaluating articulation and phonological disorders when the clock is
running. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 243-249.
|
Record |
React |
|
Main Point:
The purpose of this article is to inform the reader of a way to evaluate a preschool-aged child with a phonological/articulation disorder within a 60-90 minute period. |
Relevance:
The article is relevant to the field of speech-language pathology because it outlines how a clinician can effectively assess a preschool-aged child with a phonological/articulation disorder within an allotted amount of time. The author also takes into consideration that an articulation/phonological deficit may be an indicator of a language disorder and may cause trouble when the child begins to read and spell, so he also assesses the child’s language during the evaluation. |
|
Concepts:
The concepts presented in this article include: determine if the client has a communication deficit that would warrant therapy, what is the general nature of the deficit, and to complete a thorough evaluation within 60-90 minutes. |
Connections:
While reading this article I reflected on how students at Marshall University are taught to complete an evaluation. The questions that the author chose to ask within his interview are generally covered on the case history form at Marshall University. This makes me comfortable with saying that the case history at Marshall is thorough and asks pertinent questions. I also reflected on the authors test selection and his decision to complete a language sample during the play break. I like that the author kept the room simple and directed the assessment. His idea for administering the articulation assessment was great. To introduce it as a picture activity and to then have a small break is an idea that I will definitely use the next time I complete an assessment with a young child. These are the connections that I made while I read this article. |
|
Summarize:
The article clearly outlines an assessment that could be completed with a preschool-aged child whose case history reveals that the main concern is a possible articulation or phonological deficit. The assessment that is outlined investigates if there is a possible communication deficit in the areas of speech and language as opposed to just focusing on the speech intelligibility deficit. The assessment is complete and in-depth enough to provide pertinent information to the clinician performing the assessment. |
Confusions:
I think that this author clearly explains how to complete an assessment within 60-90 minutes with a preschool-aged child. I think the most challenging thing for me about reading this article is that the author does not clearly provide a back-up plan. However he does tell the reader to phonetically transcribe the child’s utterances, which I guess could be used if the standardized test was not complete. I also wish that the author would have provided information into why he selected the particular standardized assessment that he chose. My remaining question is: theoretically if you had to choose which standardized articulation test would you choose and why? |
