Target Selection in Phonological Therapy

Target selection in phonological therapy

HOME	SITE MAP	START PAGE	ABOUT	DISCLAIMER

PRIVACY	CONTENTS	LINKS	EMAIL	COPYRIGHT

A comparison of guidelines for target selection in therapy for children's speech sound disorders
Copyright © 2005 Caroline Bowen

TARGET SELECTION FACTORS
(after Williams, 2003a, 2003b)

SOUND OR SYSTEM
SINGLE SOUNDS OR PHONOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY
STIMULABILITY
DEVELOPMENTAL EXPECTATIONS
CONSISTENCY
MOST vs. LEAST KNOWLEDGE
DESTRUCTIVENESS of INTELLIGIBILITY
DEVIANCY
SOCIAL FACTORS
MARKEDNESS
SYSTEMIC FACTORS / DISTINCTIONS
LEXICAL PROPERTIES

Scroll down this page for target selection guidelines, under twelve headings, that have arisen from Speech-Language Pathology and Linguistics research since around the late 1990's. Go here for "older", but not necessarily superseded, target selection guidelines arising from 1970's-1990's research.

Target
Selection
Factor

TRADITIONAL
Target Selection
Criteria

NON-TRADITIONAL
Target Selection
Criteria

1. Sound or System

Older Guidelines
Sound
A traditional approach reflects a focus on the learnability of the SOUND.

Traditionally, SLPs have used phonetic factors to choose treatment targets, opting for sounds that are early developing, stimulable, and comparatively “easy” for the child to produce and are supported by most phonological knowledge.
See Edwards 1983

Newer Guidelines
System
A “non-traditional" approach emphasises phonological restructuring of the child's speech sound SYSTEM, and expected changes, due to the effects of generalisation, are therefore system-wide.

In a non-traditional approach, Speech-Language Pathologists choose non-stimulable, later developing, phonetically more complex, linguistically marked sounds that are supported by least phonological knowledge.

Single Sounds or Phonological Complexity

Older Guidelines
Single Sounds
The traditional target selection criteria above are valid when ease of learning of individual sounds is considered to be important. They are often applied in a phonetic (articulatory) approach rather than a phonemic (phonological) approach.

Phonetic vs. Phonemic
There is a discussion on this page of the differences between phonetic and phonemic therapy, and the likely co-occurrence of phonetic and phonemic issues in the same child.

Newer Guidelines
Complexity
According to several quite recent studies, targeting more complex sounds (more difficult for the child to produce) leads to greater systemic change (e.g., Miccio, Elbert & Forrest, 1999).

Alternative findings are also available (e.g., Rvachew & Nowak, 2001).

See Williams, 2003a, 2003b for discussions.

References
Edwards, M. (1983). Selection criteria for developing therapy goals. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 7, 36-45.

Miccio, A. W., Elbert, M., & Forrest, K. (1999). The Relationship Between Stimulability and Phonological Acquisition in Children With Normally Developing and Disordered Phonologies. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 347-363.

Morrisette, M. L., & Gierut, J. A. (2003). Unified treatment recommendations: A response to Rvachew & Nowak (2001). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 382-385.

Rvachew, S. & Nowak, M. (2001). The effect of target-selection strategy on phonological learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44 (3), 610-623. FULL TEXT

Williams, A.L. (2003a). Target selection and treatment outcomes. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 10(1), 12-16.

Williams, A.L. (2003b). Speech disorders resource guide for preschool children. Singular Resource Guide Series. Thomson: Delmar Learning.

Stimulability

Older Guidelines
Stimulable sounds
In a traditional approach to treatment target selection sounds that are stimulable are chosen first, because they are easier for the child to learn (e.g., Hodson & Paden, 1991).

Newer Guidelines
Non-stimulable sounds
Select sounds that are not stimulable, as sounds that ARE will emerge without direct intervention (Miccio et al 1999).

Powell (2003) says that as non-stimulable sounds are more complex, they should be given priority over stimulable sounds to facilitate generalization to both stimulable and non-stimulable sounds. This view is supported by Powell, Elbert and Dinnsen (1991). Rvachew (2005) conducted research that supported an alternative view: namely, giving stimulable sounds priority. In her article Rvachew also signals the importance of phoneme perception training in tandem with phonetic placement procedures for improving stimulability (cf. Miccio, 2005).

References
Hodson, B., & Paden, E. (1991). Targeting intelligible speech: A phonological approach to remediation. (2nd ed.). Texas: Pro-Ed.

Powell, T. W., Elbert, M. and Dinnsen, D.A. (1991) Stimulability as a factor in the phonological generalization of misarticulating preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1318-28.

Rvachew, S. (2005). Stimulability and treatment success. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(3), 207-219.

Rvachew, S., Rafaat, S., and Martin, M. (1999). Stimulability, speech perception and the treatment of phonological disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 33-43.

4. Developmental
Expectations

Older Guidelines
Early sounds
The traditional literature urges clinicians to select early developing sounds because they are easier to learn. (e.g., Shriberg & Kwiatkowski, 1980, 1982).

Newer Guidelines
Later sounds
Select later developing sounds, as training them will result in greater system-wide change (e.g., Gierut, et al 1996).

References
McLeod, S. (2003). Normal speech development: A framework for assessment and intervention. In C. Williams, & S. Leitao (Eds) Proceedings of the 2003 Speech Pathology Australia National Conference. (pp. 57-64). Melbourne: Speech Pathology Australia.

Shriberg, L.D., & Kwiatkowski, J. (1980). Natural Process Analysis New York: Academic Press.

Shriberg, L.D., & Kwiatkowski, J. (1982). Phonological disorders I: A diagnostic classification system. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 226-241.

Gierut, J.A., Morrisette, M.L., Hughes, M.T. & Rowland, S. (1996). Phonological treatment efficacy and developmental norms. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 215-230.

5. Consistency
[consistent error patterns]

Older Guidelines
Inconsistently in error
Select sounds that are inconsistently erred because inconsistency may indicate flexibility and potential for change (e.g., Forrest et al 1994).

Newer Guidelines
Consistently in error
Select consistently erred sounds as they represent stable underlying representations. Training them will result in greater system-wide change (e.g., Forrest et al, 2002).

References
Forrest, K., Elbert, M., & Dinnsen, D. (2002). The effect of substitution patterns on phonological treatment outcomes. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 14, 519-531.

Forrest, K., Weismer, G., Elbert, M., & Dinnsen, D.A. (1994). Spectral analysis of target-appropriate /t/ and /k/ produced by phonologically disordered and normally articulating children. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 8, 267-281.

McLeod, S. & Holm, A. (2004). Differentiating between normal variability and inconsistent disorder in children’s speech. 26th World Congress of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, Brisbane, September 2004.

6. Most Knowledge
vs.
Least Knowledge

Older Guidelines
Most knowledge
Select sounds for which the child has most knowledge because they will be easier to learn.

Newer Guidelines
Least knowledge
Select sounds for which the child has least knowledge because they will be easier to learn (e.g., Williams, 1991; Barlow & Gierut, 2002; Gierut, 2001).

.
References
Barlow, J. A., & Gierut, J. A. (2002). Minimal pair approaches to phonological remediation. Seminars in Speech and Language, 23(1), 57-67. FULL TEXT Correction: READ THIS TOO!!!!

Gierut, J. A. (2001). Complexity in phonological treatment: Clinical factors. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 32, 229-241.

Saben, C.B. & Ingham, J.C. (1991). The effects of minimal pairs treatment on the speech-sound production of two children with phonologic disorders. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1023-40.

Williams, A.L. (1991). Generalization patterns associated with training least phonological knowledge. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 722-33.

Williams, A.L. (2003). On “Minimal pair approaches to phonological remediation,” (Seminars in Speech and Language 2002; 23: 57-67) [Letter to the editor]. Seminars in Speech and Language, 24,3, 257-258. FULL TEXT

7. Destructiveness
of
Intelligibility

Older Guidelines
High impact
Select patterns that have a high impact on (are most destructive of) intelligibility (e.g., Grunwell, 1975, 1992b).
See Grunwell's principles

References
Grunwell, P. (1975). The phonological analysis of articulation disorders. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 10, 31-42.

Grunwell, P. (1992b). Process of phonological change in developmental speech disorders. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 6, 101-122.

8. Deviancy

Older Guidelines
Deviation from the Norm
Select patterns most deviant from normal phonology (e.g., Grunwell, 1982) such as ICD, backing and glottal replacement (where glottal replacement is not dialectal).
See Grunwell's principles

Reference
Grunwell, P. (1982). Clinical phonology. London: Croom Helm.

9. Social Factors

Older Guidelines
Important words
Select sounds that are “important” or "powerful" or "core" for the child. For example a target word for Jake was "Jake" because he was teased for pronouncing his name as "Date". (e.g., Van Riper, 1934; Van Riper & Irwin, 1958).
See 'traditional' therapy

Newer Guidelines
Partnerships
"The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) (World Health Organization, 2001) is proposed as a framework for integrative goal setting for children with speech impairment. The ICF incorporates both impairment and social factors to consider when selecting appropriate goals to bring about change in the lives of children with speech impairment. Speech-language therapists and teachers can work together not only to provide direct intervention with the child, but also to work in partnership with the child's family, friends, school and society." McLeod & Bleile, 2004

References
McLeod, S. (2004). Speech pathologists’ application of the ICF to children with speech impairment Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 6 (1), 75-81.

McLeod, S. & Bleile, K. (2004). The ICF: A framework for setting goals for children with speech impairment. Child Language, Teaching and Therapy, 20, 3, 199-219.

Van Riper, C. (1934). Speech correction: Principles and methods. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Van Riper, C. & Irwin, J.V. (1958). Voice and articulation. London: Pitman Medical Publishing Company.

10. Markedness

Implicational Relationships

Newer Guidelines
Teach marked properties
Teach marked properties (voiced sounds, affricates and clusters) in order to facilitate the acquisition of unmarked aspects of the system (e.g., Dinnsen & O'Connor, 2001; Barlow & Gierut, 2002).

References
Barlow, J. A. & Gierut, J. A. (2002). Minimal pair approaches to phonological remediation. Seminars in Speech and Language, 23(1), 57-67.

Dinnsen, D. A. & O'Connor, K. M. (2001). Implicationally-related error patterns and the selection of treatment targets. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 257-270.

Gierut, J. (2001). Complexity in phonological treatment: Clinical factors. Language, Speech, and Hearing in Schools, 32, 229-241.

Gierut, J. A., & Storkel, H. L. (2002). Markedness and the grammar in lexical diffusion of fricatives. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 16, 115-134.

11. Systemic Factors:
Feature Distinctions

Older Guidelines
Minimal oppositions
Use minimal oppositions contrasting the child’s error with the target (Weiner, 1981). Make the distinction ("opposition") between error and target as small as possible.

Newer Guidelines
Multiple and Maximal
Select multiply opposed targets (Williams 2000a, 2000b; 2003) because homophony motivates phonemic change. Select maximally opposed targets (Gierut, 1989; 1992); or empty (unknown) set (Gierut, 2001) because they increase saliency, and hence learnability.

References
Gierut, J. A. (1989). Maximal opposition approach to phonological treatment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 9-19.

Gierut, J. A. (2001). Complexity in phonological treatment: Clinical factors. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 32, 229-241.

Weiner, F. (1981). Treatment of phonological disability using the method of meaningful contrast: Two case studies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 97-103.

Williams, A. L. (2000a). Multiple oppositions: Case studies of variables in phonological intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 289-299.

Williams, A. L. (2000b). Multiple oppositions: Theoretical foundations for an alternative contrastive intervention approach. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 282-288.

Williams, A.L. (2003) Speech disorders resource guide for preschool children. Singular Resource Guide Series. Thomson: Delmar Learning.

Williams, A.L. (2005). From developmental norms to distance metrics: Target selection factors and criteria. In K.E. Pollock, & A.G. Kamhi (Eds.). Phonological disorders in children: Clinical decision-making in assessment and intervention (pp 101-108). Baltimore, MD; Brookes Publishing Co.

12. Lexical Properties
High frequency words: occur often in the language so are recognised faster than LF words. High neighbourhood density words are similar to many other words.

Older Guidelines
Low frequency
Choose words that are "unusual" (i.e., ones that occur less frequently in the language) because they are not as likely to be "entrenched" as habitual error productions. Work from novel words to commonly used words. High frequency words are less learnable that low frequency words.

Newer Guidelines
a) High frequency
b) Low density
Choose words that are either high frequency (i.e., those that occur a lot in the language and which are more difficult for a child to learn) to promote more widespread generalisation; or words that have low neighbourhood density - i.e., not many other words are phonetically similar to them. (e.g., Storkel & Morrissette, 2002).

References
Gierut, J. A., Morrisette, M.L. & Champion, A.H. (1999) Lexical constraints in phonological acquisition. J Child Lang 26, 261-94.

Morrisette, M. L. (1999). Lexical characteristics of sound change. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 13, 219-238.

Storkel, H. L. (2002a). Restructuring of similarity neighborhoods in the developing mental lexicon. Journal of Child Language, 29, 251-274.

Storkel, H. L., & Morrisette, M. L. (2002). The lexicon and phonology: Interactions in language acquisition. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33, 22-35.

Search for high frequency and low neighbourhood density words
http://128.252.27.56/neighborhood/Home.asp

Page updated 05 Feb 2010

http://www.speech-language-therapy.com/target_selection.htm

1.

Sound or System

4.

Developmental Expectations

5.

Consistency [consistent error patterns]

6.

Most Knowledge vs. Least Knowledge

7.

Destructiveness of Intelligibility

8.

Deviancy

9.

Social Factors

10.

Markedness

11.

Systemic Factors: Feature Distinctions

12.

Lexical Properties High frequency words: occur often in the language so are recognised faster than LF words. High neighbourhood density words are similar to many other words.

Developmental
Expectations

Consistency
[consistent error patterns]

Most Knowledge
vs.
Least Knowledge

Destructiveness
of
Intelligibility

Systemic Factors:
Feature Distinctions

Lexical Properties
High frequency words: occur often in the language so are recognised faster than LF words. High neighbourhood density words are similar to many other words.