A comparison of the GFTA2 and the Arizona3: A clinical focus

1
A comparison of the GFTA-2 and the Arizona-3 A
clinical focus

• Amy Ogburn, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
• Auburn Montgomery

2
Comparisons of Standardized Assessment Instruments

• Schissel and James (1979)
• the tests are not valid
• the testing instruments are assessing different
  facets of articulatory behavior
• Deep Test of Articulation (DTA McDonald, 1964)
  vs the Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale
  (AAPS Fudula, 1974)
• Difference between the accuracy of phoneme
  production occurred on 8.2 of test items, but
  that the trend appeared in approximately 83 of
  children assessed

3
Non-Standardized Assessment Measures

• Shriberg and Kwiatkowski (1982)
• PCC
• Johnson, Weston, and Bain (2004)
• Isermann (2001)
• Shriberg, Austin, Lewis, McSweeny, and Wilson
  (1997)
• PVC
• Dollaghan, Biber and Campbell (1993)
• PPC

4
Methods

• Participants
• 3-year-olds (n21)
• 4-year-olds (n20)
• Inclusionary criteria
• Kaufman Survey of Early Academic and Language
  Skills (KSEALS Kaufman Kaufman, 1993) score of
  85 or higher
• Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Third Edition
  (PPVT-III Dunn Dunn, 1997) score of 85 or
  higher
• Exclusionary criteria
• Chronic otitis media
• Pressure equalizing tubes
• Suspicion of speech/language impairment
• History of autism, neurological impairment, or
  psychological impairment

5
Methods

• Screening Procedures
• Pure tone hearing screening at 20 dB at 1000,
  2000, and 4000 Hz
• Tympanometry
• Oral peripheral examination
• KSEALS (Kaufman Kaufman, 1993)
• PPVT-III (Dunn Dunn, 1997)

6
Methods

• Experimental Procedures
• Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale, Third
  Revision (Arizona-3 Fudala, 2000)
• Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation, Second
  Edition (GFTA-2 Goldman Fristoe, 2000)

7
Methods

• Measurements taken
• Standard scores from each instrument
• Total number of consonants correct, along with
  positional accuracy
• Total number of vowels correct
• Total number of clusters correct
• Total number of correct productions
• These numbers were subsequently transformed into
  percentage correct, specifically PCC, PVC, and
  PPC.

8
Results

• 2x2 mixed repeated measures analysis of variance
  (ANOVA)
• Age x Test interaction effect, non-significant, p
  .105
• Within-subject test effect, significant, p
  .000
• Between-subjects factor of age, significant, p
  .023

9
Results
10
Results

• Phoneme-specific differences
• Difference of 10 percentage points between
  assessments
• Four phonemes were found to differ
• initial /v/ with a difference of 34.2
• the initial /?/ with a difference of 19.5
• the initial /ð/ and the initial /s/ with a
  difference of 12.2.

11
Results

• Phonemes most likely to be in error
• the /?/ in both initial and final word position
• the /ð/ in the initial word position
• the /v/ in the initial word position
• the /r/ in the initial word position

12
Discussion

• Schissel and James (1979)
• Composition of each instrument
• A possibly flawed scoring system
• The age of mastery varies between phonemes
• With each test highlighting a particular aspect
  of articulation, questions regarding validity of
  the measurement arise.

13
Discussion

• Age differences
• 3-year-olds scored higher than 4-year-olds

14
Discussion

• Composition of each instrument
• Arizona-3 assesses consonants and vowels at word
  level. Consonant production in two positions
  (pre-vocalic and post-vocalic) and production of
  consonant clusters (Fudala, 2000).
• GFTA-2 assesses consonants in the initial, medial
  and final positions and the production of
  consonant clusters. Vowels are not included
  (Goldman Fristoe, 2000).
• There is debate regarding the true existence of
  medial position consonants (Bauman-Waengler,
  2000).

15
Discussion

• Changes in overall levels of accuracy when
  assessing production of consonants versus all
  phonemes tested
• Arizona-3 rises from 90.4 (PCC) to 92.7 (PPC)
  difference of 2.3
• GFTA-2 falls from 88.4 (PCC) to 87.9 (PPC)
  difference of 0.5
• Arizona-3 scoring system
• 100 total points
• 10.5 points for vocalic /?/
• 35 points for all other vowels
• 54.5 points for consonants

16
Discussion

• Normative data differences
• Comparison of age of mastery for initial and
  final position of phonemes
• initial position /d, w, j, v, s, z, ?, ð/
• final position /p, t, n, ?, f, s, z, ?, ?, l/.

17
Summary

• Clinicians must consider the aspects of
  articulation to be assessed
• Evaluation of correctly produced consonants based
  on norms
• Creation of a new articulation test, which
  includes
• Initial and final consonants
• Consonant clusters
• Vocalic /?/

18
References

• Bauman-Waengler, J. (2000). Articulatory and
  phonological impairments A clinical focus.
  Boston, MA Allyn and Bacon.
• Bernthal, J.E., Bankson, N.W. (2004).
  Articulation and phonological disorders (5th
  ed.). Boston, MA Allyn and Bacon.
• Dollaghan, C.A. (1995, June). Phonological
  working memory and new phonological learning.
  Paper presented at the Symposium on Research in
  Child Language Disorders, Madison, WI.
• Dollaghan, C.A., Biber, M., Campbell, T.
  (1993). Constituent syllable effects in a
  nonsense-word repetition task research note.
  Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36,
  1051-1054.
• Dunn, L.M., Dunn, L.M. (1997). Peabody Picture
  Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN
  American Guidance Service, Inc.
• Fudala, J.B. (2000). Arizona Articulation
  Proficiency Scale (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA
  Western Psychological Services.
• Fudala, J.B. (1974). Arizona Articulation
  Proficiency Scale Revised. Los Angeles, CA
  Western Psychological Services.

19
References

• Goldman, R., Fristoe, M. (2000). The
  Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation (2nd ed.).
  Circle Pines, MN American Guidance Service.
• Isermann, B. (2001). Variability of consistency
  of articulation in children with phonological
  disorders. Unpublished masters thesis, The Ohio
  State University.
• Johnson, C.A., Weston, A.D., Bain, B.A. (2004).
  An objective and time- efficient method for
  determining severity of childhood speech delay.
  American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
  13, 55-65.
• Johnson, S. Somers, H. (1978). Spontaneous and
  Imitated Responses in Articulation Testing.
  British Journal of Disorders of Communication,
  13(2), 107-116.
• Kaufman, A.S., Kaufman, N.L. (1993). Kaufman
  Survey of Early Academic and Language Skills.
  Circle Pines, MN American Guidance Service.
• McDonald, E.T. (1964). A Deep Test of
  Articulation. Pittsburgh Stanwix House.
• Sander, E. (1972). When are speech sounds
  learned? Journal of Speech and Hearing
  Disorders, 37, 55-63.

20
References

• Schissel, R.J., James, L.B. (1979). A
  comparison of childrens performance on two
• tests of articulation. Journal of Speech and
  Hearing Disorders, 44, 363-372.
• Shriberg, L.D. (1993). Four new speech and
  prosody-voice measures for genetics
• research and other studies in developmental
  phonological disorders. Journal of Speech and
  Hearing Research, 36, 105-140.
• Shriberg, L.D., Austin, D., Lewis, B.A.,
  McSweeny, J.L, Wilson, D.L. (1997). The
• percentage of consonants correct (PCC) metric
  extensions and reliability data. Journal of
  Speech, Language, Hearing Research, 40(4),
  708-22.
• Shriberg, L.D., Kwiatkowski, J. (1982).
  Phonological disorders III A procedure for
• assessing severity of involvement. Journal of
  Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 256-270.
• Shriberg, L.D., Kwiatkowski, J., Best, S.,
  Hengst, J., Terselic-Weber, B. (1986).
• Characteristics of children with phonologic
  disorders of unknown origin. Journal of Speech
  and Hearing Disorders, 51, 140-161.
• Templin, M. (1957). Certain language skills in
  children Their development and
• interrelationships. Minneapolis University of
  Minnesota Press.
• Tyler, A.A., Williams, W.J., Lewis, K.E.
  (2006). Error Consistency and the evaluation
• of treatment outcomes. Clinical Linguistics
  Phonetics, 20(6), 411-422.