Procedures to examine the communication abilities of a highly unintelligible 4-year-old during a 90-minute evaluation session are explained in this article. Phonology, metaphonology, speech rate, stimulability, and receptive language are evaluated formally and informally. A conversational speech sample is used to provide information for assessing intelligibility/understandability, fluency, voice quality, prosody, and mean length of response. Methods for determining treatment goals are discussed in the final section.

This pilot study concerned the intelligibility of accented speech for listeners of different ages. 72 native speakers of English, representing three age groups (20-39, 40-59, 60 and older) listened to words and sentences produced by native speakers of English, Taiwanese, and Spanish. Listeners transcribed words and sentences. Listeners also rated speakers' comprehensibility, i.e., listeners' perceptions of difficulty in understanding utterances, and accentedness, i.e., how strong a speaker's foreign accent is perceived to be. On intelligibility measures, older adults had significantly greater difficulty in understanding individuals with accented speech than the other two age groups. Listeners, regardless of age, were more likely to provide correct responses if they perceived the speaker easier to understand. Ratings of comprehensibility were highly correlated with ratings of accentedness.

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between patterns of spelling error and related linguistic abilities of four persons with complex communication needs and physical impairments, compared to younger individuals without disabilities matched by spelling age. All participants completed a variety of spelling and linguistic tasks to determine overall spelling age, patterns of spelling errors, and abilities across phonemic, orthographic, and morphological awareness. Performance of the spelling-age matched pairs was similar across most of the phonemic, orthographic, and morphological awareness tasks. Analysis of the participants' spelling errors, however, revealed different patterns of spelling errors for three of the spelling-age matched pairs. Within these three pairs, the participants with complex communication needs and physical impairments made most of their spelling errors due to phonemic awareness difficulties, while most of the errors on the part of the participants without disabilities were due to orthographic difficulties. The results of this study lend support to the findings of previous investigations that reported difficulties among individuals with complex communication needs and physical impairments evidence when applying phonemic knowledge to literacy tasks.

No abstract