Stimulus Characteristics of Single-Word Tests of Children's Speech Sound Production Purpose This clinical focus article provides readers with a description of the stimulus characteristics of 12 popular tests of speech sound production. Method Using significance testing and descriptive analyses, stimulus items were compared in terms of the number of opportunities for production of all consonant singletons, clusters, and ... Clinical Focus
Newly Published
Clinical Focus  |   August 18, 2017
Stimulus Characteristics of Single-Word Tests of Children's Speech Sound Production
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Toby Macrae
    School of Communication Science and Disorders, Florida State University, Tallahassee
  • Disclosure: The author has declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.
    Disclosure: The author has declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication. ×
  • Correspondence to Toby Macrae: toby.macrae@cci.fsu.edu
  • Editor: Julie Liss
    Editor: Julie Liss×
  • Associate Editor: Kathryn Drager
    Associate Editor: Kathryn Drager×
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosody / Newly Published / Clinical Focus
Clinical Focus   |   August 18, 2017
Stimulus Characteristics of Single-Word Tests of Children's Speech Sound Production
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, Newly Published. doi:10.1044/2017_LSHSS-16-0050
History: Received June 14, 2016 , Revised November 12, 2016 , Accepted June 1, 2017
 
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, Newly Published. doi:10.1044/2017_LSHSS-16-0050
History: Received June 14, 2016; Revised November 12, 2016; Accepted June 1, 2017

Purpose This clinical focus article provides readers with a description of the stimulus characteristics of 12 popular tests of speech sound production.

Method Using significance testing and descriptive analyses, stimulus items were compared in terms of the number of opportunities for production of all consonant singletons, clusters, and rhotic and nonrhotic vowels of Standard American English; phonetic/phonological and structural complexity; and the presence of bound morphemes.

Results The tests varied widely in terms of the number of opportunities for production of consonant singletons, clusters, and rhotic and nonrhotic vowels. Most of the tests included only 1 opportunity, scored or unscored, to produce a majority of the consonant singletons in each word position. Only 3 of the tests included stimulus items with 3-element clusters. The majority contained limited opportunities to produce 3- or 4-syllable stimulus items. The tests provided sufficient opportunities for production of most vowels, although most did not score vowels. The tests differed significantly in the complexity of their stimulus items. Most, however, contained a negligible number of items that, with the addition of a bound morpheme, resulted in a word-final cluster.

Conclusion Most of the tests elicit an inadequate sample with which to conduct a comprehensive phonological analysis.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Kenn Apel and Danielle Brimo for their assistance with earlier versions of this study.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access