The treatment should focus on the sensorimotor productions of the error sounds. For this type of child, there is no need to do an in depth phonological analysis. The traditional view works well with children who have only one to four articulation errors. These types of tests most likely underestimate the child's problem, because it doesn't take into account syntactic or semantic complexity. Tests typically do not adequately sample connected speech at the sentence level. Tests are limited in terms of trials and contexts. It does not have a phonological orientation. It does not consider coarticulation or phonetic context (only IMF). It does not consider supraphonemic elements (phonological processes involving more than one phoneme). It does not consider subphonemic elements, such as distinctive features. Some problems with the traditional view: 1. Error types are omission, substitution, distortion, and addition. The orientation tends to be more sensorimotor in nature than phonological. Word position is the major contextual variable. Traditional model, the basic unit of interest in assessment is the phoneme. The positive part is that in some cases you do find a facilitating context to use in obtaining a correct production of a sound. These include: it uses nonsense words (this takes out the linguistic component), children with multiple misarticulations alter the intended contexts (i.e., so if the child fronts phonemes, the facilitating context may not help as he/she is likely to front it), children may not think the words are funny, and some children tend to pause between the words. The McDonald Deep Test (MDT) can be criticized for several reasons. Problems with phonetic context testing: It only addresses the sensorimotor perspective and does not deal with linguistic (phonological) points of view. For children with many errors or low intelligibility, the traditional approach needs to be supplemented by other types of tests. In other words, it is fine for a child with a purely motoric problem.
0 kommentar(er)
