Speech Assessment of Hearing-Impaired Children

and Youth: Patterns of Test Use

S u z a n n e A b r a h a m , R i c h a r d Stoker, a n d W i l l i a m A l l e n

Demographic information was gathered from programs providing speech assess-

ment services to hearing-impaired children and youth in the United States. Fre-
quency of use scores and rankings are reported for test instruments used by at least
10% of the respondents to assess the speech of the hearing impaired at the i~afant,
preschool, primary, and secondary educational levels. Domains tested and stimulus-
response'demands of the instruments are discussed in view of speech assessment
needs of the hearing impaired. Information regarding the educational settings in
which speech and language assessment services are provided and the current
positions of employment of those providing the services is also included.

When a child is severely hearing impaired at a young age, speech is usually

affected. Historically, classroom teachers of the hearing impaired assessed the
adequacy of the child's speech. That assessment was typically subjective, with little
consistency within and across programs. This happened in part because teachers of
the hearing impaired were not trained to assess speech and language and in part
because appropriate tests with appropriate norms were no~ available.
Over t h e p a s t decade, many changes have occurred in the way'hearing-impaired
children are educated in the United States. Two major events to affect speech
assessment practices used with hearing-impaired children are (a) the passage of PL
94-142, which requires special placement and individual educational plans based
on formalized, comprehensive assessment; and (b) the publication of Speech and
the Hearing-Impaired Child (Ling, 1976), which provides the first comprehensive
speech assessment and training procedures specifically designed for use with the
hearing impaired. But no information is currently av~ailable regarding the actual
speech assessment practices used with the hearing impaired in the United States.
However, current information is vital to institutions preparing speech clinicians
and special educators and to speech 9nd language professionals prQvigling direct
services, as well as to parents participating in educational planning of their
hearing-impaired children and adolescents. Therefore, this study sought to deter-
mine what assessment instruments are currently being used to evaluate the speech
of hearing-impaired children and youth at the infant, preschool, primary, and

Suzanne Abraham is in the Department of Special Education, Teachers College, Columbia

University, Box 223, New York, NY 10027. Requests for reprints may be sent to her at this
address. Richard Stoker is in the School of Human Communication Disorders, McGill
University, Montreal, Canada. William Allen is in the program of School Psychology,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.

17
© 1988, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 0161-1461/88/!901-0017501.00/0

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Zeinab Nehme on 10/21/2023, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

 secondary educational levels in the United States. Information regarding the
educational settings ii0 which speech and language assessment services are pro-
vided and the current positions of employment of those providing the services was
also gathered. Additional related information is reported in Abraham and Stoker (in
press).

Method
Sample
Three hundred thirty-two of the 664 educational programs for hearing-impaired
children in the United States (N = 623) and Canada (N = 41) (Craig & Craig, 1984)
were selected randomly to receive the survey. Individuals who provide speech and
language services were asked to complete the questionnaire. No personal identifi-
cation or program affiliation was requested: therefore, follow-up letters could not be
sent to nonrespondents. Because only one questionnaire was returned from Can-
ada, it was excluded from data analysis. A total of 182 usable survey forms were
returned from programs in the United States, representing a response rate of 55%.

Materials
A questionnaire was developed that included a list of speech assessment
instruments that have been recommended for use with hearing-impaired children
and/or youth (Levitt, 1980; Moeller, McConkey, & Osberger, 1981; Ross, 1983).
Blank spaces were provided for respondents to include any instruments they used
that were not listed. Respondents were asked to rate their use o f each instrument
with hearing-impaired children and youth at four educational levels: infant (ages
birth-2 year~)~ preschool (ages 3--5 years), primary (ages 6--12 years), and secondary
(ages 13-18 years). Four rating categories were used: (0) = never, (1) = used
occasionally, (2) = used frequently, and (3) = used with the majority of cases.
Respondents were also asked to specify the educational setting(s) where they
provided assessment service: residential school, day school, special class, partially
integrated, completely integrated, and other. Regarding their current employment,
respondents were requested to state their position title, their major responsibility,
and the type of facility in which they were employed.

Results
Six frequency of use scores and rankings (Goh, Teslow, & Fuller, 1981; Lubin,
Larsen, & Matarazzo, 1984; Lubin, Wallis, & Paine, 1971) were derived for each of
the assessment instruments. A Total Mention Score (TMS) was obtained by
summing across the number of respondents who indicated using a particular
instrument occasionally (i.e., rating 1), frequently (i.e., rating 2), and with the
majority of cases (i.e., rating 3). Assessment instruments used by less than 10%
(Sundberg, 1961) of the respondents were excluded from further analysis. Total
Mention Rank (TMR) was determined by numerically ordering the TMS from
highest to lowest. A Weighted Usage Score (WUS) was obtained by multiplying the

18 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 19 17-27 January 1988

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Zeinab Nehme on 10/21/2023, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

 number of respondents who used a particular instrument by the number of the
respective rating category (i.e., 1, 2, or 3) and then summing across all three
frequencies of use. Weighted Usage Rank (WUR) was determined by numerically
ordering the WUS from highest to lowest. Thus, the WUR took into account the
TMS and the specific frequency of use. A Frequency Usage Score (FUS), a purer
index of actual assessment instrument usage (Goh et al., 1981; Sundberg, 1961), was
derived by excluding from further analysis the instruments used only occasionally
(i.e., rating 1). Specifically, the FUS was calculated by multiplying the n u m b e r of
respondents indicating frequent use (i.e., rating 2) and use with a majority of cases
(i.e., rating 3) by their respective rating category and then summing across the two
frequencies of use. Frequency Usage Rank (FUR) was determined by numerically
ordering the FUR from highest to lowest.

Frequency of Assessment Instrument Use

I n f a n t level. Only three speech instruments were used at the infant level, and
rankings of each instrument were similar across the frequency of use measures
(Table 1). Two informal assessment instruments designed specifically for use with
hearing-impaired children, the Phonetic Level Speech Evaluation (Ling, 1976) and
the Phonologic Level Speech Evaluation (Ling, 1976), ranked first and second
respectively. The only formal instrument used by 10% or more of the respondents
at the infant level was the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation (Goldman &
Fristoe, 1969; FUR = 3), a traditional three-position test of consonant articulation
developed for use with normal-hearing children.
Preschool level. The Weighted Usage Rankings and Frequency Usage Rankings
of the instruments used at the preschool level were comparable. As was true at the
infant level, the Phonetic Level Speech Evaluation and the Phonologic Level
Speech Evaluation ranked first and second respectively, with the Goldman-Fristoe
Test of Articulation ranked third (Table 2). In addition to the Goldman-Fristoe Test
of Articulation, three other position tests designed for normal-hearing children
were frequently used at this level; namely, the Photo Articulation Test (Pendergast,
Dickey, Selmar, & Soder, 1969; FUR = 5), the Arizona Articulation Proficiency
Scale (Fudala, 1970; FUR = 6), and the Templin-Darley Tests of Articulation
(Templin & Darley, 1969; FUR = 8). Phonological process assessment procedures
ranked fourth. A test which purported to assess distinctive features, the Fisher-

TABLE 1. F r e q u e n c y o f u s e scores a n d r a n k i n g s for i n s t r u m e n t s u s e d b y 10% or m o r e of t h e

respondents to assess speech of hearing-impaired students at the infant level.

Assessment instrument TMS TMR WUS WUR FUS FUR

• Ling Phonetic Evaluation 58 1 144 1 131 1

Ling Phonologic Evaluation 37 2 88 2 79 2
Goldman-Fristoe 28 3 62 3 55 3

Note. T M S = total m e n t i o n score; T M R = total m e n t i o n rank; W U S = w e i g h t e d u s a g e score;

WUR = weighted usage rank; FUS = frequency usage score; FUR = frequency usage rank.

ABRAHAM ET AL.: Speech Assessment 19

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Zeinab Nehme on 10/21/2023, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

 TABLE 2. Frequency of use scores and rankings for instruments used by 10% or more of the
respondents to assess speech of hearing-impaired students at the preschool level.

Assessment instrument TMS TMR WUS WUR FUS FUR

Ling Phonetic Evaluation 96 1 244 1 228 1

Goldman-Fristoe 71 2 149 3 132 3
Ling Phonologic Evaluation 70 3 155 2 137 2
Fisher-Logemann 60 4 47 7 30 7
Photo Articulation 31 5.5 55 5 42 5
Phonological processes 31 5.5 61 4 52 4
Arizona Articulation 30 7 53 6 40 6
Templin-Darley 21 8 30 8 15 8

Note. TMS = total mention score; TMR = total mention rank; WUS = weighted usage score;
WUR = weighted usage rank; FUS = frequency usage score; FUR = frequency usage rank.

L o g e m a n n T e s t of Articulation C o m p e t e n c e ( F i s h e r & L o g e m a n n , 1971), r a n k e d

s e v e n t h a m o n g s p e e c h instruments u s e d f r e q u e n t l y with h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d
preschoolers.
P r i m a r y level. T h e P h o n e t i c L e v e l S p e e c h E v a l u a t i o n and the P h o n o l o g i c L e v e l
S p e e c h E v a l u a t i o n , the two informal s p e e c h a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e d u r e s d e s i g n e d for
the h e a r i n g impaired, ranked first and third r e s p e c t i v e l y at the primary l e v e l (Table
3). T h e G o l d m a n - F r i s t o e T e s t of Articulation was found to b e the s e c o n d most
f r e q u e n t l y u s e d instrument. As was true at the p r e s c h o o l level, s p e e c h a s s e s s m e n t
i n s t r u m e n t s u s e d at the primary l e v e l e n c o m p a s s e d distinctive feature analysis and
p h o n o l o g i c a l process analysis p r o c e d u r e s as w e l l as traditional position articulation
testing. F o u r position tests, n a m e l y , the G o l d m a n - F r i s t o e T e s t of Articulation, t h e
Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale, the Photo Articulation Test, and the
T e m p l i n - D a r l e y Tests of Articulation, ranked second, fourth, sixth, a n d e i g h t h

TABLE 3. Frequency of use scores and rankings for instruments used by 10% or more of the
respondents to assess speech of hearing-impaired students at the primary level.

Assessment instrument TMS TMR WUS WUR FUS FUR

Goldman-Fristoe 104 1 231 2 212 2

Ling Phonetic Evaluation 103 2 264 1 252 1
Ling Phonologic Evaluation 85 3 197 3 181 3
Arizona Articulation 50 4 100 4 84 4
Photo Articulation 48 5 83 5 59 6
Fisher-Logemann 43 6 69 7 45 7
Phonological processes 39 7 78 6 64 5
Templin-Darley 37 8 49 8 21 8
Deep Test 33 9 44 9 20 9
Distinctive Feature Analysis 19 10 25 10 11 10

Note. TMS = total mention score; TMR = total mention rank; WUS = weighted usage score;
WUR = weighted usage rank; FUS = frequency usage score; FUR = frequency usage rank.

20 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 19 17-27 January 1988

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Zeinab Nehme on 10/21/2023, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

 respectively. Phonological process assessment ranked fifth. Distinctive feature
instruments included the Fisher-Logemann Test of Articulation Competence (FUR
= 7) and the Distinctive Feature Analysis of Misarticulations (McReynolds &
Engmann, 1975; FUR = 10). At the primary level the Deep Test of Articulation
(McDonald, 1964; FUR = 9), a test of phoneme production in varied phonetic
contexts, appeared for the first time among the tests used frequently with hearing-
impaired children.
Secondary level. The three most frequently used instruments and their respective
Weighted Usage Rankings and Frequency Usage Rankings at the secondary level
were comparable to those used at the primary level. Specifically, the Phonetic
Level Speech Evaluation and the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation ranked first
and second respectively at the secondary level, with the Phonologic Level Speech
Evaluation obtaining a third place ranking (Table 4). The remaining instruments
used at this level were comparable to those employed at the primary level, with
some variations in Frequency Usage Rankings. The Photo Articulation Test and the
two tests of distinctive features, the Fisher-Logemann Test of Articulation Compe-
tence and the Distinctive Feature Analysis of Misarticulations, maintained their
respective rankings of sixth, seventh, and tenth. In contrast to the primary level, the
Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale and the Templin-Darley Tests of Articula-
tion dropped in rank to fifth and ninth respectively. Assessment of phonological
processes and the Deep Test of Articulation increased in rank to fourth and eighth
respectively.
Phonological process assessment. Phonological process assessment procedures
were frequently used to assess the speech of hearing-impaired children and youth
above the infant level. Fifty-five of the 182 respondents specified the procedure
they employed to assess and analyze phonological process production by hearing-
impaired children and youth. Of this group, 55% (n = 22) used Assessment of
Phonological Processes (Hodson, 1980) and 16% (n = 9) used Phonological Process
Analysis (Weiner, 1979). The Compton-Hutton Phonological Assessment (Compton

TABLE 4. Frequency of use scores and rankings for instruments used by 10% or more of the
respondents to assess speech of hearing-impaired students at the secondary level.

Assessment instrument TMS TMR WUS WUR FUS FUR

Goldman-Fristoe 75 1 106 2 142 2

Ling Phonetic Evaluation 69 2 178 1 169 1
Ling Phonologic Evaluation 56 3 133 3 122 3
Fisher-Logemann 37 4 64 6 46 7
Templin-Darley 36 5 50 8 24 9
Phonological processes 35 6.5 68 4 54 4
Photo Articulation 35 6.5 66 5 51 6
Arizona Articulation 30 8 61 7 52 5
Deep Test 29 9 45 9 28 8
Distinctive Feature Analysis 19 10 25 10 11 10

Note. TMS = total mention score; TMR = total mention rank; WUS = weighted usage score;
WUR = weighted usage rank; FUS = frequency usage score; FUR = frequency usage rank.

ABRAHAMET AL.: Speech Assessment 21

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Zeinab Nehme on 10/21/2023, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

 & Hutton, 1978), the Natural Process Analysis (Shriberg & Kwiatkowski, 1980), and
the Phonological Level Speech Evaluation were each used by 11% (n = 6) of the
respondents. Informal observation was used by 7% (n = 4) while 5% (n = 3) used
their own procedure for phonological process assessment.
D o m a i n s tested. Consonants were assessed on all speech instruments used
frequently with the hearing impaired. The Phonetic Level Speech Evaluation
assessed consonant production in the initial position of syllables, with unreleased
stops assessed in the final position. The Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation,
Fisher-Logemann Test of Articulation Competence, and Photo Articulation Test
provided for the assessment of consonant production in the initial, medial, and final
positions of words. The Templin-Darley Tests of Articulation and the Arizona
Articulation Proficiency Scale assessed consonants in the word-initial and word-
final positions only. The Phonologic Level Speech Evaluation assessed consonant
production in terms of consistent/inconsistent use or non-use in spoken language.
The Deep Test of Articulation assessed the accuracy of consonant production in
approximately 46 different phonetic contexts, 24 in the syllable-arresting position
and 22 in the syllable-releasing position using abutting word pairs. The Distinctive
Feature Analysis of Misarticulations analyzed consonant production according to
the correct/incorrect use of the distinctive features: consonantal, vocalic, voiced,
strident, continuant, nasal, coronal, high, back, low, and anterior. In phonological
process assessment, consonant production was judged in terms of phonological
rules which (a) substitute one class of consonants for another (e.g., stopping for
fricatives), (b) simplify syllable structure (e.g., cluster reduction), (c) and/or influ-
ence neighboring consonant sounds (e.g., velar assimilation) (Hodson, 1980;
Ingram, 1976; Khan & Lewis, 1986; Weiner, 1979).
Vowels were not assessed on all speech instruments used frequently with
hearing-impaired children and youth. Specifically, the Templin-Darley Tests of
Articulation, the Phonetic Level Speech Evaluation, the Phonologic Level Speech
Evaluation, the Photo Articulation Test, the Fisher-Logemann Test of Articulation
Competence, and the Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale included assessment of
all English vowels. The Deep Test of Articulation assessed only selected vowels.
The Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation included no specific assessment of vowel
production. The Distinctive Feature Analysis of Misarticulations assessed selected
vowels according to correct/incorrect use of the features: vocalic, consonantal,
round, tense, high, low, back anterior, and coronal. Phonological process proce-
dures did not include specific assessment of vowels. However, some phonologic
processes involved vowels. For example, the process of vocalization involved
substituting a vowel (usually/u or o/) for a syllabic consonant (Weiner, 1979).
Vowels may also be involved when idiosyncratic processes are used by a child
(Hodson, 1980).
Comprehensive evaluation of English initial and final consonant clusters in
words was included on the Phonologic Level Speech Evaluation and the Templin-
Darley Tests of Articulation, with initial and final clusters in syllables included on
the Phonetic Level Speech Evaluation. The Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation,
the Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale, the Fisher-Logemann Test of Articula-
tion Competence, and the Photo Articulation Test included assessment of selected

22 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 19 17-27 January 1988

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Zeinab Nehme on 10/21/2023, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

 word-initial clusters, with the Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale also including
assessment of some word-final clusters. The Distinctive Feature Analysis of
Misarticulations did not analyze cluster production. Instruments which analyzed
phonological processes generally addressed consonant cluster production via the
syllable structure process of cluster reduction (Hodson, 1980; Ingram, 1976; Khan
& Lewis, 1986; Weiner, 1979).
All English diphthongs were assessed on the Phonetic Level Speech Evaluation,
the Phonologic Level Speech Evaluation, the Templin-Darley Tests of Articulation,
the Photo Articulation Test, the Distinctive Feature Analysis of Misarticulations,
and the Fisher-Logemann Test of Articulation Competence. Only selected diph-
thongs were assessed on the Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale. Diphthongs
were not specifically assessed on the Deep Test of Articulation or on the Goldman-
Fristoe Test of Articulation.
Only the Ling speech evaluations included assessment of the suprasegmentals.
Specifically, the Phonetic Level Speech Evaluation required the tester to judge as
consistent, inconsistent, or absent a student's use of pitch, duration, and loudness in
nonmeaningful sounds or syllables. The Phonologic Level Speech Evaluation
required the tester to judge as normal or faulty a student's use of pitch, intensity,
duration, stress, phrasing, and intonation in meaningful speech.
Three speech instruments provided a means for informal assessment of intelligi-
bility in contextual speech. The Templin-Darley required the tester to judge
intelligibility as (a) readily intelligible, (b) intelligible if listener knows the topic,
(c) words intelligible now and then, or (d) completely unintelligible. On the
Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale a student's Total Score (i.e., percentage of
correctly articulated sounds) was converted to an intelligibility rating. The 6 ratings
ranged from speech is unintelligible (Total Score = 0 to 44.5) to sound errors
occasionally noticed in continuous speech (Total Score = 95 to 100). The
Phonologic Evaluation required the tester to specify the total number of words and
complete utterances considered intelligible.
Task demands. The Phonetic Level Speech Evaluation required the student to
imitate no,meaningful syllables presented orally by the tester, with no graphic
presentation of the stimuli. The Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation, the Arizona
Articulation Proficiency Scale, the Photo Articulation Test, the Fisher-Logemann
Test of Articulation Competence, and the Templin-Darley Tests of Articulation
required the student to produce meaningful word-level responses to picture stimuli
presented by the tester. The Phonologic Level Speech Evaluation required a
spontaneous language sample. The Distinctive Feature Analysis of Misarticulations
allowed use of any comprehensive speech sample as long as "each phoneme is
sampled a number of times" (McReynolds & Engmann, 1975, p. 37).
Task demands required to assess phonological processes varied dependent on the
specific procedure selected. Assessment of Phonological Processes (Hodson, 1980),
the procedure most frequently used with the hearlng-impaired, required the child
or adolescent to produce word-level responses to object and picture stimuli. The
second most frequently used procedure, Phonological Process Analysis (Weiner,
1979), required delayed imitation and/or sentence recall of sentence-level stimuli
presented orally by the tester, accompanied by an action picture.

ABRAHAM E T AL." Speech Assessment 23

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Zeinab Nehme on 10/21/2023, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

 Educational Settings in Which Speech and Language Assessment Services Are
Provided
Of those who responded, 77.5% (n = 141) provided service in nonresidential
schools and programs and 22.5% (n = 41) provided service in ~esidential schools. Of
the respondents who provided service in nonresidential schools and programs,
51.6% (n = 94) provided services in partially integrated settings, 45.1% (n = 82)
provided services to special day classes, 38.5% (n = 70) provided services to day
schools, 30.2% (n = 55) provided services t o children and youth who were
completely integrated into the mainstream, and 8.2% (n = 15! provided services in
other, unspecified nonresidential programs. Percentages total more than 100 be-
cause most respondents provided assessment services in more than one educational
setting.

Current Employment of Responding Providers of Speech and Language Services

to Hearing-Impaired Children and Youth
Data analysis showed that 58.8% (n = 107) of the respondents were speech-
language pathologists and/or audiologists, 15.8% (n --- 28) were administrators, and
less than 5% w e r e in the following categories: deaf educator (4.9%; n = 9), regular
educator (4.9%; n = 8), psychologist (1.6%; n = 3), and combined or other,
unspecified positions (4.9%; n = 9).
The majority (54.9%; n --- 100) of respondents providing speech and language
services to the hearing impaired were employed by the public schools. Of this
group, 44.5% (n = 81) were employed by regular public schools and 10.4% (n = 9)
worked for public nonresidential schools for the hearing impaired. Of the remain-
ing respondents, 8.2% (n = 15) were employed by residential schools, 2,2% (n = 4)
were employed by clinics, and 18.1% (n = 33) worked for more than one or an
unspecified facility.
Direct client contact was the major employment responsiblity of 37.9% (n = 69)
of the respondents. The major responsibility of 13.2% (n = 24) was administrative
in nature while evaluation was the primary responsibility Of 9.3% (n = 7) of the
respondents. The remaining 19.8% (n = 36) were responsible for a combination of
duties or other, unspecified duties.

Discussion
Ten different instruments were used by the majority of the respondents to assess
the speech of hearing-impaired children and youth. Two instruments were specif-
ically designed for use with the hearing-impaired; eight were originally d~signed
for use with normal-hearing children and youth. Three of these instrum~ents,
namely, the Phonetic Level Speech Evaluation, the Phono!ogic Level Speech
Evaluation, and the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation, were used most fre-
quently across all four educational levels. They were the only speech tests used by
10% of the respondents at the infant level. At the preschool, primary, and secondary
levels, a noticeable gap was evident between Weighted Usage Scores for these
three instruments and the remaining seven instruments. The Phonetic Level

24 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 19 17-27 January 1988

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Zeinab Nehme on 10/21/2023, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

 Speech Evaluation was used the most, ranking first across all four educational
levels. The Phonologic Level Speech Evaluation and the Goldman-Fristoe Test of
Articulation were ranked second and third respectively at the infant and the
preschool levels. Surprisingly, at the primary and the secondary, levels the Gold-
man-Fristoe Test of Ai-ticulation outranked the Phonologic Level Speech Evalua-
tion. The Goldman-Frtstoe's consistently high usage scores and rankings across all
educational levels and subsequent outranking of the Phonologic Level Speech
Evaluation at two educational levels suggests that it is being ilsed by providers of
speech Services to fulfill an assessment need not met by the two Ling evaluations.
Because the Phonologic Level Speech Evaluation requires eliciting a language
sample frorrI the hearing-impaired student and the Goldman-Fristoe only requires
the student to name 35 pictures, it might have been thought that inadequate amount
of testing time was the primary reason for selecting the Goldman-Fristoe. However,
in a related study (Abraham & Stoker, in press); spebch and language service
providers indicated that the major difficulty in testihg the hearing impaired was the
continued lack of appropriate tests and norms for the hearing impaired. Therefore,
present findings may, reflect the need for a speech instrument designed specifically
for hearing-impaired children and youth which demands single-word responses to
meaningful stimuli.
Domain tested. COmprehensive evaluation of the speech of the hearing-impaired
should include segmental, suprasegmental, and intelligibility measures (Bally,
Horn, Kaplan, Mahshie, & Wilson, 1984; Ling, 1976; Martony & Tunbvlad, 1983;
Moeller et al., 1981). Results of this study indicated that all instruments frequently
used to assess the speech of hearing-impaired children and youth provided some
measure of segmental production. Consonants were assessed on all instruments,
with the majority of instruments providing analysis by position (in words). Instru-
ments which analyzed consonant production according to distinctive features and
phonological processes were represented and used at all but the infant level. The
assessment of vowels, diphthongs, and consonant clusters varied across instru-
ments, with the Phonetic Level Speech Evaluation, the Phonologic Level Speech
Evaluations, and the Templin-Darley providing the most complete evaluation of
these aspects of segmental production.
In contrast to segmental assessment, only the two Ling evaluations provided a
means for suprasegmental assessment. Of the eight instruments developed for use
with normal-hearing children, none addressed assessment of the suprasegmentals.
However, even ~ e Ling evaluation provides only a general description. Guidelines
for appropriate administration and criteria for analysis of responses are not provided
in the Ling text (1976). It may be that pragmatic protogols such as those of Prutting
and Kirchner (1983) and Wollner and Geller (1982) could be adapted for use with
hearing-impaired children and adolescents as a means of providing a more com-
prehensive, systematic mechanism for suprasegmental assessment,
Intelligibility is another aspect of speech production typically not addressed 0n
instruments frequently used to assess the speech of the hearing-impaired. Only the
Phonologic Level Speech Evaluation, the Templin-Darley, and the Arizona Artic-
ulation Proficiency Scale provided some type of intelligibility rating. Two intelli-
gibility evaluations designed specifically for use with the hearing impaired,

ABRAHAM ET AL.: Speech Assessment 25

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Zeinab Nehme on 10/21/2023, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

 namely, the Intelligibility Rating Scale (Subtelny, Orlando, & Webster, 1980)+and
the SPINE (Speech Intelligibility Evaluation, Monsen, 1981), were not mentioned
as being used at any of the four educational levels. This may be because most of the
individuals responding were speech-language pathologists or audiologists rather
than deaf educators, though deaf educators were included. Intelligibility assess-
ment appears to be a potential topic for pre-service and in-service training.
Task demands. Stimulus-response demands varied across speech assessment
instruments. The Phonetic Level Speech Evaluation may be used at the infant and
preschool levels because the children are language delayed and cannot respond to
meaningful stimuli. The lexical items employed as stimuli on the Goldman-Fristoe
are typically found in preschool curricula for the hearing impaired. The use of this
test across all educational levels of hearing-impaired children and youth and to the
upper age limits of its norms may further reflect the expressive language and
vocabulary deficits of this population.
Implication. This is an initial report of speech test use by individuals who assess the
speech of hearing-impaired children and youth. It does not describe the instruments
that should be used with the hearing impaired. Further, it would appear that
pre-service as well as in-service educators and language, speech, and hearing profes-
sionals should be familiar enough with these tests to read the literature critically and
to evaluate the testing practices that they encounter in the field.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This project was supported in part by Research Grant No. 47-2160-50016 awarded by the
University of Arkansas, Little Rock, to the primary investigator.

REFERENCES
ABRAHAM, S., ~: STOKER, R. (in press). Language assessment of the hearing impaired:
Patterns of test use. Manuscript submitted for publication, Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools.
BALLY,S., HORN,R., KAPLAN,H., MAHSHIE,J., & WILSON,M. (1984, November). Assessment
procedures with deaf adolescents and adults. Paper presented at the annual convention of
the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, San Francisco, CA.
COMPTON, A., ~: HUTTON, S. (1978). Compton-Hutton Phonological Assessment. San
Francisco, CA: Carousel House.
CRAIG,W., & CRAIG,H. (1984). Schools and classes for the deaf in the United States. American
Annals of the Deaf, 129, 81-129.
FISHER, H., & LOGEMANN,J. (1971). Fisher-Logemann Test of Articulation Competence.
Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
FUDALA, J. (1970). Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale. Los Angeles, CA: Western
Psychological Services.
GOH, D., TESLOW,C., & FULLER,G. (1981). The practice of psychological assessment among
school psychologists. Professional Psychology, 12, 696--706.
GOLDMAN, R., • FRISTOE, M. (1969). Goldman-Fristoe test of articulation. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service,
HODSON, B. (1980). The assessment of phonological processes. Danville, IL: Interstate.
INGRAM,D. (1976). Phonological disability in children. New York: Elsevier.
KHAN, L., & LEWIS, N. (1986). Khan-Lewis Phonological Analysis. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Services.

26 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 19 17-27 January 1988

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Zeinab Nehme on 10/21/2023, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

 LEVITT, H. (1980). Speech assessment: Intermediate and secondary levels. In J. Subtelny
(Ed.), Speech assessment and speech improvement for the hearing impaired (pp. 30-44).
Washington, DC: A. G. Bell Association for the Deaf.
LING, D. (1976). Speech and the hearing impaired child: Theory and practice, Washington,
DC: A. G. Bell Association for the Deaf.
LUBIN, B., LARSEN, R., & MATARAZZO,J. (1984). Patterns of psychological test usage in the
United States: 1935--1982. American Psychologist, 39, 451--454.
LUBIN, B., WALLIS,R., & PAINE, C. (1971). Patterns of psychological test usage in the United
States: 1935-1969. Professional Psychology, 2, 70-74.
MARTONY, J., & TUNBVLAD, T. (1983). Some comments on speech assessment with deaf
children. In I. Hochberg, H. Levitt, & M. Osberger (Eds.), Speech of the hearing impaired
(pp. 169-179). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
MCDONALD, E. (1964). Articulation testing and treatment: A sensory-motor approach.
Pittsburgh, PA: Stanwix House.
MGREYNOLDS, L., & ENGMANN, D. (1975). Distinctive features analysis ofmisarticulations.
Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
MOELLER, M., McCONKEY, A., & OSBERGER, M. (1981, June). Evaluation of the communi-
cation skills of hearing-impaired children. Paper presented at the biannual convention of
the A. G. Bell Association for the Deaf, Toronto, Canada.
MONSEN, R. (1981). A usable test for the speech intelligibility of deaf talkers, American Annals
of the Deaf, 126, 845-852.
PENDERGAST, K., DICKEY, S., SELMAR, J., & SODEB, A. (1969). Photo Articulation Test.
Danville, IL: Interstate.
PRUTTING, C., & KIRCHNER, D. (1983). Applied pragmatics. In T. Gallagher & C. Prutting
(Eds.), Pragmatic assessment and intervention issues in language (pp. 29-64). San Diego,
CA: College-Hill Press.
Ross, M. (1983). Hard of hearing children in regular schools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
SHRIBERG, L., & KWIATKOWSKI,J. (1980). Natural process analysis (NPA): A procedure for
phonological analysis of continuous speech samples. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
SUBTELNY, J., ORLANDO, N., & WEBSTER, P. (1980). Evaluation of speech training at the
postsecondary level. In J. Subtelny (Ed.), Speech assessment and speech improvement for
the hearing impaired (pp. 177-199). Washington, DC: A. G. Bell Association for the Deaf.
SUNDBERG, N. (1961). The practice of psychological testing in clinical services in the United
States. American Psychologist, 16, 79--83.
TEMPLIN, M., & DARLEY, F. (1969). Templin-Darley Tests of Articulation. Iowa City, IA:
University of Iowa, Bureau of Educational Research and Service.
WEINER, F. (1979). Phonological Process Analysis. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
WOLLNER, S., & GELLER, E. (1982). Methods of assessing pragmatic abilities. In J. Irwin
(Ed.), Pragmatics: The role in language development (pp. 135-159). LaVerne, CA: Fox
Point Publishing Ltd.

Received April 30, 1986

Accepted January 13, 1987

ABRAHAMET AL.: Speech Assessment 27

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Zeinab Nehme on 10/21/2023, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions