A comparison of maximal opposition and minimal pairs for children

A Comparison of Maximal Opposi3on and Minimal Pairs for Children with Phonological Disorders Kayla Faiman, B.S. & Abbie Olszewski, Ph.D., CCC-‐SLP University of Nevada, Reno Methods Introduc3on Case Scenario •  Many children present with phonological disorders. •  Phonological disorders exist when the child’s speech sound errors are rule based, or follow a paMern. •  Certain error paMerns don’t permit for certain phonemes to be produced. •  Speech sounds that aren’t produced are phone9c inventory constraints. •  A phone9c inventory consists of the speech sounds in a child’s system. •  Contras9ve interven9on approaches can increase a child’s phone9c inventory if they have a phonological disorder. •  Contras9ve approaches compare sounds in word pairs. •  Two contras9ve approaches used to treat phonological disorders are minimal pairs and maximal opposi9on. PICO In children with phonological disorders (P), does maximal opposi3on interven3on (I) lead to a greater increase in phone3c inventory by number of consonants (O) as compared to minimal pair interven3on (C)? The Client •  The client is a 6-‐year 6-‐month-‐old girl. •  She is unintelligible to unfamiliar listeners. •  She presents with a phonological disorder. •  She has many phone9c inventory constraints. Interven3on •  Interven9on will be provided with a contras9ve approach. •  Minimal pair interven3on is a phonology treatment that contrasts the child’s paMern with the adult target in real words •  Maximal opposi3on interven3on is a phonology treatment that contrasts two phonemes not in the child’s phone9c inventory that diﬀer by a maximal number of dis9nc9ve features in nonsense words. •  Sessions will be 60 minutes twice a week for 10 weeks. Authors(date) design Dodd et al. (2008) Random Control Trial Gierut (1990) Single Subject Pagliarin, Mota & Keske-‐Soares (2010) Quasi-‐Experimental Topbas & Ünal (2010) Single Subject Par3cipants Age Descrip3on •  N = 19 •  3;11 to 6;5 •  Moderate to severe phonological disorder, SS of 3-‐5 on the PCC, error paMerns, normal oral motor skills, monolingual . •  N = 3 Results Dependent variables Results To inves9gate the implica9ons of target selec9on within a typical clinical context comparing a tradi9onal minimal pairs approach, and targe9ng contrasts diﬀering across a range of dis9nc9ve features (maximal opposi9on). DEAP Phonological Assessment •  Percent Consonant Correct (PCC) •  Percent Vowel Correct (PVC) •  Percentage of Phonemes Correct (PPC) Max vs min, p = PCC, p = 0.84 PVC, p = 0.61 PPC, p = 0.91 Increase in singletons, p = 0.91 Increase in clusters, p = 0.55 •  4;0 •  Excluding 6 sounds from system, normal hearing, normal oral motor abili9es, no prior interven9on, monolingual. •  N = 9 To analyze structural generaliza9on (to untreated words, to other word posi9on, •  4;2 to 6;6 within and across sound class) in three •  Phonological disorder diﬀerent models of contras9ve approaches diagnosis. (minimal pairs, maximal opposi9on, mul9ple opposi9on) considering the severity of the phonological disorder. •  N = 2 •  6;0 •  Phonological disorder diagnosis. Percent Consonant Correct (PCC) The purpose of the current study was to Treatment Probe Words Turkish compare diﬀerent formats of target sound Ar3cula3on –Phonology Test selec9on strategies with minimal pairs vs •  Percentage of Accuracy maximal opposi9on in phonological treatment of monozygo9c twins. Search terms: speech, phonology, treatment, interven3on, therapy, maximal opposi3on, and minimal pairs Appraisal: •  10 relevant ar9cles were appraised for validity as well as clinical signiﬁcance. •  93% interrater reliability on 13 appraisal points. •  The most relevant and highest ranked studies are summarized in the table of studies in results. Discussion Purpose To evaluate whether varia9on in the structure Probes developed from Phonological of minimal pairs vs. maximal opposi9on Knowledge Protocol treatments would result in empirical •  Percent of Accuracy diﬀerences in phonological learning. Databases: Pubmed, Eric, and Directory of Open Access Journals Max % Accuracy increase Subject 1: 0-‐43% Subject 2: 0-‐57% Subject 3: 0-‐86% Min % Accuracy increase Subject 1: 0-‐14% Subject 2: 0-‐33% Subject 3: 29-‐86% Min vs max vs. mult, p = Untreated words, p = 0.26 Other word posi9on, p = 0.15 Within sound classes, p = 0.72 Across sound class, p = 0.44 Diﬀerence in the percentage of accuracy achieved min vs max Subject 1: 0% and 50% Subject 2: 15% and 70% The percentage of rela3ve change in maximal opposi3on Subject 1: 0-‐95% Subject 2: 0-‐90% •  Findings in two studies show there were no signiﬁcant diﬀerences between minimal pairs vs maximal opposi9on, but there were s9ll increases in the performance and acquisi9on of phonemes ( Dodd et al., 2008; Pagliarin, Mota & Keske-‐Soares,
2010). •  Findings in two studies showed beMer performance scores on individualized probes with the use of maximal opposi9on compared to minimal pairs (Gierut, 1990; Topbas & Ünal, 2010). •  The use of contras9ve approaches to treat phonological approaches is proven eﬀec9ve. •  The client wants to be treated quickly as possible with the best treatment approach. Since the client presented in the case scenario has a phonological disorder maximal opposi3on will be used during interven3on since it is proven to show more signiﬁcant change. References Dodd, B., Crosbie, S., McIntosh, B., Holm, A., Harvey, C., Liddy, M., & Rigby, H. (2008).The impact of selec9ng diﬀerent contrasts in phonological therapy. Interna3onal Journal of Speech-‐Language Pathology, 10(5), 334-‐345. doi: 10.1080/14417040701732590 Gierut, J. A. (1990). Diﬀeren9al learning of phonological opposi9ons. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33(3), 540-‐549. doi: 10.1044/jshr. 3303.540 Pagliarin, K. C., Mota, H. B., & Keske-‐Soares, M. (2010, September 30). Structural generaliza9on amer treatment based on diﬀerent opposi9ons approaches. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia 6(3),356-‐6. doi: 10.1590/S1516-‐8034201100030001 Topbas, S., & Ünal, Ö. (2010). An alterna9ng treatment comparison of minimal and maximal opposi9on sound selec9on in Turkish phonological disorders. Clinical Linguis3cs & Phone3cs, 24(8), 646-‐668. doi: 10.3109/02699206.2010.486464

Download Report