Deck 16: Individual Children With Speech Sound Disorders: Case Studies

Question 1

What is the cause of Luke, Jarrod, Susie, Michael, and Lian's speech sound disorder? (Remember, causes can be known or unknown.)

Answer 1

Speech sound disorders can have a variety of causes, and without specific information about Luke, Jarrod, Susie, Michael, and Lian, it is impossible to determine the exact cause of their speech sound disorders. However, I can provide general information on potential causes of speech sound disorders that may apply to them or to individuals in similar situations.

1. **Developmental Disorders**: Sometimes, speech sound disorders are part of a broader developmental disorder such as autism spectrum disorder, Down syndrome, or a general developmental delay.

2. **Hearing Loss**: Even mild hearing loss can affect a child's ability to hear and produce sounds correctly.

3. **Neurological Disorders**: Conditions such as cerebral palsy or a traumatic brain injury can lead to speech sound disorders due to the impact on the muscles and/or brain areas responsible for speech production.

4. **Structural Problems**: Abnormalities in the structure of the oral cavity, such as cleft palate or a tongue tie, can interfere with proper speech production.

5. **Genetic Factors**: There may be a genetic component to speech sound disorders, as they sometimes run in families.

6. **Motor Speech Disorders**: Conditions such as apraxia of speech or dysarthria involve problems with motor planning or muscle weakness, leading to difficulties in producing speech sounds correctly.

7. **Environmental Factors**: Lack of exposure to language, poor speech models, or certain cultural or linguistic environments can contribute to the development of speech sound disorders.

8. **Idiopathic Causes**: In many cases, the cause of a speech sound disorder is unknown, which is referred to as an idiopathic speech sound disorder.

For Luke, Jarrod, Susie, Michael, and Lian, the cause of their speech sound disorder could be one of the above or a combination of factors. A thorough assessment by a speech-language pathologist would be necessary to determine the specific cause(s) and to develop an appropriate treatment plan tailored to their individual needs.

Question 2

Which child has a greater risk of literacy difficulties, Luke or Susie? Why?

Answer 2

It is not possible to determine which child, Luke or Susie, has a greater risk of literacy difficulties without more information about their individual circumstances. Risk factors for literacy difficulties can vary widely and may include family history, exposure to language and literacy activities, learning disabilities, and other factors. It is important to consider each child's unique strengths and challenges and to provide appropriate support and intervention as needed. Without more information, it would be unfair and inaccurate to make assumptions about either child's risk of literacy difficulties.

Question 3

Between Luke and Susie, which child is more likely to have a family history of speech, language and/or literacy difficulties? Review each child's case history to see if your prediction aligns with the child's case history information.

Answer 3

To provide an accurate answer to the question of which child, Luke or Susie, is more likely to have a family history of speech, language, and/or literacy difficulties, I would need to review the case histories of both children. Since the case histories are not provided in your question, I cannot make a prediction or confirm whether it aligns with the actual information.

In a typical case history review, one would look for any mentions of family members who have had similar difficulties, as these issues can often have a genetic component or be influenced by the home environment. Factors to consider would include:

1. Whether either child has immediate family members (parents, siblings) with a history of speech or language disorders.
2. Whether there is a history of learning disabilities, including dyslexia, in the family, which could affect literacy development.
3. Any reports of developmental delays or educational concerns in the family that might be related to speech, language, or literacy.

If you can provide the case histories for Luke and Susie, I would be able to review the information and give a more informed answer regarding which child is more likely to have a family history of speech, language, and/or literacy difficulties.

Question 4

Do you think that Susie's mixed dentition contributes to her lateralization of /s, z/? Why or why not?

Question 5

What case history factors may have contributed to Jarrod having inconsistency speech disorder?

Question 6

What is the defining characteristic of Michael's speech?

Question 7

Review Table 16-15 and summarize Michael's difficulty with the production of polysyllabic words.

Question 8

Review Table 16-17 and summarize the perceptual characteristics of Lian's speech.

Question 9

Review Table 16-18 and list and describe the diacritics evident in Lian's speech sample.

Question 10

Between Luke and Michael, who do you predict would perform more poorly on a DDK assessment task? Why? Review Luke and Michael's assessment results to see if your predictions were accurate.

Question 11

Do children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have a higher risk of speech, language and/or literacy difficulties?

Question 12

What is the role of otitis media in speech sound disorders in children? Use the case history information about the five clinical cases (Luke, Jarrod, Susie, Michael, and Lian) as part of your answer.

Question 13

Compare and contrast the tools used to assess Luke, Jarrod, Michael and Lian's oral structures and function. Why do you think different tools were used with the different children?

Question 14

Comment on the impact of speech sound disorders on children's lives. Use the case history information and assessment results for Luke and Lian as part of your response.

Question 15

Compare and contrast the phonetic inventories of English and Cantonese. In light of your knowledge of the phonetic inventories, do you think that Lian's difficulty with affricates is simply a product of her bilingualism? Why or why not? Appendix 4-2 of McLeod and Baker (2017) has particularly relevant information for this question.

Question 16

Compare and contrast Luke, Jarrod, and Michael's difficulties with respect to their production of polysyllables. What do their difficulties with the productions of polysyllables say about the underlying nature of their particular speech sound disorder?

Question 17

Search and critique a recently published case study about a child with a speech sound disorder. How is that child similar and/or different to the clinical cases (Luke, Jarrod, Susie, Michael, and Lian) in

Question 18

Discuss the importance of gathering and documenting case histories for children with speech sound disorders.

Question 19

Prepare an alternate assessment plan for either Luke or Michael. Justify your inclusion of the various tasks in your assessment plan, in light of what you know from the child's case history.

Question 20

Develop a case history questionnaire form suitable for the parents of one or more of the clinical cases (Luke, Jarrod, Susie, Michael, and Lian). Explain why you have included the topics and questions on questionnaire.

Question 21

In light of Luke's speech sample in Table 16-1 for General American English, the phonological processes most likely evident on Luke's (4;3 years) realization of the word spaghetti // $\rightarrow$ [] are:

A) cluster reduction and velar fronting.
B) cluster reduction, weak syllable deletion, and velar fronting.
C) cluster reduction, prevocalic voicing, and velar fronting.
D) cluster simplification, prevocalic voicing, and velar fronting.

Question 22

In light of Luke's speech sample in Table 16-1 for General American English, the phonological processes most likely evident on Luke's (4;3 years) realization of the word scratch / / $\rightarrow$ [dæt] are:

A) cluster simplification, prevocalic voicing, and stopping of affricates.
B) cluster reduction and prevocalic voicing.
C) cluster reduction, prevocalic voicing, and velar fronting.
D) cluster reduction, prevocalic voicing, velar fronting and stopping of affricates.

Question 23

The naturalistic play activity (as part of multiple oppositions intervention) that would suit Luke's (4;3 years) interests and selected targets /, k, sl, / would involve:

A) making insects such as caterpillars, cockroaches, and slugs with Play-Doh, taking turns to show each other the created insects, and pretending that each insect needs to chomp through cheese.
B) throwing and catching big and little balls, throwing balls through a small hoop, and balancing on a log.
C) playing with farm animals such as chickens, cows and pigs.
D) none, because you do not use naturalistic play in multiple oppositions intervention, only drill play.

Question 24

The intervention approach that would not be suitable for Luke (4;3 years) is:

A) multiple oppositions.
B) cycles.
C) Metaphon.
D) core vocabulary intervention.

Question 25

The characteristic symptom of Susie's (7;4 years) speech that leads to the diagnosis of articulation impairment is:

A) lateralization of /s, z/.
B) stopping of fricatives.
C) lateralization of all fricatives.
D) lateralization of stridents.

Question 26

The cause of Susie's (7;4 years) articulation impairment is:

A) repeated head colds.
B) losing the upper central incisors.
C) unknown.
D) repeated middle ear infects.

Question 27

In light of Susie's assessment results (including the stimulability results), the strategy that would be the most useful for eliciting a clear /s/ from Susie is:

A) delayed imitation of an auditory model.
B) verbal phonetic placement cues.
C) shaping /s/ from a long [t].
D) listening to different speakers articulate /s/ in a variety of word positions.

Question 28

The intervention approach that would not be suitable for addressing Susie's (7;4 years) articulation impairment is:

A) concurrent treatment
B) traditional articulation intervention
C) minimal pairs
D) EPG feedback coupled with concurrent treatment or traditional articulation intervention

Question 29

A) Michael's productions show syllable segregation and Jarrod's do not show syllable segregation.
B) Jarrod's productions show the use of the interdental fricative [ $\theta$ ] and Michael's do not.
C) Jarrod's productions of birthday cake would be more intelligible than Michael's.
D) Jarrod is using Australian English vowels and diphthongs whereas Michael is using General American English vowels.

Question 30

A) cluster creation
B) cluster reduction
C) cluster simplification
D) consonant sequence constraint

Question 31

In light of research by Holm and Dodd (2001), bilingual children with inconsistent speech disorder:

A) benefit from intervention targeting both languages the child speaks.
B) need intervention that includes words containing a variety of consonant clusters.
C) can show generalized improved consistency in two languages given core vocabulary intervention in one language.
D) benefit from core vocabulary intervention targeting lexical consistency of 50 words; 25 words from one language and 25 semantically corresponding words from the child's other language.

Question 32

A helpful way to analyze consonant consistency in a child with suspected inconsistent speech disorder is to:

A) create a phonetic inventory of singleton consonants and consonant clusters.
B) create an inconsistency matrix with intended consonants on the horizontal axis, and the child's realizations of the intended consonants on the vertical axis.
C) identify the variety of phonological processes evident on each word, then calculate the average number of phonological processes per word.
D) determine the child's phonetic inventory constraints, positional constraints and sequence constraints.

Question 33

Michael (4;2 years) said the word ambulance // as []. The aspects of Michael's production of ambulance symptomatic of childhood apraxia of speech include:

A) cluster reduction and affrication of liquids.
B) vowel distortion and cluster reduction.
C) difficulty with liquids and clusters.
D) syllable segregation and difficulty with lexical stress.

Question 34

The type of device that could be helpful in addressing resonance problems in children with childhood apraxia of speech and childhood dysarthria is:

A) palatal lift prosthesis.
B) portal voice amplifier.
C) electrolarynx.
D) none, as only surgery and speech production practice can improve resonance.

Question 35

The intervention that would be suitable for addressing Michael's (4;2 years) difficulty with lexical stress and word length is:

A) core vocabulary intervention.
B) maximal oppositions.
C) Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment (ReST).
D) stimulability intervention.

Question 36

A) choose shows cluster reduction whereas chips show palatal fronting.
B) choose shows deaffrication and devoicing whereas chips show vowel lengthening.
C) choose shows deaffrication without palatal fronting whereas chips shows palatal fronting without deaffrication.
D) choose shows palatal fronting without deaffrication whereas chips shows deaffrication without palatal fronting.

Question 37

What diacritics are shown in Lian's (14;2 years) production of the work Jenny // $\rightarrow$ []?

A) [] indicates nasalization whereas [i ] indicates breathy voice.
B) [11ee98c1_7dc2_4dd8_a6de_39216ca41c1f_TB9704_11] indicates creaky voice whereas [i ] indicates breathy voice.
C) [11ee98c1_7dc2_4dd8_a6de_39216ca41c1f_TB9704_11] indicates denasalized whereas [i ] indicates diplophonia.
D) [11ee98c1_7dc2_4dd8_a6de_39216ca41c1f_TB9704_11] indicates nasalization whereas [i ] indicates tight voice.

Question 38

Which of the following assessment tools would be helpful for assessing the impact of childhood dysarthria (specifically spastic dysarthria) and cerebral palsy on Lian's (14;2 years) Activities and Participation?

A) Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP): Phonology assessment (Dodd, Hua, et al., 2006).
B) Children's Speech Intelligibility Measure (CSIM) (Wilcox & Morris, 1999).
C) Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adolescents (CP QOL-Teen) (Davis, Davern, et al., 2013).
D) Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4 (CELF-4) (Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2004).

Question 39

The intervention approach that could be helpful in addressing Lian's (14;2 years) difficulty creating a phonemic contrast between postalveolar affricates, postalveolar fricatives and alveolar fricatives is:

A) treatment of the empty set.
B) minimal pairs intervention.
C) core vocabulary intervention.
D) stimulability therapy.

Question 40

The tool most useful for assessing Lian's (14;2 years) speech intelligibility would be:

A) Hodson Assessment of Phonological Patterns-3 (HAPP-3) (Hodson, 2004).
B) Speech Participation and Activity Assessment of Children (SPAA-C) (McLeod, 2004).
C) Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP): Phonology (Dodd, Hua, et al., 2006).
D) Children's Speech Intelligibility Measure (CSIM) (Wilcox & Morris,1999).