SUSAN RVACHEW SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION SCIENCES AND DISORDERS MCGILL UNIVERSITY - HASKINS INSTITUTE MARCH 15,,012
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Susan Rvachew
School of Communication Sciences and Disorders
McGill University
Haskins Institute
March 15,,012
1
} DEVELOPMENTAL
◦ Young children whose phonological systems are still
developing (i.e., younger than age 9 years)
◦ In my intervention studies, 4 to 6 years of age, primary
DPD
} PHONOLOGICAL
◦ Etiological processes: genetic vulnerability that overlaps
with dyslexia and interacts with environmental factors
(OME, language inputs)
◦ Underlying speech processes (proximal cause):
phonological processing and/or degraded phonological
representations
} DISORDER
◦ ‘delay-disorder’ distinction represents a continuum of
severity that has no diagnostic or prognostic
implications, i.e., not a categorical dichotomy
◦ ‘common disease/common variant’ model
2
[+consonantal] [+sonorant]
[+continuant]
[Dorsal]
[+hi] [+back]
Phonological
Process Stopping of fricatives
Phonological
Planning
t u
tu
Motor
Programming
and Execution
3
4
Time One
5
Time Two
6
Time Three
7
8
} Learning Mechanisms
◦ Perception
◦ Attention to speech
◦ Statistical learning
} Environmental Supports
◦ Language input in infant directed
register
◦ Language input in social context
} Therapeutic procedure
◦ Focused Stimulation
} Expected Outcomes
◦ Acoustic-phonetic representations for words, phones & prosodic
patterns
◦ Increased size of lexicon
◦ Internal models to guide speech production
9
} Have a specific target
} Identify the target for the child
} Do not mix up phonological and syntactic targets
in the same session (alternate/cycle these targets)
} Initially, ensure high frequency of exposures to the
target form with no pressure on child to produce it
(auditory bombardment)
} Use slow, child directed register but do not use
telegraphic speech
} Gradually introduce opportunities for the child to
produce the form in the context of hybrid
(balanced) naturalistic intervention contexts
} As correct productions begin to emerge, switch
focus to prompting and then responding to child
productions
1011
SomeThe What
animalsabout
animals will
arethe
sleep
in the horse?
getting Willothers
fieldsleeping
and the
will horse
sleep sleep
in thein
now. the
barn.
field or in the barn?
In the field.
In the The horse
[biʊd].
will sleep in
the field.
12} Learning Mechanisms
◦ Social learning mechanisms
◦ Cognitive learning mechanisms
◦ Phonological working memory
◦ Linkage of phonetic, phonological &
semantic representations
} Environmental Supports
◦ Highly variable natural speech input
from multiple talkers
◦ Engagement by the child with the
} Therapeutic procedure input
◦ “Ear training”
} Expected Outcomes
◦ Phonemic perception skills
◦ Improved speech production accuracy for stimulable phonemes
13} Provide exposure to highly variable natural
speech input (acoustic-phonetic and talker
dimensions)
} Provide information about prototypical members
of the target phoneme category, and
} Provide information about the boundaries
between the target phoneme category and
neighboring categories
} Contrast target phoneme with actual (not
simulated) misarticulations
} Directly engage the child with the input
} Provide informative feedback about the child’s
responses
1415
[rQt]
[wQt]
[jQt]
16} Learning Mechanisms
◦ Lexical restructuring triggered by
growing size of the lexicon and
increasingly detailed acoustic-
phonetic representations
} Environmental Supports
◦ Exposure to high quality language
input
◦ Exposure to print materials
◦ Exposure to rhyme and alliteration
} Therapeutic procedure
◦ Dialogic reading
} Expected Outcomes
◦ Increased size and complexity of vocabulary knowledge
◦ Narrative skills
◦ Emerging Phonological awareness skills
17} Dialogic reading is seen as an ideal context
for the joint construction of knowledge by
adult and child.
} Dialogic reading techniques are designed to
gradually shift responsibility for story telling
from the parent to the child.
} Parents must receive sufficient training and
support to discover the appropriate level of
prompts and direction to employ with their
child.
1819
20
Do you PEER Sequence
remember how
No, notmany little
pigs are in this
one.
Count with me,
story?
one, two, three.
One,Um…
two,
one!
three pigs.
21Prompt for
inferences and
predictions when
appropriate.
The wolf says he
will go down the
chimney after him.
What will happen
next?
22In this picture there
are two words that Take opportunities
start with the same to highlight sound
sound. Listen, pig, structure of words
wolf, pot. Which two as well.
words go together?
23Enroll 72 Francophone Children with DPD Pretreatment
Assessment
Individual Input Individual
Oriented Output Oriented
Intervention Intervention
Dialogic Reading Articulation
Parent Group Parent Group
Twelve Week
Phonological Awareness Group Therapy Assessment
9 month follow-up period
(intervention provided by parents)
24N Age (mos) EVIP PCC/TFP
Control 10 53 100 71
Prod-Artic 17 53 98 76
Prod-DR 13 55 98 67
Perc-Artic 16 52 100 70
Perc-DR 18 53 97 70
2526
} Identification
} Stimulation including imitative models,
phonetic placement and verbal
instruction
} Integral stimulation techniques, chaining
and other techniques to facilitate correct
production in words
} Drill-play activities to promote practice
in words, sentences and conversations
27} Identification
} SAILS
} Live voice ear training procedures
} Focused Stimulation
} Minimal Pairs
28} Speech Disorders and } Speech Disorders and
Academic Impacts Academic Impacts
} Goal Selection } Selecting Books and See-
Saw Book Reading
} Speech Practice Technique
Procedures } Prompts for Vocabulary
} Speech Practice Development
Activities } Prompts for Verbal
} Behavior Management Reasoning
} Emergent Literacy (PA)
} Carry-over to every day } Emergent Literacy
life (Letters)
ARTICULATION DIALOGIC READING
29} Rime Matching
} Onset Sorting
} Syllable # Identification
301. Clown
2. Chapeau
3. Lune1es
4. Singe
5. Feuille
6. Graffigné
7. Doigt
8. Train
9. Avion
10. Hélicoptère
11. Camion
12. Brun
25. Crayon
40. Girafes
13. RapeMssé
1
syllable 28%
26. Peinture
41. Zoo
14. Vélo
27. Table
42. Langue
15. Escalier
28. Vaisselle
43. Enveloppe
2
syllables 50%
16. Amoureux
29. Cartes
44. Araignée
3
syllables 19%
17. Cuisine
30. Cochons
45. Garde-‐robe
18. Fleurs
31. Bibliothèques
46. Parapluie
4
syllables 4%
32. Tournevis
47. Tombé
19. Traineau
33. Album
48. Yogourt
syllable
w/
coda 36%
20. Oui
34. Aquarium
49. Framboises
syllable
w/
cluster 15%
21. Niche
35. Serpent
50. Glissade
22. Nuage
36. Huit
51. Château
inter-‐rater
reliability 93%
37. Gardien
52. Spectacle
23. Soleil
38. Beigne
53. Marionne1es
test-‐retest
reliablity 93%
24. Élève
39. Manger
54. Géant
convergent
validity 83%
Test Francophone de Phonologie (Paul & Rvachew) from Paul, M. (2009). Predictors of consonant development and the
development of a test of French phonology. McGill University, Montréal, Québec. 31100.00 Pretreatment
95.00
Percent
Consonants
Correct
on
TFP
Post-‐treatment
90.00
85.00
80.00
75.00
70.00
65.00
60.00
55.00
50.00
Control Prod-‐Artic Prod-‐DR Perc-‐Artic Perc-‐DR
32« Le nom de cet
animal est Lou.
Lou aime les
choses qui
sonnent comme
son nom. Écoute,
laquelle de ces
choses est celle
que Lou aime? »
ƒ vent
ƒ fée
ƒ main
ƒ chou
Test de Conscience Phonologique Préscolaire (Brosseau-Lapre & Rvachew) adapted from Bird, J., Bishop, D. V. M., & Freeman,
N. H. (1995). Phonological awareness and literacy development in children with expressive phonological impairments. JSHR,
33
38, 446-462.14
12
Estimated
Marginal
Mean
10
8
6
4
2
0
Control Prod-‐Artic Prod-‐DR Perc-‐Artic Perc-‐DR
34Whole Word Segment to Delete
sapin sa
bâton ton
« Répète après
bon b
moi SAPIN.
feu f Dis-le encore,
jupe pe mais sans dire
SA. »
décolle colle
corps c
couper per
ami a
Cormier, P., MacDonald, G. W., Grandmaison, É., & Ouellette-Lebel, D. (1995). Développement d’un test d’analyse auditive en français: Normes et validation
de construit [Development of a test of auditory analysis in French: Norms and construct validation]. Revue des Sciences de l’Éducation, 21, 223-240. 353
EStimated
Marginal
Mean
on
TAAF
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Prod-‐Artic Prod-‐DR Perc-‐Artic Perc-‐DR
3637
Preschool (CA = 4;9) First Grade (CA = 6;9)
} SAILS: z = -2.53 } SAILS: z = .43
} GFTA-2: 9th } GFTA-2: 15th percentile
percentile } PCC: 90%, -.21
} PCC: 70%, -1.29 } PPVT: SS = 115
} PPVT: SS = 102 } MLU: 6.65
} MLU: 6.28 } TOWRE: 108sw vs 87nw
} PAT: z = -1.84 } Error Phonemes:
} Error Phonemes: } [ɹ]
} [ʃ ʧ ɹ ʤ θ ð] } [ɹ] Clusters simplified
} Liquid clusters
simplified
38Preschool (CA = 5;4) First Grade (CA = 6;7) } SAILS: z = -1.62 } SAILS: z = -2.11 } GFTA-2: 1st } GFTA-2:
} Theoretical consistency
} Cumulative intervention intensity
} More research required on possible
interactions between child characteristics and
intervention type
} More research required on possible
differences in efficiency of treatment
approaches
40} Financial
support:
Social
Sciences
and
HumaniMes
Research
Council
of
Canada;
Fonds
de
recherche
en
Santé
du
Québec;
Fonds
de
recherche
sur
la
société
et
la
culture
Québec
;
Centre
for
Research
on
Language,
Mind
and
Brain
} Staff:
Elisabeth
Christe,
Claudine
Joncas,
Patrizia
Mazzocca,
Mahchid
Namazi
} Partner:
The
Montreal
Children’s
Hospital
} Students:
S.
Arcand,
G.
Beauregard-‐Paultre,
E.
Bucarel,
J.
Chagnon,
C.
Clémence,
H.
Jacobs,
A.
Jacques,
A.
Ladouceur,
A.
Langdon,
E.
Leroux,
A.
Marquis,
R.
Morasse,
M.
Paul,
D.
Phelan-‐Cox,
A.
Singh
Saini,
H.
Valeriote
41You can also read
