In regards to intervention methods, Hodson (2007) indicated that children with highly unintelligible speech have been underrepresented in the literature. The purpose of this study was to determine what intervention approaches speech-language pathologists use to remediate highly unintelligible speech in children and the factors that influence clinical decisions. Specifically, this study examined the traditional approach, minimal pairs, multiple oppositions and the cycles approach. Surveys were distributed to speech-language pathologists in order to obtain their perspectives on these approaches. The researcher used an adapted version of the survey from Joffe and Pring’s (2008) study concerning assessment and remediation methods in the UK. The results indicated that most speech-language pathologists frequently use the traditional approach and minimal pairs to remediate highly unintelligible speech. They also reported that they use broad-based approaches and are likely to change approaches when their client’s disorder becomes less severe. Clinicians indicated that stimulability and severity are the most important factors that influence clinical decisions.
Colbert, Tatyana M., "What Works?: An Examination of Approaches Used to Remediate Highly Unintelligible Speech From the Perspective of Speech-Language Pathologists" (2014). Senior Independent Study Theses. Paper 5854.
articulation disorder, phonological disorder, intervention, highly unintelligible speech
Bachelor of Arts
Senior Independent Study Thesis
© Copyright 2014 Tatyana M. Colbert