Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation

Views:
 
Category: Education
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation:

Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation House Tree Window

Purpose:

Purpose To provide speech pathologists with a method for assessing articulation of the consonants in SAE by sampling both spontaneous and imitative sound production in single words and conversational speech.

Authors:

Authors Ronald Goldman, PhD ASHA - Honors of the Association Macalyne Fristoe, PhD ASHA – Fellowship of the Association Professor emerita - Purdue University

Development:

Development Published in 1969 and based on an earlier assessment, ‘ The Filmstrip Articulation Test ’ Originally designed as a criterion-referenced assessment. Re-issued in 1972 with normative scores derived from the National Speech and Hearing Survey in 1969. Updated in 1986 to include more multi-cultural references and norms for children from 2-5 yrs of age. Target Words for Questionable Images & Culturally Specific Content were Dropped

Development:

Development Normed on a nationwide sample of 2,350 examinees stratified to match the most recent US Census data

Reliability:

Reliability Coefficient Alpha- measure of uniformity of items calculated using the variance of the test scores and the dichotomously scored items. .92-.98 females .85-.96 males Test-Retest – Interval between administrations ranged from same-day to 34 days. 98% Inter-rater Reliability – 90-93% in agreement depending on error.

Validity:

Validity Content – 23 of 25 consonant sounds Construct – Consonant articulation ability should demonstrate age differentiation.

Research:

Research Morris, S. R. "Test-Retest Reliability of Independent Measures of Phonology in the Assessment of Toddlers' Speech." Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 40.1 (2009): 46-52. Print. Results - Syllable structure level and index of phonetic complexity achieved high test–retest reliability. Word-final phonetic inventory and word shape analyses had moderate but not significant reliability. Word-initial phonetic inventory was not reliable. Discussion - Twenty-minute conversational speech samples were insufficient to obtain reliable results for all measures.

Administration:

Administration Read the manual Rehearse the directions Brush-up on the IPA PRACTICE PRACTICE And PRACTICE again!

Administration:

Administration Easel-style book with 43 picture plates 53 target words 61 consonant sounds in the initial, medial, and/or final positions 16 consonant clusters in initial position Sounds-in-words Sounds-in-sentences Spontaneous and elicited productions, as well as stimulability.

Administration:

Administration Sit across from or at an angle to the client. Point to the page as you ask the stimulus questions or read the stories. The target words are listed below the stimulus questions. The sounds in the target words are highlighted to correspond to the response form.

Prompting and Cueing:

Prompting and Cueing “Yes, but what else can you call it?” Identify the object – “This is a telephone.” Give an intervening sentence – “Sometimes it rings.” Reprompt – “What is this?”

Administration:

Administration Untimed – but can be completed in as little as 15 minutes. No need to administer the entire test; you may utilize only one section depending on the purpose of the assessment.

Response Form:

Response Form Record Identifying Information and calculate Chronological age. No rounding-up on age!

Response Form:

Response Form

Scoring:

Scoring Level 1: Correct: √ Incorrect: X Not elicited: / - Level 2: Substitution: IPA symbol for sound Omission: - Distortion: 2 for mild, 3 for severe Addition: IPA symbol for correct + additional sound. Other diacritical marks: ~ : h Ɂ ͆

Scoring:

Scoring

Scoring:

Scoring

Assessment Time!:

Assessment Time! House, Tree, window, Telephone

Assessment Time!:

Assessment Time! Cup , Knife, and Spoon

Assessment Time!:

Assessment Time! Girl and Ball

Assessment Time!:

Assessment Time! Wagon and Shovel

Assessment Time:

Assessment Time Taking bath, Soap, and Floor

Stimulability:

Stimulability Used to determine ease with which client can correctly produce previously misarticulated sounds. Test only sounds that were misarticulated. Test the sound only in the position in which the error occurred.

Stimulability:

Stimulability Start at the syllable level. Successful? Yes- Progress to the next level. No- Repeat the stimulus 3 times and try again. If still unsuccessful, continue to next sound.

Scoring:

Scoring

Raw Score:

Raw Score Fill-in the Sounds-in-Words Grid. Count the TOTAL number of articulation ERRORS . This is the raw score. Record this score on the front of the response form.

Convert Raw Score:

Convert Raw Score Appendix B, Table B.1 Locate clients age (2 month intervals) Select gender Read down ‘Raw Score’ column to client’s score, then to the right, across the row, to the appropriate gender column to read the standard score Transfer this number to the response form.

Confidence Interval & Percentile Rank:

Confidence Interval & Percentile Rank Select confidence level based on personal preference and reason for testing: 90% or 95% Same table as for raw/standard scores. Enter values on response form.

Test Age Equivalent:

Test Age Equivalent Appendix B, Table B.2 Find client’s raw score in the first column, read to the right to find the corresponding test-age equivalent by gender. Enter value on response form.

Final word on scoring the GFTA-2 :

Final word on scoring the GFTA -2 A standard score of 100 is average for the person’s age. A raw score of 0 does not necessarily mean ‘no errors’ Confidence intervals and percentiles can NOT be calculated for standard scores below 40. Test-age is not to be used for making diagnostic or placement decisions.

The Good, the bad, and the not so ugly!:

The Good, the bad, and the not so ugly! Very simple, easy to administer. Covers all commonly used consonants and blends Scoring tables are easy to read. Some of the pictures can be difficult for little-ones to name. Difficult to record answers while giving the test. Sentence length requirement is too great for small children.

Khan-Lewis Phonological Analysis – 2nd Edition:

Khan-Lewis Phonological Analysis – 2 nd Edition House Tree Window

Purpose:

Purpose To provide speech-language pathologists with a method of diagnosing or describing phonological disorders in individuals.

Slide 35:

Companion to the GFTA-2 Sounds-in-Words subtest 53 single words elicited in response to pictures

Slide 36:

Analyzes use of 10 developmental phonological processes: Reduction processes Final consonant deletion Syllable reduction Stopping of fricatives and affricates Cluster simplification Liquid simplification Place and manner processes Velar fronting Palatal fronting Deaffrication Additional processes and dialect/vowels can also be observed. Voicing processes Initial voicing Final devoicing

The Basics:

The Basics Authors – Linda Khan and Nancy Lewis Age Range – 2;0 to 21;11 (DO NOT round 15 or more days to the next month.) Language – English Time – 10 to 30 minutes Cost - $144

Development:

Development National standardization – May to November 1999 Independent consultants representing the perspectives of African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, and women reviewed the target words and artwork, and modifications were made following these reviews.

Normative Data:

Normative Data Age-based and gender-based norm groups 2,350 subjects from 300 sites nationwide 50% female, 50% male Ages 2;0 through 21;11 2;0 to 8;11 – 1 year age intervals 9;0 to 14;11 – 2 year age intervals 15;0 to 21;11 – single multiyear age interval

Sample also controlled for::

Sample also controlled for: Race African American – 16.4% females, 14.6% males (U.S.=15.7%) Hispanic – 15.7% females, 15.8% males (U.S.=15.7%) White – 64.1% females, 65.4% males (U.S.=63.4%) Other – 3.8% females, 4.2% males (U.S.=5.1%) Geographic Region Northeast – 18.6% females, 18.3% males (U.S.=18.2%) North Central – 23.7% females, 23.9% males (U.S.=23.4%) South – 35.2% females, 34.4% males (U.S.=34.4%) West – 22.5% females, 23.4% males (U.S.=23.7%)

Slide 41:

SES/Parent Education Grade 11 or less – 16.6% females, 16.2% males (U.S.=16.2%) High school graduate – 34% females, 34.4% males (U.S.=34%) 1 to 3 years of college/technical school – 28.3% females, 28.4% males (U.S.=28.3%) 4 or more years of college – 21% females, 21% males (U.S.=21.5%) Special Populations Specific learning disability Speech and/or language impairment Mental retardation Serious emotional disturbance

Reliability:

Reliability Internal Median = .96 for females, .95 for males Test-retest Median = .94 Inter-rater Median = .97

Validity:

Validity Content Designed to sample the use of phonological processes when evaluating articulation errors within a sample of 23 of the 25 consonant sounds recognized in SAE Construct Claims to measure the use of phonological processes in consonant and consonant cluster sounds Demonstrated by the developmental progression of total raw scores and correlation with GFTA-2 raw scores (.89 for females, .88 for males)

Analysis:

Analysis Transfer production data transcribed in IPA from GFTA-2 Sounds-in-Words subtest to KLPA-2 protocol. Use the Sound Change Booklet to determine the phonological process for each error. Phonological processes typed in bold are included in the KLPA-2 scoring system. Phonological processes typed in italics are not included in the KLPA-2 scoring system, but should be noted in the “Additional Phonological Processes” column on the protocol.

Slide 45:

On the protocol, check off phonological processes used in production of each target word. A single sound change may be scored for more than one process. A single process can only be scored once per target word. Phonological processes are darkened where the process cannot apply to a particular target word. Note additional phonological processes used and vowel alterations observed.

Scores Available:

Scores Available Use of each phonological process: Percent-of-Occurrence Overall use of phonological processes: Standard Score Percentile Test-age Equivalent

Pros and Cons:

Pros and Cons Pros Normative data Reliability and validity Useability Cons Only analyzes single word productions

Supplement:

Supplement Independent analysis Conversational language sample analyzed for distinctive features, syllable structures, etc.

References:

References Pearson – KLPA-2 Technical Information http://www.pearsonschool.com/index.cfm?locator=PSZ3Ei

authorStream Live Help