Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2021; 42(02): 136-146
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1723840
Review Article

A Comprehensive Treatment Approach to Address Speech Production and Literacy Skills in School-Age Children with Speech Sound Disorders

Chenell Loudermill
1   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
,
Tamar Greenwell
1   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
,
Françoise Brosseau-Lapré
1   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Children with speech sound disorders (SSDs) represent a large proportion of clients served by school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs). While considerable evidence is available regarding the identification of SSD in school-age children, there is a paucity of information regarding service delivery aspects of school-based speech therapy, such as frequency of sessions, number of trials, distribution of sessions over time, and format (individual or group intervention) that impacts the ability of SLPs to effectively treat SSD in the schools. School-age children with SSD are at risk for later literacy deficits, and strategically addressing their language and emerging literacy needs in addition to speech production accuracy may lead to increased intelligibility and better educational outcomes. In this article, we discuss the heterogeneity of school-age children with SSD with regard to weaknesses in phonological processing skills and language skills. We summarize the information currently available regarding the aspects of service delivery that contribute to gains in speech production accuracy. We conclude by sharing an example of how school-based SLPs could target speech production, phonological awareness, and morphological awareness in the same session with a child with SSD to maximize gains in speech and literacy skills.

Keywords

speech sound disorders - speech therapy - service delivery models - school-based intervention

Financial Disclosures

The authors receive a salary from Purdue University.


Nonfinancial Disclosures

They have no relevant nonfinancial relationships.




Publication History

Article published online:
16 March 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2020 Schools Survey Report: SLP Caseload and Workload Characteristics. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2020
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Cirrin FM, Schooling TL, Nelson NW. et al. Evidence-based systematic review: effects of different service delivery models on communication outcomes for elementary school-age children. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2010; 41 (03) 233-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Brandel J, Frome Loeb D. Program intensity and service delivery models in the schools: SLP survey results. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2011; 42 (04) 461-490
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Justice LM. Conceptualising “dose” in paediatric language interventions: current findings and future directions. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2018; 20 (03) 318-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dodd B. Differentiating speech delay from disorder: Does it matter?. Top Lang Disord 2011; 31: 96-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Waring R, Knight R. How should children with speech sound disorders be classified? A review and critical evaluation of current classification systems. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2013; 48 (01) 25-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Anthony JL, Aghara RG, Dunkelberger MJ, Anthony TI, Williams JM, Zhang Z. What factors place children with speech sound disorders at risk for reading problems?. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2011; 20 (02) 146-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hearnshaw S, Baker E, Munro N. Speech perception skills of children with speech sound disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (10) 3771-3789
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Brosseau-Lapré F, Schumaker J, Kluender KR. Perception of medial consonants by preschoolers with and without speech sound disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2020; 63 (11) 3600-3610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Goffman L, Gerken L, Lucchesi J. Relations between segmental and motor variability in prosodically complex nonword sequences. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007; 50 (02) 444-458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Flipsen Jr P. Emergence and prevalence of persistent and residual speech errors. Semin Speech Lang 2015; 36 (04) 217-223
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gibbon FE. Undifferentiated lingual gestures in children with articulation/phonological disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999; 42 (02) 382-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shriberg LD, Tomblin JB, McSweeny JL. Prevalence of speech delay in 6-year-old children and comorbidity with language impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999; 42 (06) 1461-1481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lewis BA, Freebairn LA, Taylor HG. Follow-up of children with early expressive phonology disorders. J Learn Disabil 2000; 33 (05) 433-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Brosseau-Lapré F, Greenwell T. Innovative service delivery models for serving children with speech sound disorders. Semin Speech Lang 2019; 40 (02) 113-123
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Raitano NA, Pennington BF, Tunick RA, Boada R, Shriberg LD. Pre-literacy skills of subgroups of children with speech sound disorders. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2004; 45 (04) 821-835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Apel K, Wilson-Fowler EB, Brimo D, Perrin NA. Metalinguistic contributions to reading and spelling in second and third grade students. Read Writ 2012; 25 (06) 1283-1305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Singson M, Mahony D, Mann V. The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: evidence from derivational suffixes. Read Writ 2000; 12: 291-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mahony D, Singson M, Mann V. Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Read Writ 2000; 12 (03) 191-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Apel K, Lawrence J. Contributions of morphological awareness skills to word-level reading and spelling in first-grade children with and without speech sound disorder. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011; 54 (05) 1312-1327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Apel K, Henbest VS. Morphological awareness skills of second- and third-grade students with and without speech sound disorders. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2020; 51 (03) 603-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Warren SF, Fey ME, Yoder PJ. Differential treatment intensity research: a missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2007; 13 (01) 70-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mullen R, Schooling T. The National Outcomes Measurement System for pediatric speech-language pathology. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2010; 41 (01) 44-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schmitt MB, Justice LM, Logan JAR. Intensity of language treatment: contribution to children's language outcomes. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2017; 52 (02) 155-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Williams AL. Intensity in phonological intervention: is there a prescribed amount?. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2012; 14 (05) 456-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Sugden E, Baker E, Munro N, Williams AL, Trivette CM. Service delivery and intervention intensity for phonology-based speech sound disorders. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2018; 53 (04) 718-734
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Brumbaugh KM, Smit AB. Treating children ages 3-6 who have speech sound disorder: a survey. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2013; 44 (03) 306-319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Williams AL. Multiple oppositions intervention. In: Williams AL, McLeod S, McCauley RJ. eds. Interventions for Speech Sound Disorders in Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing; 2010: 73-94
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Goldman R, Fristoe M. Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation, 2nd ed. Circles Pines, MN: American Guidance Service; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Farquharson K, Tambyraja SR, Justice LM. Contributions to gain in speech sound production accuracy for children with speech sound disorders: exploring child and therapy factors. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2020; 51 (02) 457-468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Rvachew S, Brosseau-Lapré F. Developmental Phonological Disorders: Foundations of Clinical Practice, 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Gillon GT. Facilitating phoneme awareness development in 3- and 4-year-old children with speech impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2005; 36 (04) 308-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Gillon GT. The efficacy of phonological awareness intervention for children with spoken language impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2000; 31 (02) 126-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hesketh A, Adams C, Nightingale C, Hall R. Phonological awareness therapy and articulatory training approaches for children with phonological disorders: a comparative outcome study. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2000; 35 (03) 337-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Willows DM, Schuster BV, Yaghoub-Zadeh Z, Shanahan T. Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Read Res Q 2001; 36 (03) 250-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Denne M, Langdown N, Pring T, Roy P. Treating children with expressive phonological disorders: does phonological awareness therapy work in the clinic?. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2005; 40 (04) 493-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Bowers P, Kirby J, Deacon S. The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills. Rev Educ Res 2010; 80 (02) 144-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Carlisle J, McBride-Chang C, Nagy W, Nunes T. Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: an integrative review. Read Res Q 2010; 45 (04) 464-487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Goodwin AP, Ahn S. A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Ann Dyslexia 2010; 60 (02) 183-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Goodwin A, Ahn S. A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Sci Stud Read 2013; 17 (04) 257-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Reed D. A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in Grades K–12. Learn Disabil Res Pract 2008; 23 (01) 36-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Apel K, Werfel K. Using morphological awareness instruction to improve written language skills. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2014; 45 (04) 251-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Kilpatrick DA. Equipped for Reading Success: A Comprehensive, Step-by-Step Program for Developing Phoneme Awareness and Fluent Word Recognition. Casey & Kirsch Publishers; 2016
    Google Scholar