HOME SITE MAP START PAGE ABOUT DISCLAIMER
PRIVACY CONTENTS LINKS EMAIL COPYRIGHT
         
 
1970's 80's and 90's target selection guidelines 
 FOR PHONOLOGICAL THERAPY
Copyright  © 1998 Caroline Bowen
 

Introduction

This was the original target selection article published on this site. A comparison table, detailing a range of more recent guidelines for target selection in phonological therapy, can be found here.
 
There are no hard and fast criteria for therapy target selection in phonological therapy, but rather, sets of general guidelines. It is commonly observed clinically that some children make remarkable progress when the clinician apparently breaks all the "rules, or phonological principles.

It is important to base target selection upon linguistic criteria, taking motivational factors into account.

Complete the phonetic inventory as soon as possible, starting with /f/ if it is absent, or any fricative if there are no fricatives.

In selecting targets, use facilitative contexts where possible, e.g., /t/ and /d/ are easier before front vowels, while /k/ and /g/ are easier before back vowels.

Consider developmental sequence at all levels of target selection, e.g., /s/ often emerges first SFWF (see Footnote) in normal development; final consonant deletion usually disappears early in phonological acquisition.
 
Grunwell's (1992) 7 principles in treatment planning
  1. Variability should be targeted in order to establish stable & accurate realisations.
  2. The system of contrasts should be expanded to increase communicative adequacy.
  3. New contrasts should be introduced first in well-established structures.
  4. The phonotactic potential should be extended to increase communicative adequacy.
  5. New structures should be introduced using well-established consonants.
  6. Where possible the treatment programme should follow the normal developmental sequence.
  7. Where appropriate, patterns to be targeted first are those:
    (a) most deviant from normal phonology
    (b) most destructive of communicative adequacy.
4 guidelines for process selection (Edwards, 1983)
  1. Choose processes that result in early success (i.e., those that would be relatively easy to remediate), e.g., those whose frequency of occurrence <100%; those that are context specific or position specific; those affecting sounds the child is already including when the speak; and those affecting sounds for which the child is already stimulable.
  2. Choose processes that are "crucial" for the individual child: those that are deviant, idiosyncratic or unusual, thereby drawing undue attention to the child’s speech; those that contribute significantly to unintelligibility; those that contribute to homonymy; those that lead to the neutralisation of adult contrasts; and those that apply frequently.
  3. Choose "early" processes that affect "early" sounds.
  4. Choose processes that interact.
7 guidelines for sound selection (Edwards, 1983)
  1. Choose target sounds that are in the child’s repertoire.
  2. Choose sounds for which the child is stimulable.
  3. Choose sounds that should improve intelligibility.
  4. Choose frequently occurring sounds.
  5. Choose sounds that are acquired early.
  6. Choose "high value" sounds that will have an impact for the child.
  7. Choose sounds that should be relatively easy to produce in the position of concern.
Consider these predictions (Elbert & Gierut, 1986)
"Predictions" are projections of what sounds will develop if other sounds are taught. Elbert & Gierut suggest basing target selection on predictions because teaching certain sounds will effectively "force" the development of other sounds, for example:
  1. PREDICTION
    Teaching a distinctive feature in the context of one sound will result in the use of the feature in other untreated sounds.
    EXAMPLE
    A child does not accurately produce [f, v, s, z, 'sh' ].
    TREATMENT
    Teach [+ strident] feature by contrasting [s] with [voiceless 'th'].
  2. PREDICTION
    Untreated sounds with the [+ strident] feature
    [f, v, s, z, 'sh' ] will also improve.
  3. PREDICTION
    Teaching stops in word final position will lead to more accurate production in word initial position.
    EXAMPLE
    A child does not accurately produce [k] or [g] in any word position.
    TREATMENT
    Teach production of [k] and [g] in word final position.
  4. PREDICTION
    Production of [k] and [g] will improve in word initial position.

    See Elbert & Gierut, 1986, pp 105-107 for 11 such predictions
Facilitative phonetic contexts
Children are individual in terms of what is "facilitative" for them, so it is always advisable to do stimulability testing in a variety of phonetic environments. In general, however:
  1. Production targets are easier (to say) in stressed syllables (Kent, 1982).
  2. Sounds are easier to produce SIWI, except for fricatives which often appear easier SFWF (Edwards & Shriberg, 1983).
  3. Fricatives emerge first SFWF developmentally (Ferguson, 1978).
  4. The /s/ phoneme is easier SFWF than SIWI (Kent, 1982).
  5. Combine front consonants with front vowels and back consonants with back vowels, for example:
    /t/ and /d/ are easier before front vowels (Grunwell, 1992)
    /k/ and /g/ are easier before back vowels (Grunwell, 1992)
    /s/ is easier before a front vowel (e.g., ‘see’) for many children (Grundy, 1989)
  6. Some children find VC or VCV contexts easier than CV’s
    (Grundy, 1989)
  7. Words likely to occur in the child’s normal conversation are easier to say (Kent, 1982)

 
Footnote
SIWI, SFWF, SIWW, etc
In the branch of Clinical Linguistics called clinical phonology, the abbreviations SIWI, SFWF, SIWW, SFWW, etc are used to describe where sounds occur in spoken words. SIWI is "syllable initial word initial position". In the word "ball", /b/ is SIWI. SFWF is "syllable final word final position". In the word "rub" /b/ is SFWF. SIWW is "syllable initial within word position". In the word "abound" /b/ is SIWW. 

The terms are used to denote how the words are pronounced by an individual, not the way you spell them, or the way they "should" be pronounced. So, for example, when you break a word like "innocent" into syllables with regard to how you might spell it you get inn-o-cent. But when most speakers of English SAY the word it becomes (roughly!) ih-nu-sent so that the /n/ is SIWW (not SFWW as it would be if you said in-uh-sent). 
Many speech-language pathologists use these abbreviations when they look at "phonotactics" (the patterns of vowels and consonants a child can produce) in detail, as part of a phonological analysis. The information is useful in choosing therapy targets and devising word lists for production practice and auditory bombardment (focused auditory input) when appropriate.
 
References
Edwards, M. (1983). Selection criteria for developing therapy goals. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 7, 36-45.

Edwards, M.L., & Shriberg, L.D. (1983). Phonology: Applications in communicative disorders. San Diego: College-Hill Press.

Elbert, M., Dinnsen, D.A. and Powell, T.W. (1984)  On the prediction of phonologic generalization learning patterns.  Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 309-17. 

Elbert, M., & Gierut, J. (1986). Handbook of clinical phonology: Approaches to assessment and treatment. San Diego College-Hill Press.

Elbert, M., Powell, T.W., and Swartzlander, P. (1991). Toward a technology of generalization: How many exemplars are sufficient? Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 81-87.  

Ferguson, C.A. (1978). Learning to pronounce: The earliest stages of phonological development in the child. In F.D. Minifie & L.L. Lloyd (Eds.). Communicative and cognitive abilities - early behavioural assessment. 273-297. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Grundy, K. (1989). Linguistics in Clinical Practice. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd. 255-280

Grunwell, P. (1992). Principled decision making in the remediation of children with developmental phonological disorders. In P. Fletcher & D. Hall (Eds.), Specific speech and language disorders in children. London: Whurr.

Kent, R.D. (1982). Contextual facilitation of correct sound production. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 13, 66-76.
 
Think again about target selection factors such as these!
 
  1. SOUND OR SYSTEM
  2. STIMULABILITY
  3. DEVELOPMENTAL EXPECTATIONS
  4. CONSISTENCY
  5. MOST vs. LEAST KNOWLEDGE
  6. INTELLIGIBILITY
  7. DEVIANCY
  8. SOCIAL FACTORS
  9. MARKEDNESS / IMPLICATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
  10. SYSTEMIC FACTORS / DISTINCTIONS
  11. LEXICAL PROPERTIES

See: Comparison of Guidelines for Phonological Therapy Target Selection for details.

 
 

Page updated 12 May 2009

 
 

http://www.speech-language-therapy.com/targets.htm
COPYRIGHT © Caroline Bowen ALL RIGHTS RESERVED