10.1055@s 0039 1677758

PREFACE

Speech Sound Disorders in Children

O ne of the most commonly treated com- How do I maximize treatment time when a
munication disorders is speech sound disorder child with SSD has other comorbidities, such as
(SSD), which is defined as persistent phoneme language impairment?
deletion, and/or distortion errors in speech
production as compared with children of the In this special issue, we have convened
same chronological age.1 Children with SSD several scholars in the field to tackle some of
constitute a significant percentage of caseloads these questions.
for most pediatric speech-language pathologists In “Clinical challenges: assessing toddler
(SLPs). According to ASHA’s Schools Survey speech sound production,” DeVeney discusses

Downloaded by: University of Texas at Dallas. Copyrighted material.

Report, 90% of school-based speech-lang- the challenges of examining speech production in
uage pathologists report serving children with very young children. Such challenges include
SSDs.2 Relatedly, pediatric SLPs across a discrepancies in speech sampling recommenda-
variety of healthcare settings report that child- tions, the inherent variability across word pro-
ren with SSD comprise 21% of their caseloads.3 ductions that is common to toddler speech
Despite SSD being quite common, there production, and limited normative data available
remain significant questions regarding assess- for this particular population. DeVeney reviews
ment and treatment of children with speech the available literature, provides helpful recom-
sound production deficits, such as: mendations, and highlights the need for further
clinical investigation regarding speech sound
production in children in the early stages of verbal
How can I tell the difference between typical development.
speech sound errors and those that indicate a As children continue to develop, an estima-
full-fledged SSD, especially in very young ted 16% of all young preschool-aged children
children? exhibit errored speech patterns consistent with an
How do we help prevent the social impact/ SSD.4 The majority of research on preschool-
consequences of SSD? aged children with SSD focuses on speech pro-
How can a child with SSD qualify for speech duction behaviors relevant to assessment and
services in one school district, but not in intervention. An oft-overlooked, yet important,
another? factor is the self-perception and attitude of child-
I have so many kids with SSD on my caseload. ren with SSD and how that might impact treat-
Is there a way to more effectively and efficiently ment outcomes. In their contribution, “What do
treat children with SSD? children with speech sound disorder think about
Are their specific treatment factors (e.g., how their talking?,” McCormack, McLeod, and
often I see a child during the week? How many Crowe directly investigate perceptions of pre-
trials should I be expecting from a child in a school-aged children with SSD and correlate
session?) that can better predict treatment their perceptions with the severity of their SSD.
outcomes? Relatedly, the authors compare the children’s
1
Department of Communication Disorders, Brigham Articulation and Phonological Disorders; Guest Editor,
Young University, Provo, Utah. Kathryn Cabbage, Ph.D., CCC-SLP.
Address for correspondence: Katy Cabbage, Ph.D., Semin Speech Lang 2019;40:79–80. Copyright # 2019
CCC-SLP, Department of Communication Disorders, by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue,
Brigham Young University, 161 TLRB, Provo, UT New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel: +1(212) 584-4662.
84604 (e-mail: [email protected]). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1677758.
ISSN 0734-0478.
79
80 SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 40, NUMBER 2 2019
responses with parental perceptions of the impact cally, Hitchcock and colleagues apply this investi-
of their child’s SSD. The findings highlight that gation to treatment outcomes in biofeedback
child attitudes and parental attitudes do not research, but suggest there is need to establish a
always align, and the authors discuss the need unified measure of treatment intensity across
for SLPs to take these attitudes into consideration treatment methodologies.
during assessment and intervention for preschool- To conclude this issue, in her contribution
aged children with SSD. “Phonological treatment options for children
In “Describing how school-based SLPs with expressive language impairment,” Hoover
determine eligibility for children with speech highlights that up to 50 to 75% of children with
sound disorders,” Farquharson and Tambyraja SSD of unknown origin also exhibit language
review the considerable variability in eligibility deficits. She discusses the interaction between
determination for how and whether children language and phonology and highlights the
with SSD should receive intervention services need to target both areas for children with
in the schools. The authors conducted a survey deficits in both domains. In this article, Hoover
of SLPs across the United States and found describes various evidence-based treatment
Downloaded by: University of Texas at Dallas. Copyrighted material.

that, although federal guidelines broadly out- approaches that allow SLPs to simultaneously
line eligibility requirements for services, most target the child’s phonological and language
SLPs are constrained by rules and regulations deficits in a way that maximizes child outcomes.
that may vary by state and school district. This Children with SSD constitute a significant
article highlights the need for more consistency portion of many SLP caseloads, and the challen-
in eligibility determination across district and ges associated with the assessment and inter-
state lines, and suggests a call to advocacy for vention of these children are not trivial. The
SLPs and their expertise when determining primary goal of the current issue is to present
eligibility for services for children with SSDs. current and ongoing clinically relevant research
Caseload management is a significant issue pertaining to children with SSD. We have
for many SLPs serving children with SSDs. In specifically sought to provide practical sugges-
their contribution, “Innovative service delivery tions that will bolster assessment practices and
models for serving children with speech sound treatment outcomes for children with SSD and
disorders,” Brosseau-Lapre and Greenwell to more fully support the SLPs who serve them.
review factors known to improve the efficiency
Katy Cabbage, Ph.D., CCC-SLP1
and effectiveness of treatment outcomes for
children with SSDs. They further present two
innovative service delivery models, one school- CONFLICT OF INTEREST
based and one clinic-based, that have proven None
effective in a graduate training program. These
practical service delivery examples provide cli- REFERENCES
nicians with ideas to consider when developing
and implementing sound treatment principles 1. Shriberg LD, Austin D, Lewis BA, McSweeny JL,
Wilson DL. The speech disorders classification
into their practice with children with SSD.
system (SDCS): extensions and lifespan reference
In “Speech sound disorder and visual bio- data. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1997;40(04):723–740
feedback intervention: a preliminary investigation 2. 2018 schools survey report: SLP caseload characteris-
of treatment intensity,” Hitchcock, Swartz, and tics trends. Available at: https://www.asha.org/uploa-
Lopez review literature related to treatment inten- dedFiles/2018-Schools-Survey-Caseload-Trends.pdf.
sity and its effect on outcomes for children with Accessed November 29, 2018
SSDs that are resistant to treatment such as 3. 2017 SLP Health Care Survey Report: Caseload
Characteristics. 2017https: //www.asha.org/uploa-
childhood apraxia of speech and/or those with
dedFiles/2017-SLP-Health-Care-Survey-Caseload-
residual speech errors. The authors investigate the Characteristics.pdf. Accessed November 29, 2018.
utility of the Cumulative Intervention Index, a 4. Lewis BA, Avrich AA, Freebairn LA, et al. Literacy
measure of treatment intensity, and discuss the outcomes of children with early childhood speech
utility of this index for clinicians when evaluating sound disorders: impact of endophenotypes. J Speech
treatment outcomes in research studies. Specifi- Lang Hear Res 2011;54(06):1628–1643

10.1055@s 0039 1677758

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.1055@s 0039 1677758

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.1055@s 0039 1677758

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PREFACE

Speech Sound Disorders in Children

Downloaded by: University of Texas at Dallas. Copyrighted material.

Downloaded by: University of Texas at Dallas. Copyrighted material.

You might also like