Phonological Development and Disorders in Children 2006
DOI: 10.21832/9781853598906-005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

3. English Phonology: Acquisition and Disorder

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
133
0
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(135 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
133
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…They also met inclusionary criteria for CAS classification in the current study. This included performance greater than one standard deviation below the mean on the Bankson-Bernthal Test of Phonology (BB-ToP; Bankson & Bernthal, 1990), the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP; Dodd, Hua, Crosbie, Holm, & Ozanne, 2006) Articulation subtest, the functional component of the Robbins and Klee (1987) oral motor protocol, and a DEAP Word Inconsistency (DEAP WI) or Single-Word Inconsistency score greater than 40%. A cut-off of 40% on the DEAP WI, in conjunction with impaired oral motor skills, is used by some research groups to classify CAS (e.g.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They also met inclusionary criteria for CAS classification in the current study. This included performance greater than one standard deviation below the mean on the Bankson-Bernthal Test of Phonology (BB-ToP; Bankson & Bernthal, 1990), the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP; Dodd, Hua, Crosbie, Holm, & Ozanne, 2006) Articulation subtest, the functional component of the Robbins and Klee (1987) oral motor protocol, and a DEAP Word Inconsistency (DEAP WI) or Single-Word Inconsistency score greater than 40%. A cut-off of 40% on the DEAP WI, in conjunction with impaired oral motor skills, is used by some research groups to classify CAS (e.g.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This included (a) a motor speech protocol that involved sustained productions of consonants and vowels as well as rapid productions of syllables and syllable sequences (Rvachew, Hodge, & Ohberg, 2005), (b) a multisyllabic word imitation task (Preston & Edwards, 2007), (c) a token-to-token inconsistency test, with 10 polysyllabic words repeated 10 times each (adapted from Dodd, Hua, Crosbie, Holm, & Ozanne, 2002), (d) an emphatic stress task, in which participants repeated three four-word sentences with varied stress (cf. Shriberg et al, 2010), and (e) a conversational speech sample.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Formal assessments included the Preschool Language Scale version 4 (Zimmerman et al, 2002) for assessing expressive and receptive language; the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test version 4 (PPVT-4) (Dunn & Dunn, 2007) for assessing receptive vocabulary; and the Articulation and Phonology subtest of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology test (DEAP) (Dodd et al, 2002) for assessing speech production. For these measures, published normative data were used to derive z scores.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%