An Ipad Speech Assessment for English and Spanish Speakers
29
TSHA Annual Convention March 8-10, 2012 San Antonio, Texas An iPad Speech Assessment for English and Spanish Speakers Mary Bauman, M.S., CCC-SLP Barbara Fernandes, M.S., CCC-SLP
-
Upload
bilinguistics -
Category
Education
-
view
2.369 -
download
0
Transcript of An Ipad Speech Assessment for English and Spanish Speakers
TSHA Annual ConventionMarch 8-10, 2012San Antonio, Texas
An iPad Speech Assessment for English and Spanish Speakers
Mary Bauman, M.S., CCC-SLPBarbara Fernandes, M.S., CCC-SLP
The iPad is a registered mark of Apple, Inc. Presenters do not have any financial interest in promoting the device.
The Bilingual Articulation Phonology Assessment is a registered mark of Smarty Ears and authors of this presentation have a direct financial relation with the product presented.
Vendor presentation
Mary Bauman, M.S., CCC-SLP Barbara Fernandes, M.S, CCC-SLP
•Founder & CEO of Smarty Ears•GeekSLP.com•Developed over 30 apps for the iPad & iPhone for speech and language development
•Practicing bilingual speech-language pathologist with Bilinguistics•Areas of focus in speech sound disorders in English and Spanish
Our team wanted to create an assessment tool that:• could be used with monolingual (English or
Spanish) and bilingual (Spanish-English) speakers
• provides multiple opportunities to assess sounds in each position
• reduces the time required to analyze results and makes the assessment process time efficient
• Interactional Dual Systems Model of phonological representation suggests that bilingual children possess two separate phonological systems with mutual influence. These systems are separate, yet non-autonomous.
(Paradis, 2001)
L2L1
L1 L2
• Due to the interaction of the two languages within a child’s phonological system, speech production abilities should be tested and compared across both languages.
• Testing in one language, even the language the child uses the most, may not yield the most accurate and reliable results. Combining children's best performance across domains is promising for improving assessment practices for bilingual children. (Peña & Bedore, 2011)
• Possibility of a Test Mode Effect• No significant differences in performance found
for children ages 7-8 between computer-based testing (CBT) and paper-based testing (PBT)
(Sim & Horton, 2005)
Children also showed a preference for
computer-based assessments
SAM CPAC‐S SPAT
Primary Use
Production of Spanish consonants and phonological processes
Screener/comprehensive assessment to gauge articulatory and phonological performance
To examine the production of Spanish phonemes in single words.
NormativeSample
Spanish‐speaking childrenAges 3;0 +
Spanish‐speaking children from the U.S., Mexico, and Puerto RicoAges 3;0 to 8:11
Hispanic children from OregonAges ranged 2;6 to 5;5
Norm‐based or Criterion Referenced
Criterion Referenced Criterion ReferencedNormative data published on 9/15/09
Norm‐based
Administration Time
15 minutes 15‐20 minutes 5‐10 minutes
How can the BAPA help us with assessment?• Performs time-consuming calculations
and analysis• Provides a more in-depth look at speech
errors in less time• Generates report template to save time
• The BAPA codes both articulation and phonological errors to allow the SLP to appropriately identify the profile of the child
• Greater efficacy found in treatments that differentiate between articulation and phonological errors (Holm, Ozanne, & Dodd, 1997)
Speech
Articulation Phonology Other
• Articulation Disorder – difficulty producing specific age-expected sounds; error in the motor movements of sound production▫ e.g., omission, distortions, substitutions
• Phonological process disorder – patterns of error related to underlying difficulty with rules of a language’s sound system▫ e.g., weak syllable deletion, stopping, fronting,
assimilation
(ASHA, 2008)
Considerations in the development of the BAPA:• Frequency of occurrence of words in each
language• Picturability of target words • Selection of culturally-appropriate items• Phonological differences between Spanish and
English• Regional differences of words (in both Spanish
and English)• Minimum of 2 targets of each frequently-
occurring sound in all positions
• Words chosen from familiar categories, such as objects in the home, clothing, body parts, & animals
• Target words selected based on how easily pictures could be identified, particularly for young children
• Stimulus pictures were field tested across various age groups of children with different cultural backgrounds and modified to find stimuli that produced the highest rates of correct identification
• Consideration given to exclude items that may be less familiar or unfamiliar to children who are culturally and linguistically diverse
• Word targets selected from common categories familiar to multiple cultures as much as possible
• Consonant blends and sequences in Spanish• Other assessment tools don’t address
reduction of consonant sequences
/n/ - Final consonant of syllable or consonant sequence?
All of the documents and charts in this presentation can be downloaded from our Free Resource Library.
Click here to visit the Resource Library
Stimulus Pictures:• Eliminated words with various labels
due to regional or dialectal differences
Analysis:• Report will address Spanish dialectal
differences, such as Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban Spanish
• Phonemes assessed in all positions ▫ Initial, medial, final▫ Consonant clusters (blends) as well as consonant
sequences
Spanish: /n/nariz chanclaconejo llorandopan
• In English we distinguished between medial (intervocalic) consonants and medial consonants within a consonant sequence
English: /n/neck blanketdinosaur plantKitchen
• Many current tools assess each phoneme in each position one time
• Have observed contextual/assimilatory errors that can misrepresent child’s actual error type
• Greater number of opportunities to produce each target increases accuracy of error analysis
• Doesn’t doubling the number of opportunities increase the number of words targeted and administration time?
• The BAPA uses every opportunity to assess a phoneme, which reduces the total number of target words needed
• Accounts for all errors made within words
/bl/ cluster/k/ medial/s/ final
• Speech intelligibility is considered one of the main manifestations in subjects with acquired or developmental speech disturbances.
(Barreto, Ortiz, 2008)
http://bilinguistics.com/smile-program
Barreto, S. & Ortiz, K. (2008). Intelligibility measurements in speech disorders: a critical review of the literature. Pró-Fono R. Atual. Cient. 20(3): 201- 206. Retreived from http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=s0104-56872008000300011&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en#back1
Holm, A., Ozanne, A., Dodd, B. (1997). Efficacy of intervention for a bilingual child making articulation and phonological errors. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1(1), 55-69.
Fernandes, Barbara (2011). iTherapy: The revolution of mobile devices within the field of speech therapy. Perspectives. School-Based issues.
Peña, E.D. & Bedore, L.M. (2011). It takes two: Improving assessmentaccuracy in bilingual children. ASHA Leader. Retreived fromhttp://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2011/111101/It-Takes-Two-Improving-Assessment-Accuracy-in-Bilingual-Children/
Secord, W. (2007). Eliciting Sounds. Florence, KY: Thomson Delmar Learning.
Sim, G. & Horton, M. (2005). Performance and Attitude of Children in Computer Based Versus Paper Based Testing. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2005 (pp. 3610-3614). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Skelton, S. (2004). Motor-skill learning approach to the treatment of speech-sound disorders. CSHA Magazine, Summer, 8-9.
Yavas, M. & Goldstein, B. (1998). Phonological assessment and treatment of bilingual speakers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7(2) 49-60.
