LSHSS
From the Editor
Back to School: Updates for Speech-Language Pathologists Marilyn A. Nippolda
Purpose: In this column, the editor gives an overview of each article in the current issue of Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools ( Vol. 45, No. 4).
T
of collaborative team efforts that involve SLPs and behavioral analysts in school settings. After reviewing key concepts in ABA, the authors provide examples of structured and naturalistic activities that professionals can use to build these students’ skills in areas such as following directions, producing speech sounds, and using words to comment, request, and respond. The next article, by John J. Heilmann (University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee) and Thomas Malone (School District of Brown Deer, Wisconsin), describes a study in which expository language samples were collected from typically developing children and adolescents in grades 5 through 9 (N = 235) in an effort to build a normative database for spoken language production in older students. Each participant was interviewed using a structured protocol, the favorite game or sport task. Results showed that the task was sensitive to age-related gains in areas such as syntactic complexity and lexical diversity. The findings are important to SLPs because proficiency with expository discourse is expected in upper elementary, middle school, and high school classrooms and is part of the Common Core State Standards in the United States. When children’s reading comprehension is evaluated, the impact of topic knowledge and interest on their performance must be considered. For example, when children are reading about familiar topics they enjoy (e.g., baseball), one might expect them to comprehend at a higher level than when they are reading about topics that are unfamiliar and less engaging. In the next article, Mary Kristen Clark and Alan G. Kamhi (University of North Carolina– Greensboro) describe a study in which they examined the impact of topic knowledge and interest on reading comprehension in students from Grades 4 and 5 (N = 43). Using an informal reading inventory and other tasks to assess these areas, they found little relationship between factors— a surprising outcome. Thus, they suggest that additional studies are needed to examine these factors.
his issue of Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools contains a wealth of information on issues that are of high interest to speechlanguage pathologists (SLPs) who work with preschool, school-age, and adolescent students who struggle with disorders of language, literacy, fluency, and speech sound development. Published in October, it also celebrates the beginning of a new school year, a time of optimism and renewed dedication to our profession. The first article, a tutorial by Kenn Apel and Krystal L. Werfel (both at the University of South Carolina), explains how the use of morphological awareness instruction can improve students’ written language skills, including their ability to decode and understand words, spell, and comprehend text. Recently, morphological awareness—that is, knowing that a word such as volcanology contains a lexical morpheme (volcano) and a derivational morpheme (ology)—has become a prominent topic in speech-language pathology because of the critical role that it plays in the language and literacy development of school-age children and adolescents. Accordingly, these authors summarize studies that have examined how morphological awareness impacts written language skills and then explain how to assess and instruct in this area. Many school-based SLPs work with students who have autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). Hence, it is important for professionals to consider how they can use behavioral principles to improve these students’ communication skills. The next article, a tutorial by Amy L. Donaldson (Portland State University) and Aubyn C. Stahmer (University of California San Diego), explains how to employ principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA) in the context
a
University of Oregon, Eugene
DOI: 10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0080
Disclosure: The author of this column is the Editor for Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools (2014).
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 45 • 249–250 • October 2014 • © American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
249
The next article, by Toby Macrae (Florida State University) and Ann A. Tyler (Western Michigan University), describes a study in which the authors examined preschool children (N = 28) with speech sound disorders (SSDs)—one group with typical language (TL) development and another group with language impairment (LI). Although the groups produced similar numbers of speech sound errors, the LI group produced a greater proportion of sound omissions than did the TL group. The authors suggest that for children with SSDs and a co-occurring LI, phonological representations for target sounds may be absent in their linguistic systems. Because speech sound omissions may portend later difficulties in learning to read, the authors argue that intervention for children with SSDs and LI should target deficits in both of those areas. Adolescents who stutter often have difficulty finding the necessary time and transportation to attend treatment sessions at a speech clinic. In the next article, Brenda Carey, Sue O’Brian, Robyn Lowe, and Mark Onslow (all at the Australian Stuttering Research Centre, The University of Sydney) describe a study in which adolescents (N = 14) received treatment for their stuttering via Internet webcam technology using the Camperdown Program, with no visits to the clinic. The results of the study, a Phase II clinical trial, indicated that, in about half the participants, treatment was effective in reducing their stuttering to acceptable levels. Most adolescents and their parents preferred webcam delivery over in-clinic treatment for stuttering. The authors indicate that additional research is necessary to improve the effectiveness of treatment delivered via technology. Vocabulary development in bilingual children is the focus of the next article, by Virginia L. Dubasik (Bowling Green State University) and Dubravka Svetina (Indiana University). In this study, parents and teachers of preschool children (N = 11) who were learning Spanish and English were asked to complete questionnaires regarding the children’s use of words in both languages. Results revealed similarities and differences between these two groups of reporters. Because parents and teachers observe children in different contexts, the authors indicate that both sources of information should be considered when estimating bilingual children’s word use in each language. They also recommend that future studies be conducted to determine the unique contribution of multiple reporters at different points in time. Language sampling can be an important source of naturalistic data when SLPs are attempting to identify linguistic deficits and plan intervention for students with language disorders. In the next article, Kerry Danahy Ebert and Cheryl M. Scott (both at Rush University) describe a study of school-age children (N = 73) that examined the relationship between students’ scores on norm-referenced language tests and their performance on narrative speaking tasks using storybooks. Results revealed a number of statistically significant correlations between these two types of assessment tools, particularly for younger students
250
(ages 6–8 years). The authors argue that both types of assessment tools should be used with school-age children but that more complex narrative tasks should be employed with older students (ages 9–12 years). The next article is a review and analysis of 43 studies that employed a milieu teaching approach to promote communication in children with developmental disabilities. Specifically, authors Quannah Parker-McGowan (University of Minnesota), Mo Chen (University of Minnesota), Joe Reichle (University of Minnesota), Shivani Pandit (Minnesota Department of Education), LeAnne Johnson (University of Minnesota), and Shelley Kreibich (University of Minnesota) focused on treatment intensity by examining critical dosage parameters such as form (e.g., home or school setting), frequency (e.g., number of sessions per week), and duration (e.g., session length). They found that milieu teaching was successful with these children but that studies varied widely in dosage parameters and, hence, in treatment intensity. The authors indicate that studies are needed to examine the relationship between dosage parameters and specific child characteristics. The final article in this issue is a psychometric review of six norm-referenced tests that SLPs often administer to children to examine common phonological error patterns such as final consonant deletion, cluster reduction, prevocalic voicing, and velar fronting. Authors Cecilia Kirk and Laura Vigeland (University of Oregon) evaluate each test in terms of its normative sample, reliability, and validity. Their review indicates that although the tests can be helpful, it is important to be aware of their limitations and to be cautious when using the tests to diagnose speech sound disorders and determine the need for treatment. Based on their review, the authors offer specific suggestions that test developers can follow to improve the psychometric adequacy of normreferenced tests and hence their clinical utility for SLPs. Across the 10 articles in this issue—which includes two tutorials, six research articles, and two review articles —readers will find valuable information that they can apply in school settings as they work in the areas of phonology, vocabulary development, reading comprehension, written expression, narrative speaking, expository discourse, stuttering, and milieu teaching. This issue also encompasses a wide range of student ages (preschool, school-age, adolescent) and disorder categories (e.g., ASD, developmental disabilities, language and literacy impairments, stuttering, speech sound disorders), reflecting considerable breadth and depth as it addresses current issues in speech-language pathology. It is therefore fitting to acknowledge the numerous authors, reviewers, associate editors, and journal production staff who generously contributed their time, talent, and passion to this issue, and to express my heartfelt appreciation for their work. I now invite you to savor the results of their collective efforts.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 45 • 249–250 • October 2014
Marilyn A. Nippold Editor, LSHSS
Copyright of Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
From the Editor
Back to School: Updates for Speech-Language Pathologists Marilyn A. Nippolda
Purpose: In this column, the editor gives an overview of each article in the current issue of Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools ( Vol. 45, No. 4).
T
of collaborative team efforts that involve SLPs and behavioral analysts in school settings. After reviewing key concepts in ABA, the authors provide examples of structured and naturalistic activities that professionals can use to build these students’ skills in areas such as following directions, producing speech sounds, and using words to comment, request, and respond. The next article, by John J. Heilmann (University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee) and Thomas Malone (School District of Brown Deer, Wisconsin), describes a study in which expository language samples were collected from typically developing children and adolescents in grades 5 through 9 (N = 235) in an effort to build a normative database for spoken language production in older students. Each participant was interviewed using a structured protocol, the favorite game or sport task. Results showed that the task was sensitive to age-related gains in areas such as syntactic complexity and lexical diversity. The findings are important to SLPs because proficiency with expository discourse is expected in upper elementary, middle school, and high school classrooms and is part of the Common Core State Standards in the United States. When children’s reading comprehension is evaluated, the impact of topic knowledge and interest on their performance must be considered. For example, when children are reading about familiar topics they enjoy (e.g., baseball), one might expect them to comprehend at a higher level than when they are reading about topics that are unfamiliar and less engaging. In the next article, Mary Kristen Clark and Alan G. Kamhi (University of North Carolina– Greensboro) describe a study in which they examined the impact of topic knowledge and interest on reading comprehension in students from Grades 4 and 5 (N = 43). Using an informal reading inventory and other tasks to assess these areas, they found little relationship between factors— a surprising outcome. Thus, they suggest that additional studies are needed to examine these factors.
his issue of Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools contains a wealth of information on issues that are of high interest to speechlanguage pathologists (SLPs) who work with preschool, school-age, and adolescent students who struggle with disorders of language, literacy, fluency, and speech sound development. Published in October, it also celebrates the beginning of a new school year, a time of optimism and renewed dedication to our profession. The first article, a tutorial by Kenn Apel and Krystal L. Werfel (both at the University of South Carolina), explains how the use of morphological awareness instruction can improve students’ written language skills, including their ability to decode and understand words, spell, and comprehend text. Recently, morphological awareness—that is, knowing that a word such as volcanology contains a lexical morpheme (volcano) and a derivational morpheme (ology)—has become a prominent topic in speech-language pathology because of the critical role that it plays in the language and literacy development of school-age children and adolescents. Accordingly, these authors summarize studies that have examined how morphological awareness impacts written language skills and then explain how to assess and instruct in this area. Many school-based SLPs work with students who have autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). Hence, it is important for professionals to consider how they can use behavioral principles to improve these students’ communication skills. The next article, a tutorial by Amy L. Donaldson (Portland State University) and Aubyn C. Stahmer (University of California San Diego), explains how to employ principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA) in the context
a
University of Oregon, Eugene
DOI: 10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0080
Disclosure: The author of this column is the Editor for Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools (2014).
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 45 • 249–250 • October 2014 • © American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
249
The next article, by Toby Macrae (Florida State University) and Ann A. Tyler (Western Michigan University), describes a study in which the authors examined preschool children (N = 28) with speech sound disorders (SSDs)—one group with typical language (TL) development and another group with language impairment (LI). Although the groups produced similar numbers of speech sound errors, the LI group produced a greater proportion of sound omissions than did the TL group. The authors suggest that for children with SSDs and a co-occurring LI, phonological representations for target sounds may be absent in their linguistic systems. Because speech sound omissions may portend later difficulties in learning to read, the authors argue that intervention for children with SSDs and LI should target deficits in both of those areas. Adolescents who stutter often have difficulty finding the necessary time and transportation to attend treatment sessions at a speech clinic. In the next article, Brenda Carey, Sue O’Brian, Robyn Lowe, and Mark Onslow (all at the Australian Stuttering Research Centre, The University of Sydney) describe a study in which adolescents (N = 14) received treatment for their stuttering via Internet webcam technology using the Camperdown Program, with no visits to the clinic. The results of the study, a Phase II clinical trial, indicated that, in about half the participants, treatment was effective in reducing their stuttering to acceptable levels. Most adolescents and their parents preferred webcam delivery over in-clinic treatment for stuttering. The authors indicate that additional research is necessary to improve the effectiveness of treatment delivered via technology. Vocabulary development in bilingual children is the focus of the next article, by Virginia L. Dubasik (Bowling Green State University) and Dubravka Svetina (Indiana University). In this study, parents and teachers of preschool children (N = 11) who were learning Spanish and English were asked to complete questionnaires regarding the children’s use of words in both languages. Results revealed similarities and differences between these two groups of reporters. Because parents and teachers observe children in different contexts, the authors indicate that both sources of information should be considered when estimating bilingual children’s word use in each language. They also recommend that future studies be conducted to determine the unique contribution of multiple reporters at different points in time. Language sampling can be an important source of naturalistic data when SLPs are attempting to identify linguistic deficits and plan intervention for students with language disorders. In the next article, Kerry Danahy Ebert and Cheryl M. Scott (both at Rush University) describe a study of school-age children (N = 73) that examined the relationship between students’ scores on norm-referenced language tests and their performance on narrative speaking tasks using storybooks. Results revealed a number of statistically significant correlations between these two types of assessment tools, particularly for younger students
250
(ages 6–8 years). The authors argue that both types of assessment tools should be used with school-age children but that more complex narrative tasks should be employed with older students (ages 9–12 years). The next article is a review and analysis of 43 studies that employed a milieu teaching approach to promote communication in children with developmental disabilities. Specifically, authors Quannah Parker-McGowan (University of Minnesota), Mo Chen (University of Minnesota), Joe Reichle (University of Minnesota), Shivani Pandit (Minnesota Department of Education), LeAnne Johnson (University of Minnesota), and Shelley Kreibich (University of Minnesota) focused on treatment intensity by examining critical dosage parameters such as form (e.g., home or school setting), frequency (e.g., number of sessions per week), and duration (e.g., session length). They found that milieu teaching was successful with these children but that studies varied widely in dosage parameters and, hence, in treatment intensity. The authors indicate that studies are needed to examine the relationship between dosage parameters and specific child characteristics. The final article in this issue is a psychometric review of six norm-referenced tests that SLPs often administer to children to examine common phonological error patterns such as final consonant deletion, cluster reduction, prevocalic voicing, and velar fronting. Authors Cecilia Kirk and Laura Vigeland (University of Oregon) evaluate each test in terms of its normative sample, reliability, and validity. Their review indicates that although the tests can be helpful, it is important to be aware of their limitations and to be cautious when using the tests to diagnose speech sound disorders and determine the need for treatment. Based on their review, the authors offer specific suggestions that test developers can follow to improve the psychometric adequacy of normreferenced tests and hence their clinical utility for SLPs. Across the 10 articles in this issue—which includes two tutorials, six research articles, and two review articles —readers will find valuable information that they can apply in school settings as they work in the areas of phonology, vocabulary development, reading comprehension, written expression, narrative speaking, expository discourse, stuttering, and milieu teaching. This issue also encompasses a wide range of student ages (preschool, school-age, adolescent) and disorder categories (e.g., ASD, developmental disabilities, language and literacy impairments, stuttering, speech sound disorders), reflecting considerable breadth and depth as it addresses current issues in speech-language pathology. It is therefore fitting to acknowledge the numerous authors, reviewers, associate editors, and journal production staff who generously contributed their time, talent, and passion to this issue, and to express my heartfelt appreciation for their work. I now invite you to savor the results of their collective efforts.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 45 • 249–250 • October 2014
Marilyn A. Nippold Editor, LSHSS
Copyright of Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
