Journal of Communication Disorders 52 (2014) 184–195

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Communication Disorders

Research paper

IEP goals for school-age children with speech sound disorders

Kelly Farquharson a,*, Sherine R. Tambyraja b, Laura M. Justice b, Erin E. Redle c
a
Emerson College, United States
b
The Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy, The Ohio State University, United States
c
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to describe the current state of practice for
Received 7 February 2014 writing Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals for children with speech sound
Received in revised form 10 September 2014 disorders (SSDs).
Accepted 29 September 2014
Method: IEP goals for 146 children receiving services for SSDs within public school
Available online 22 October 2014
systems across two states were coded for their dominant theoretical framework and
overall quality. A dichotomous scheme was used for theoretical framework coding:
Keywords:
cognitive-linguistic or sensory-motor. Goal quality was determined by examining
Speech sound disorders
IEP goals 7 specific indicators outlined by an empirically tested rating tool. In total, 147 long-
IEPs term and 490 short-term goals were coded.
Results: The results revealed no dominant theoretical framework for long-term goals,
whereas short-term goals largely reflected a sensory-motor framework. In terms of
quality, the majority of speech production goals were functional and generalizable in
nature, but were not able to be easily targeted during common daily tasks or by other
members of the IEP team. Short-term goals were consistently rated higher in quality
domains when compared to long-term goals.
Conclusions: The current state of practice for writing IEP goals for children with SSDs
indicates that theoretical framework may be eclectic in nature and likely written to
support the individual needs of children with speech sound disorders. Further
investigation is warranted to determine the relations between goal quality and child
outcomes.
Learning outcomes: (1) Identify two predominant theoretical frameworks and discuss
how they apply to IEP goal writing. (2) Discuss quality indicators as they relate to IEP goals
for children with speech sound disorders. (3) Discuss the relationship between long-term
goals level of quality and related theoretical frameworks. (4) Identify the areas in which
business-as-usual IEP goals exhibit strong quality.
ß 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Approximately 4% of young school-age children exhibit a speech sound disorder (SSD; Shriberg, Tomblin, & McSweeney,
1999), which is characterized by a significant delay in the acquisition of appropriate speech sounds (Lewis et al., 2006).

* Corresponding author at: Emerson College, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, 120 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116, United
States. Tel.: +617 824 3894.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Farquharson).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.09.005
0021-9924/ß 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 K. Farquharson et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 52 (2014) 184–195 185

Providing therapy to children with SSDs is part of the workload for a majority of speech-language pathologists (SLPs; McLeod
& Bleile, 2004; Mullen & Schooling, 2010), with 93% reporting that they serve at least one child with a SSD at any given time
(American Speech Language Hearing Association, 2012). For clinicians working within the public schools, the treatment of
SSDs is prescribed, so to speak, by a child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP), which presents a child’s long- and short-
term goals as well as additional supportive details, such as the treatment contexts and key service providers. All children
who receive special-education services within the public education system have an IEP (Christle & Yell, 2010; Drasgow, Yell,
& Robinson, 2001; Yell & Stecker, 2003), with children with SSDs representing a subset of these pupils. However, very little is
known about current practices of IEP goal-writing for children receiving SSD therapy in the public schools. This study
examined IEP goals for children with SSDs with respect to the theoretical framework and in terms of overall quality. As the
field of speech-language pathology moves toward a model of implementation science, this practice-based work describes
current and common IEP goal-writing practices and identifies potential areas in which SLPs may be better supported in
service provision.

1.1. Children with speech sound disorders in the educational system

Presence of an SSD can impact the academic, linguistic, vocational, and socio-emotional skills of children and adolescents
(Lewis et al., 2011; Lewis, Freebairn, Hansen, Iyengar, & Taylor, 2004; Overby, Trainin, Smit, Bernthal, & Nelson, 2012), even
once an SSD has been remediated through speech-therapy services (Anthony et al., 2011; Felsenfeld, Broen, & McGue, 1994).
In a 28-year follow-up of 24 adults who had been diagnosed during childhood with at least a moderate phonological delay,
Felsenfeld et al. (1994) found that as many as 70% of these individuals required some level of special education services
through the 12th grade. Similarly, Shriberg and Kwiatkowski (1988) reported in their follow-up study that more than 80% of
preschool children identified as having ‘‘only intelligibility issues’’ indeed required additional special education services
throughout elementary school. An important mechanism for alleviating the impacts of SSD is to ensure that the disorder is
identified early and appropriately and that the services provided within the public-school context are of high quality.
One aspect of treatment quality concerns the nature of a child’s IEP, which is a legally binding document designed to
clearly identify intervention goals, the types of services provided, the duration of services, and plan for review of progress
toward the stated goals for children with disabilities within the public schools (Drasgow et al., 2001). IEPs consist of child-
specific strengths and weaknesses and an individualized plan for how to improve the child’s areas of deficit as they relate to
the educational setting. Specifically, an IEP must include ‘‘a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and
functional goals designed to: (a) meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be
involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and (b) meet each of the child’s other educational needs
that result from the disability’’ (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). The plan is developed collaboratively by a team of
professionals and consists of long- and short-term goals that are written to target areas of deficit.
For children with communication disorders, the SLP is an integral part of the IEP team as the one who provides expertise
on developing goals for achieving clear communication skills (e.g., developmentally appropriate vocabulary and syntax,
intelligible speech production, age-appropriate social communication skills, and age and gender appropriate voice and
fluency). Additionally, speech production deficits may negatively impact a child’s ability to participate and make progress in
the general education classroom and curriculum. For example, children with SSDs have been found to have poor
phonological awareness, phonological memory, decoding, spelling, and other cognitive abilities as compared to typically
developing peers (Anthony et al., 2011; Larrivee & Catts, 1999; Lewis et al., 2004; Overby et al., 2012). The IEP goals written
and targeted by the SLP may thus encompass areas of educational impact beyond the child’s speech-production capabilities.
Nonetheless, for children with SSDs, IEPs need to be carefully customized so as to address the highly specific needs of a
given child. Customization is of particular importance as each child’s SSD may present differently in terms of which sounds
are affected, how severe the impairment is, and the extent to which other aspects of the linguistic system may be co-
morbidly impaired (Shriberg, Austin, Lewis, McSweeny, & Wilson, 1997). These factors should be considered when designing
a treatment plan that will improve intelligibility while reducing any adverse impacts of the speech sound disorder on
children’s educational performance. Thus, perhaps the most important aspect of customizing a treatment plan within the
context of a child’s IEP is specifying the goals a child is to achieve with respect to speech production. Experts have asserted
that deciding which speech sounds to target and by which treatment approach to target them is one of the most important
decisions that clinicians will make (Gierut, 1998; Kamhi, 2006). As such, it is prudent to investigate the ways in which IEP
goals are written during business-as-usual speech therapy services as it may inform best practice approaches and ways in
which SLPs can be better supported in providing school-based services.

1.2. Theoretical frameworks for establishing speech sound goals

There are several different theoretical frameworks that describe how speech sounds are acquired and thus how
intervention should be appropriately structured to treat SSDs (see also Kamhi, 2006 for a more complete review of these
approaches). Some such frameworks previously discussed in the literature include behaviorist/traditional, natural
phonology, nonlinear phonology, optimality theory, sonority hypothesis, psycholinguistic, and motoric approaches (see
Kamhi, 2006). Gierut (1998) suggested that, broadly, the range of treatment approaches that stem from varying theoretical
frameworks can be dichotomously categorized as cognitive-linguistic (e.g., the cycles approach) or sensory-motor (e.g., the
186 K. Farquharson et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 52 (2014) 184–195

traditional behaviorist articulation approach). In a cognitive-linguistic framework, the primary approach to treatment goals
concerns targeting the broader phonological system (e.g., a goal that lists specific phonological patterns to be addressed,
such as stopping, cluster reduction, or gliding). Thus, treatment goals focus specifically on the reduction of phonological
patterns or processes that negatively affect speech intelligibility. In a sensory-motor framework, the primary approach to
treatment goals concerns the child’s production of individual or multiple phonemes and/or syllable shapes (e.g., a goal that
lists specific phonemes to be targeted, such as /s/, /f/, or /r/). Therefore, treatment goals typically focus specifically on the
correct production of an individual phoneme. Although this dichotomous scheme does not necessarily incorporate all
theoretical models that can influence therapy (e.g., psycholinguistic approaches), it is one option for considering many
treatment approaches in a simplified manner. Indeed, SLPs must take into consideration many child-level factors (e.g., type
of disorder, number of errors, stimulability, age, etc.) and also therapy approach factors (e.g., existing research, best fit to the
disorder, vertical versus horizontal goal attack strategy, etc.) when determining the best means by which to treat an
individual child with SSD.
However, Gierut (1998) and Kamhi (2006) suggest that the therapy goal, rather than the exact treatment approach
employed in the therapy session (i.e., the specific techniques), is the principal instrument of change within a student’s
communication system. Although there are many treatment approaches available to SLPs and these approaches can broadly
fall into a dichotomous framework (i.e., cognitive-linguistic and sensory-motor), it is unknown if current practices favor a
particular theoretical approach. At present, no empirical evidence exists to help discern current clinical practices in public
schools. Specifically, it is unknown if IEP goals for children with SSD that adhere to IDEA guidelines represent a specific
theoretical framework. One way to determine this is by examining the targets chosen for IEP goals by SLPs providing
treatment to children with SSDs. To this end, the first aim of this research is to examine IEP goals for primary-grade students
with SSDs relative to the two chosen frameworks (i.e., cognitive-linguistic or sensory-motor; Gierut, 1998), in order to
examine current trends in IEP goal-writing and to identify whether there is a dominant framework guiding such practices.
Importantly, the present investigation is taking one step down the path of implementation science by examining current
practices of SLPs, determining how those practices align with evidence from the literature, and evaluating the potential gaps
between research and practice.

1.3. Quality of IEP goals for children with speech sound disorders

For children with SSDs, the theoretical framework used to establish treatment goals is only one aspect that guides a child’s
clinical intervention. For instance, according to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, children’s intervention must
focus on functional goals that directly and appropriately relate to children’s academic well-being. These issues concern the
quality of IEP goals more generally. Some researchers have examined the quality of IEP goals for specific populations,
including children with autism (Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2010), word-reading difficulties (Catone & Brady, 2005), and severe
and profound disabilities (Boavida, Aguiar, McWilliam, & Pimental, 2010), with some work reporting a predictive link
between IEP quality and child outcomes (Ruble & McGrew, 2013). To date, however, there has been no work specifically
examining the quality of IEP goals for children with SSD.
The Revised IEP/IFSP Goals and Objectives Rating Instrument (R-GORI; Notari, 1988) was developed to provide a
framework for writing quality IEP goals derived from IDEA 2004 standards and requirements. Used in previous studies with
clinical populations (e.g., preschoolers with disabilities; Boavida et al., 2010), the R-GORI was utilized in the present study to
determine the overall quality of IEP goals for school-age children with SSDs with respect to six indicators for long-term goals
(and a 7th indicator that applies to short-term goals only): observability, measurability, functionality, generalizability,
alignment with long-term goals (applicable to short-term goals only), daily-task relevance, and clarity of goals such that
other professionals can assist in addressing them. A seventh indicator is applied to short-term goals only; namely the extent
to which there is alignment of short-term goals to long-term goals. Although the R-GORI has not yet been used to examine
goals specific to children with SSDs, it is the only empirically tested tool, of which we are aware, currently available to
evaluate IEP goals. The seven indicators on the R-GORI (described in detail in Table 1) serve to ensure that IEP goals
accurately follow guidelines set forth by the U.S. Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA; Christle & Yell, 2010; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004; Yell & Stecker, 2003). The indicators are
used explicitly to examine the quality of goals on children’s IEPs, to include both long-term and short-term goals. Long-term
goals are written with the intention of being achieved within one calendar year (e.g., ‘‘. . .will accurately produce /k, g/ in
spontaneous conversation. . .’’), whereas short-term goals are written as benchmarks toward achieving the long-term goal
(e.g., ‘‘. . .will accurately produce /k, g/ in initial positions of words; medial positions of words; final positions of words. . .’’). We
discuss here the seven R-GORI indicators more explicitly and hypothesize how each indicator may relate to IEP goals for
children with SSD.
The first and second R-GORI indicators examine the extent to which IEP goals identify a target behavior that is both
Observable and Measurable. According to the R-GORI definitions for these indicators, two people should be able to see and
agree that a specific behavior has occurred relative to a specific pre-established criterion for determining success. In their
evaluation of IEP goals written by early childhood special educators, Pretti-Frontcak and Bricker (2000) found that most IEP
long-term goals were rated low in observability and measurability. Conversely, they found that short-term goals were rated
high in observability and measurability. These researchers concluded that goals that were observable and measurable
 K. Farquharson et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 52 (2014) 184–195 187

Table 1
Examples of goals rated as supporting each R-GORI quality indicator.

Indicator Question/definition Example ‘‘1’’ rating Example ‘‘0’’ rating

Observability Does the target behavior have a Student will produce /s/ blends and /l/ Student will demonstrate increased
beginning and an end and can blends at the beginning of words when intelligibility 90% of the time.
be seen and/or heard? naming pictures with 90% accuracy for two
consecutive assessed sessions.
Measurability Can the child’s performance be Student will demonstrate intelligibility by Student will spontaneously pro-
measured over time either working on consonant clusters and stri- duce /k, sh/ in all positions of words
qualitatively or quantitatively dents at the word level in 3 out of 4 trials in spontaneous conversation in the
(i.e., determine mastery level)? for 5 consecutive chartings for the dura- speech therapy room.
tion if the IEP.
Functionality Does the child need the target When given structured conversation Student will demonstrate the fol-
behavior to participate in all/ opportunities, Student will correctly pro- lowing speech patterns at the
most daily activities? duce /l/ and /l/-blends without models in sentence level with 80% accuracy.
9/10 opportunities over three sessions in a
5-min conversation sample during a nine
week grading period.
Generalizability Can the target behavior be During a language-based activity, Student Student will use all sounds in
generalized across a variety of will correctly produce target sounds (/l/, / sentences and conversational
settings, materials, and/or peo- s/, and /z/) in a variety of structured speech with 80% accuracy to in-
ple? speaking tasks in 4 out of 5 trials. crease intelligibility.
Daily Tasks Can the target behavior be Student will produce target sounds /s, r, l/ Student will use age-appropriate
taught across daily activities? in unstructured speaking tasks at home phonological skills, in the speech
and in the classroom, clearly articulating therapy room, in order to commu-
all words 80% of the time over 4 consecutive nicate information and to demon-
weeks. strate comprehension of material
presented in 4 out of 5 opportu-
nities.
Clarity of goals Can the target behavior be Student will produce following sounds /l, Student will use complete simple
taught/addressed by various s, sh, ch/ at the oral reading level for 1 min sentences containing age-appropri-
team members (e.g., teachers, probes across 4 out 5 documented oppor- ate target sounds and syntactical
therapist, caregivers)? tunities by the end of the 4th IEP quarter. structures in 4 out of 5 trials.

Note: The bolded text in the ‘‘Example with a rating of ‘1’’’ column highlights the specific part of the goal that reflects that specific indicator.

allowed for concrete progress monitoring (e.g., ‘‘. . .will correctly produce the phoneme /k/ in initial, medial, and final positions of
words. . .’’) and accurate data collection (e.g., ‘‘. . .in 18 out of 20 single word productions. . .’’).
The third and fourth R-GORI indicators examine the extent to which IEP goals exhibit Functionality and Generalizability;
these are included to assess whether the target behavior helps the child to adapt to the environment independently without
relying on particular tools, materials, or settings. In other words, goals should target behaviors that the child will need for his
or her daily activities across multiple environments. Goals that are functional would seek to improve children’s
communication skills so as to independently access their environments (e.g., ‘‘. . . produce the phoneme /r/ accurately in
spontaneous conversations in order to increase intelligibility. . .’’). However, according to the R-GORI, it is possible that these
same goals may not be considered generalizable if they include specifying the materials or settings in which the child will use
the skill (e.g., ‘‘In the speech room. . .’’, ‘‘When given 3 curriculum-based words. . .’’, ‘‘. . .while participating in drill activities’’).
Certainly, it is often necessary to include specific materials or settings within a goal based on a child’s individual needs. Thus,
a careful balance must be maintained to individualize a goal but ensure that the target behavior can be generalized into other
environments.
The fifth R-GORI indicator is applicable for short-term goals, namely Alignment with long-term goals. Short-term goals
should be written as building blocks to achieve the long-term goal. Pretti-Frontcak and Bricker (2000) found that only 13% of
short-term goals were written to show a hierarchical relationship with the long-term goal (importantly, this increased to
63% when teachers were provided explicit training for such alignment). For children with SSDs, alignment would be
observed if short-term goals serve to break down the target phonemes or phonological processes into the specific
communicative contexts in which the child should accurately produce them. As an example, if a sensory-motor long-term
goal was to produce /r/ in all positions of words in sentences, then an appropriate short-term goal may be to produce /r/ in
isolation; if a cognitive linguistic long-term goal was to improve production of fricative phonemes during structured play
activities, an appropriate short-term goal would be to improve production of fricative phonemes during single word
productions. Note that while the short-term goal does not need to explicitly state how it is related to the long-term goal, the
language used within the short-term goal should exhibit a clear relationship to the long-term goal.
The sixth and seventh R-GORI indicators examine the extent to which IEP goals address children’s Daily activities and are
Clearly written. IEP goals should be written such that other individuals (e.g., teachers, caregivers, personal assistants) can
provide multiple opportunities to practice the target behavior throughout the day, which requires the goal to be written
clearly without too much clinical jargon. Pretti-Frontcak and Bricker (2000) found that only 13–14% of IEP goals were written
in a way that made them easily accessible during the day and clear enough for other professionals/caregivers to understand
188 K. Farquharson et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 52 (2014) 184–195

and thus implement. Law, Garret, and Nye (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of intervention for children with speech and
language delays and found no significant difference between interventions that were administered by a trained parent
compared to a trained clinician. Given that parents or other professionals, when explicitly trained, can make a substantial
contribution to children’s gains in intervention, it is imperative that goals are written in a way that supports their
involvement. An example goal may be that the child produces a specific phoneme or class of phonemes (e.g., /f/; fricatives) in
a small linguistic context (e.g., at the beginning of words). Although there is limited empirical evidence about the ease with
which untrained persons may be able to discriminate a correct or incorrect phoneme, it can be assumed that single word
productions would be an easier context than conversational speech. However, because the knowledge and skills required to
target articulation abilities is so specific (e.g., discrimination of accurate phoneme production, knowledge of the anatomy
and physiology, etc.), it is likely that goals for children with SSDs would include a certain amount of professional jargon (e.g.,
phoneme, phonological processes, etc.) and would not be easily targeted by other team members. With this in mind, it is
unclear if this particular indicator will contribute relevant information for the population of children with speech sound
disorders. Thus, another aim of this study is to discuss the value of the R-GORI for children with SSD.

1.4. Goals of this study

Every child receiving school-based speech therapy services must have an IEP and the goals within that plan should clearly
delineate the foci of treatment. Given the level of regulatory and theoretical importance placed upon the IEP goals, it is
crucial to examine the current state of practice with respect to frameworks that may guide treatment and the nature of goal
quality. Additionally, in a field that is moving rapidly toward implementation science – examining best practices in clinical
settings to promote field-wide change (Redle, 2013), this descriptive study seeks to advance understanding of the nature and
quality of IEP goals as a key aspect of school-based speech therapy services for children with SSD. To this end, the aims of the
current study are threefold: (a) to describe the extent to which IEP goals used for children with SSDs reflect a cognitive-
linguistic versus sensory-motor theoretical basis for intervention, (b) to examine the quality of IEP goals for children with
SSDs, and (c) discuss the relevance of the R-GORI as a rating tool for goals for children with speech sound disorders.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Participants

Participants in this study were a subset of children enrolled in a larger study of speech-language therapy practices in the
public schools (n = 292). The purpose of the larger study was to examine relations between aspects of speech-language
therapy and child outcomes for primary school children with speech and language impairments. Speech language
pathologists were recruited from public schools in two Midwestern states and were consented at the beginning of academic
school years. Consented SLPs were asked to select 3–5 children with language impairments from their caseloads. The
primary population of focus within the larger study was children with language impairments. Because there is a substantial
overlap between the prevalence of language impairment and SSD (Shriberg et al., 1999), study selected children could also
have SSD. Child-level eligibility for the larger study required children to (a) be currently enrolled in kindergarten or first
grade (although a few second graders were enrolled because they were readily available for ascertainment), (b) be currently
receiving speech-language therapy in the school, (c) exhibit nonverbal cognition skills no less than two standard deviations
below the mean, as is common place for studying children with language disorders, in order to control for confounded effects
of a cognitive impairment (i.e., at or above 70 on the Matrices subtest of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second Edition;
KBIT-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1997; assessed by research staff; see Plante, 1998), (d) speak primarily English to ensure that
language related difficulties were not a result of second language acquisition, and (e) pass a bilateral hearing screening at
25 dB for 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz (American Speech Language Hearing Association, 1997). As part of that study, IEPs for each
child were provided to research staff for documentation of receipt of speech-language services and for coding of therapy
goals. Specifically, each child’s IEP was coded with respect to long-term goals and the associated short-term goals. For the
present purposes, a subset of children (n = 146) was purposefully selected so as to identify children being treated for SSDs.
In order to select this subsample, the first two authors reviewed the IEP goals of all children in the larger study, which
targeted kindergarten, first, and second grade children, and identified the children who had at least one speech sound
production goal (n = 146). Because the purpose of the present study was to examine goals that targeted speech production
skills, any child with such a goal was included in the analysis, regardless of the number or type of other IEP goals (note that
some states support children receiving speech and language services under a 504 plan; however, all children in our sample
received services within an IEP). Additionally, comorbidities of speech production and language impairments are
representative of an actual school-based caseload and thus allows for clinically relevant results and conclusions. Therefore,
within this subset, 41 children had goals targeting only speech sound production, and 105 children had goals targeting
speech sound production and other areas of language (e.g., grammar, vocabulary). Only the goals targeting speech sound
production were included in the current study. Across the 146 children, there were 147 long-term goals and 490 short-term
goals related to speech sound production. The number of short-term speech sound goals on children’s IEPs ranged from 1 to
10, with a mean of 3.34 (SD = 1.6). Hereafter, study procedures describe only this subsample of children (n = 146), all of whom
had IEPs stipulating goals in the area of speech sound production.
 K. Farquharson et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 52 (2014) 184–195 189

The children had a mean age of 76.4 months (SD = 8.02; range = 60.22–96.13) at the beginning of the school year, and
included 95 boys and 51 girls. All children were in kindergarten (n = 52), first grade (n = 89), or second grade (n = 5). Most of
the student participants were Non-Hispanic Caucasian (63%); however, other races and ethnicities were also represented,
including African-American (8.2%), Asian (2.1%), Hispanic/Latino (5.5%) and other (4.8%; 16.4% did not provide this
information). Information about the highest level of education achieved by the child’s mother was gathered as a measure of
socioeconomic status (SES). Of those participants who responded (14.4%, n = 21 did not respond), a range of SES levels were
represented in this group, with 5.5% (n = 8) having earned an advanced or professional degree, 3.4% (n = 5) with one year of
coursework beyond an undergraduate degree, 19.9% (n = 29) having earned their undergraduate degree, 36.3% (n = 53)
having completed some college coursework, 11% (n = 16) having completed high school, and 9.6% (n = 14) without a high
school diploma.

2.2. Procedure

2.2.1. Theoretical framework

The first research question of the current study focused on determining the theoretical approach to speech sound
intervention, as reflected in the IEP goals. As noted previously, although numerous theoretical models exist to inform speech
sound therapy, most can be classified broadly as adhering to either cognitive-linguistic or sensory-motor approach (Gierut,
1998). Therefore, the first two authors developed criteria for determining whether a goal would be considered cognitive-
linguistic or sensory-motor in nature. Cognitive-linguistic goals included those that were written from a phonological
perspective (e.g., child will reduce the phonological process of fronting), as those indicated a need to address errors in the child’s
broader system of phonological patterns and organization. Goals representing a sensory-motor approach included those that
were written to address specific phonemic or syllabic production errors (e.g., child will produce /f/), or underscored the
connection between auditory models and speech production (e.g., child will identify his/her correct and incorrect productions
without a cue) as those indicated particular motoric, or articulatory deficits. Note that the goal coding scheme was based
solely on the way in which it was written on the IEP; the authors acknowledge that this may not necessarily reflect the
clinicians’ planned therapy approach or theoretical stance. Additionally, it is entirely possible for a goal to be written such
that it reflects both a cognitive-linguistic and sensory-motor framework (e.g., The child will increase the production of velar
sounds through clear articulation of /k, g/ phonemes in initial and final positions with 80% accuracy during a short story retell’’). No
instances of this occurred in our sample.

2.2.2. Goal quality

The R-GORI was utilized in the present study to determine the overall quality of IEP goals for school-age children with
SSDs with respect to six indicators for long-term goals (and a 7th indicator that applies to short-term goals only):
observability, measurability, functionality, generalizability, alignment with long-term goals (applicable to short-term goals
only), daily-task relevance, and clarity of goals such that other professionals can assist in addressing them. To guide the
assessment of those seven indicators, the R-GORI instrument provides seven questions (see Table 1) for coders to answer
specific to a given goal, scored dichotomously (1 = the goal is representative of that indicator, 0 = the goal is not
representative of that indicator). When used as a rating tool, IEPs with a higher summed score (e.g., maximum score of 6 for
long-term goals and 7 for short-term goals) are considered to be of superior quality relative to IEPs with a lower summed
score. Table 1 provides a full description of the questions used to determine if each goal positively represented each indicator
and examples of goals that received a ‘‘1’’ or a ‘‘0’’ for the given indicator (note that portions of the goal that are bolded
specifically align with the given indicator).

2.2.3. Reliability
For both the theoretical framework and quality coding schemes, both coders worked together to code a random selection
of 20 goals to achieve internal consistency. During this time, the questions in Table 1 were reviewed and applied to the
20 randomly selected goals. Goals that reflected, or did not reflect, a good example of the theoretical framework or a quality
indicator was chosen to be referenced later for recalibration. A test sample of 10 goals was then coded independently to
determine reliability. Coders were 95% accurate across both coding schemes (i.e., theoretical framework and quality). Once
independent coding began, coders met one time to review the questions and example goals for recalibration. Each coder was
responsible for reviewing the questions and example goals at the beginning of each independent coding session, or any time
an individual coder had a question about a specific goal.
To ensure the validity of the coding schemes used for both the theoretical framework and R-GORI ratings, 20% of the IEP
goals were randomly selected and coded independent of the initial coding that had occurred. ‘‘Double coding,’’ in which the
same goal was scored by 2 independent individuals and the reliability determined, has been previously implemented at a
lower rates of 6–10% of items (e.g., Cabell et al., 2011; Conti-Ramsden, Simkin, & Pickles, 2006; Justice et al., 2006; Kaderavek
& Justice, 2010). Because our rating tool had not previously been employed for this particular population of children, we
chose a conservative benchmark of 20% in order to capture possible differences between coders. Specifically, the first author
double-coded 20% of the second author’s initial goals and the second author double-coded 20% of the first author’s initial
goals. With respect to the theoretical framework coding, inter-rater (exact) agreement was 92%. With respect to the R-GORI
indicators, overall agreement was 87%, similar to prior uses of this tool (Pretti-Frontcak & Bricker, 2000). Per indicator,
190 K. Farquharson et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 52 (2014) 184–195

inter-rater agreement for all double-coded goals was 89% for observability, 97% for measurability, 87% for functionality, 81% for
generalizability, 85% for hierarchical relationships (short-term goals only), 81% for daily task relevance, and 56% for clarity of
goals. All double-coded goals for which there was not agreement were discussed by the first two authors to reach a final
score. Specifically, the first author examined double-coded goals and found all disagreements. Those goals were then
discussed between the first and second author, along with a review of the coding scheme. Consensus was always achieved
quickly and the final agreed upon goal score (e.g., 1 or 0 for the affected indicator) was the score used for analysis and
reported here. The low reliability for the clarity of goals indicator was not entirely surprising. One plausible explanation for
this is that the R-GORI was originally designed for classroom-based special education IEP goals and not goals specific to
speech and language therapy. Thus, this particular indicator may be difficult to capture due to the jargon frequently used in
the field of speech-language pathology, which may be unfamiliar to other professionals and to parents. An example of a goal
for which there was a disagreement regarding clarity was: Within one school calendar year, the child will produce appropriate
sound patterns for the velar sounds (k/g) and at least 2 different strident sounds (s, f, v, sh or ch) with 80% accuracy. In particular,
the terms ‘‘velar’’ and ‘‘strident’’ were determined to be jargon that would likely be unclear to other professionals or
untrained parents, even though the specific phonemes are also included in parentheses. Additional explanations for the
between-coder discrepancies may be a result of differences in training, familiarity and exposure to children with SSD,
background knowledge of IEP goals, goal-writing training, and specific approaches used for treatment of SSD. As with any
other study that employs coding schemes that may have a level of opacity, we engaged in extensive discussions and planning
during training, recalibration of coders, and reliability checks to account for these inevitable differences and human error.

3. Results

The purpose of the current study was to describe the current state of practice for writing IEP goals for children with SSDs.
Specifically, we examined the extent to which IEP goals for children with SSDs reflected a cognitive-linguistic versus sensory-
motor theoretical framework, and we examined the overall quality of children’s IEP goals using the R-GORI. We also
considered the appropriateness of the R-GORI as a rating tool to be applied to IEP goals specific to speech sound production,
which will be addressed in Section 4.
In total, 147 long-term goals and 490 short-term goals related to speech sound production were coded for this study. On
average, each child had 1.89 (SD = 2.04, range = 1–10) total speech sound production goals on his/her IEP (long- and short-
term goals combined), and 3.33 short-term goals (SD = 1.52, range = 1–9). Examples of cognitive-linguistic and sensory-
motor long-term goals, respectively, included: (a) Given a speaking prompt or topic, student will produce targeted phonemes/
phonologic processes in words, at sentence level, with 80% accuracy, on 3/ 4 trials and (b) Student will produce his target sounds s, s
blends, l, l blends, sh and ch when reading simple 1st grade reading passages with 70% accuracy by fourth quarter of first grade
(please note that the goals shared here are taken verbatim from IEPs and may not reflect specific conventions, such as using
phoneme slashes or phonetic fonts). Examples of cognitive-linguistic and sensory-motor, short-term goals, respectively,
included: (a) Student will reduce the use of stopping (making a continuing sound a stopped sound, ‘‘pour’’ for ‘‘four’’) with 80%
accuracy and minimal cueing and (b) Student will say the s sound in all positions of words in phrases with 90% accuracy.

3.1. Theoretical framework

The first aim of this study was to explore long- and short-term goals with respect to the governing theoretical framework.
Of the 147 long-term goals examined, 78 (53%) were written from a cognitive-linguistic perspective (i.e., targeting the
broader phonological system) and 69 (46%) were from a sensory-motor perspective (i.e., targeting individual phonemes or
syllables). For the 490 short-term goals reviewed, 63 (12%) were written from a cognitive-linguistic perspective whereas 423
(88%) were written from a sensory-motor perspective. What should be apparent from these values is that there are occasions
in which a cognitive-linguistic framework is used for setting long-term goals, but sensory-motor goals are used for short-
term goals. Combining all types of goals together, 22% (n = 141) reflected a cognitive-linguistic framework and 78% (n = 492)
reflected a sensory-motor perspective.

3.2. Quality ratings

The R-GORI total obtainable score for long-term goals is 6 and for short-term goals is 7 (recall that short-term goals have
an additional indicator that examines the alignment between it and the long-term goal). Long-term goals had an average
score of 2.86 (SD = 1.96, range = 0–6). Short-term goals had an average score of 3.32 (SD = 1.71, range = 0–7). Table 2 shows the
percentage of long-term and short-term goals that were rated positively for each individual quality rating.
As can be seen in Table 2, the number of goals that exhibited each indicator was variable. For example, 88.6% of the long-
term goals were coded as functional, but only 44.9% of them were measurable. Similarly, 88% of short-term goals were coded
as observable, but only 30.4% of them were considered clear (e.g., able to be taught by various team members). We explored
the relation between quality ratings as a function of theoretical framework, focusing on the long-term goals, which were
evenly distributed to represent both cognitive-linguistic and sensory-motor. Theoretical framework and quality indicators
were cross-tabulated and a chi-square test was run to examine any significant relations. Long-term goals that were written
from a sensory-motor framework were more likely to be rated positively on the observability (x2 = 23.55, p < .01),
 K. Farquharson et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 52 (2014) 184–195 191

Table 2
Percentage of long-term and short-term IEP goals rated positively for each R-GORI indicator.

Indicator % of long-term goals % of short-term goals

Observability 48.3 88.0

Measurability 44.9 55.2
Functionality 88.6 90.2
Generalizability 68.0 77.5
Aligns with long-term goals – 87.7
Daily Tasks 29.3 45.1
Clarity of goals 14.3 30.4

Note: The indicator ‘‘Aligns with long-term goals’’ is only applied to the short-term goals.

measurability (x2 = 18.71, p < .01), daily tasks (x2 = 8.06, p < .01), and clarity of goals (x2 = 14.79, p < .01) quality indicators.
There was no significant relation between theoretical framework and the functionality and generalizability quality indicators
(x2 = 2.01, p = .16; x2 = 0.53, p = .47, respectively).

4. Discussion

The present investigation describes the current state of practice for IEP goal writing for children with SSDs, including the
theoretical framework for long-term and short-term goal development and the quality of these goals as measured by an IEP
quality rating tool, the R-GORI. We will discuss four primary findings: (a) sensory-motor was a dominant framework within
short-term goals, whereas there was no dominant theoretical framework identified with respect to long-term goals; (b)
long-term goals that were written from a sensory-motor framework were more likely to be rated positively for Observability,
Measurability, Daily Tasks, and Clarity of Goals; (c) two indicators (i.e., Daily Tasks and Clarity of Goals) were consistently rated
low for long- and short-term goals; and (d) two indicators (i.e., Functionality and Generalizability) were consistently rated
high for all speech production goals.
The first major finding was that the short-term goals evaluated in the present study were primarily written within a
sensory-motor framework. This framework is conducive to the identification of a specific phoneme or groups of phonemes
that can be mastered at a particular criterion level. This suggests that in order to implement immediate, noticeable change,
SLPs may rely more heavily on a sensory-motor approach that focuses on the individual phoneme production. Convergently,
SLPs have reported that they are more familiar with and primarily use sensory-motor intervention approaches (Kamhi, 2006;
Mann Brumbaugh & Smit, 2013) compared to cognitive-linguistic approaches. Based on this notion and previous work by
Gierut (1998), it was assumed that these two frameworks are different. However, the data suggest that they may, in fact, be
complementary. Specifically, the complementary nature of sensory-motor and cognitive-linguistic frameworks may allow
for SLPs to target individual sounds while employing a broader linguistic-based approach. Previous research also supports
the interrelatedness of cognitive-linguistic and sensory-motor approaches (Joffee & Pring, 2008; Kamhi, 2006; Lancaster,
Kuesch, Levin, Pring, & Martin, 2010). Additionally, as data related to the SLPs’ individual theoretical stances and planned
therapy approaches were unavailable, it may also be that goals are written the same way across all IEPs, and then specific
therapy approaches are applied during therapy sessions as appropriate for each child or group of children.
We must also note that we saw no consistent theoretical approach used to write long-term goals. This may be an artifact
of the nature of short-term goals requiring more specificity and long-term goals encompassing a broader view of treatment.
Additionally, the lack of a dominant framework for writing long-term goals is consistent with current literature suggesting
that SLPs most commonly use an eclectic approach to treatment (Fey, 1992; Joffee & Pring, 2008; Kamhi, 2006; Lancaster
et al., 2010). That is, although long-term goals appear to be written from cognitive-linguistic and sensory-motor frameworks
with the same frequency, perhaps the fact that one framework was not favored over another indicates that the approaches
used within therapy are eclectic based on the needs of the child and the individuality of IEP goals. Although the difference
between the theoretical frameworks for long- and short-term goals may indicate a discrepancy between how goals are
written, it is also plausible that the unique needs of individual children require this type of tailoring (American Speech
Language Hearing Association, 2004).
Second, we expanded upon this finding by examining the relation between theoretical framework and quality indicators
and found that long-term goals were more likely to be rated positively for Observability, Measurability, Daily Tasks, and Clarity
of goals if they were written from a sensory-motor framework. As noted earlier, research suggests that SLPs are more
comfortable and familiar with sensory-motor based treatment approaches (Kamhi, 2006), and our data provide further
evidence to that point. However, it is also plausible that many SLPs utilize a sensory-motor framework for goal-writing in
order to create a goal with concrete target behaviors that are more easily measured. As we found in the current investigation,
goals that were written from a cognitive-linguistic framework (e.g., focused on phonological patterns) often had target
behaviors that were difficult to observe or quantify (e.g., ‘‘will increase intelligibility’’, ‘‘will use age-appropriate phonology’’,
‘‘will speak clearly’’). These target behaviors do not necessarily reflect a cognitive-linguistic framework in isolation;
however, in the present sample these phrases and behaviors were only seen paired with goals that were coded as cognitive-
linguistic in nature. Thus, writing a goal from a sensory-motor perspective allows for SLPs to outline specific phonemes that
192 K. Farquharson et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 52 (2014) 184–195

will be the foci of treatment (e.g., ‘‘. . .will correctly produce the phonemes /k, g, f, v/ in initial positions of words. . .’’).
Although cognitive-linguistic goals can certainly be written in a manner that provides a specific foci of treatment (e.g.,
‘‘. . .will increase production of final consonants from 0% to 30%. . .), by and large that was not the case in our sample. Perhaps
SLPs write goals to make treatment targets evident while allowing for the use of a range of treatment approaches.
The third major finding was that regardless of the theoretical framework, ratings for the indicators of Daily Tasks and
Clarity of Goals yielded notably lower quality scores for both long- and short-term goals. This is in line with previous research,
which found that only 13% of IEP goals for preschool children with disabilities were written for a variety of settings that could
be targeted by various team members (Pretti-Frontcak & Bricker, 2000). The purpose of including these indicators on the
quality rating scale is to ensure that the range of people involved in the child’s progress (specialists, teachers, parents) could
play an active role in helping the child to achieve his goals. However, including target behaviors that can be practiced in daily
tasks or targeted by multiple professionals may not be an appropriate quality metric of IEP goals for children with SSD.
Facilitating accurate speech sound production is a skill that is unique to the specialty of speech-language pathology.
Appropriately addressing speech sound stimulation and production requires knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of
the speech mechanism, as well as an in-depth understanding of how sounds are similar (e.g., from the same sound class, such
as fricatives, or made in the same location of the mouth, such as alveolar sounds). Parents and teachers are not necessarily
expected to have this knowledge and thus are not prepared to provide the level of coaching and prompting necessary to teach
accurate placement of the articulators without explicit training.
The fourth major finding was that, rather consistently, most IEP goals (both long- and short-term, both cognitive-
linguistic and sensory-motor) were rated as being Functional and Generalizable. This is in contrast to previous research
highlighting a lack of functionality and generalizability to IEP goals written by early childhood special educators (Boavida
et al., 2010; Pretti-Frontcak & Bricker, 2000). It is likely that the current results are a function of the content area of the goals
themselves (i.e., communication). The ability to speak clearly is inherently a functional goal that would be useful, if not
required, within most daily activities and across many settings and communication partners. These findings reiterate the fact
that speech production goals are inherently functional and generalizable in nature; therefore, it is critical that priority is
given to writing quality goals for these children. Communication is clearly an important construct to target, thus the
profession must ensure that goals are written in such a way that supports effective practices.
In general, short-term goals were rated higher than long-term goals across all indicators. For example, the indicator for
Observability was also rated as rather low for long-term goals but was high for short-term goals. It is possible that this is a
function of short-term goals, which by their very nature favor specificity. This may also be related to part of the first major
finding, which was that most short-term goals were written from a sensory-motor framework. The sensory-motor
framework focuses on individual phonemes, which typically makes the target behavior within a goal more observable (e.g.,
will produce the phoneme /r/) than the target behavior from a cognitive-linguistic goal (e.g., will eliminate the process of final
consonant deletion). Further, the majority of short-term goals were in alignment with long-term goals. One example of a
short-term goal that did not align was ‘‘. . . will achieve appropriate oral motor placement’’, paired with the long-term goal of
‘‘. . .will improve her intelligibility by correctly producing target sounds at the word level 25% of the time with cues’’. Findings
related to the relationships between long- and short-term goals raise an interesting issue. Specifically, future research is
needed to examine the possible reciprocal contributions of these goals and whether or not SLPs should apply this rating
system to their daily practice. That is, until these or similar data are examined with respect to student outcomes, it is unclear
how the relationship between long- and short-term goals may impact clinical practice.
As a final step in our project, we wanted to informally evaluate the use of the R-GORI as a tool to rate IEP goals written to
address speech production. The R-GORI was designed to evaluate IEP goals for children receiving special education services
in public schools – but not specifically speech and language therapy services. As we have outlined, the R-GORI has served as
an informative tool for an initial examination of IEP goals for children with speech sound disorders. However, it may not
provide adequate coding for speech therapy goals, given the specific skill set necessary for targeting speech production
behaviors. Thus, a future direction of this research would be to develop a more appropriate measure that SLPs can use in daily
practice, or can be used to help train graduate student clinicians. In addition, clinical service provision requires a host of
child-specific decisions that ultimately lead to treatment goals and specific intervention techniques. The aim of the current
study was not to investigate the role of the nature of the speech sound disorder on the quality of the goal, rather to examine
how goals are written currently in business-as-usual treatment.

4.1. Clinical implications

The primary purpose of the present investigation was to examine the linkages between research and clinical practice with
respect to the current state of IEP goal writing. In doing so, we provide a model for clinicians to consider their own practices
and encourage a step toward implementation science. Collectively, the results from the present study have three primary,
clinically relevant implications. First, there is a need to consider the importance of aligning long- and short-term goals and
whether this might improve the efficacy of treatment. Clinicians should consider whether there is cohesion among the goals
that they develop for students with SSDs. Second, there is a need to improve the overall quality of goals in some key areas.
Specifically, allowing other professionals to assist with the implementation of the goals (i.e., quality indicators Daily Tasks
and Clarity of Goals) is key to carryover and generalization of skills. Recent reports have suggested that the quality of
intervention provided by SLPs is directly related to time pressures and job satisfaction (Biancone, Farquharson, Justice,
 K. Farquharson et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 52 (2014) 184–195 193

Schmitt, & Logan, 2014). One plausible solution to relieving those time pressures, and thus improving the quality of
intervention, is to include teachers and caregivers in order to foster a collaborative approach to supporting communication
skills (see Table 1 for examples). Of course, writing goals to support this type of collaboration is but the first step; strong
communication and facilitation is necessary to truly create a partnership that results in improved student outcomes. Third,
there is a need to focus specifically on the quality of long-term goals. The highest quality long-term goals were ones that were
written from a sensory-motor framework, which specifically highlighted target behaviors to be addressed. Cognitive-
linguistic goals were more abstract and thus more difficult to determine an observable behavior that could be measured.
Indeed, this study indicates that both theoretical frameworks are necessary for goal writing, and our field should continue to
investigate best-practices for designing quality goals.

4.2. Limitations and future directions

There are several limitations to the current study. First, we do not know the underlying cause of the speech sound
disorders for which each of these IEPs was written. Because one of the aims of the present study was to explore the current
frameworks used in IEP goal writing, we did not attempt to determine the appropriateness of the goal for any particular child.
That is, we did not examine data relative to the type of speech sound disorder a child had (e.g., articulation-based or
phonological-based). Future studies should make this link in order to further explore the ways SLPs make decisions relative
to IEP goal writing. Along similar lines, our second limitation is that we do not know the exact treatment approach that SLPs
chose to use within treatment. We have assumed that the goals are written in a way that supports a particular approach, but
those data have not yet been examined. Third, we do not know the method by which the goals in the current study were
written. Many school-districts have begun to adopt web-based IEP writing programs that may limit SLPs ability to customize
goals to accurately match a child’s individual needs. Although we do not have data related to the extent to which this
happened in our sample, technology should not override the clinician’s ability to develop clear high quality goals (Lobach,
Sanders, & Bright, 2012). Relatedly, we do not know the specific training received by each individual SLP related to goal
writing. Perhaps sensory-motor goal structure is the primary example taught, resulting in the majority of short-term
objectives written in that manner. Finally, an alternative explanation to our findings is that although this broad theoretical
dichotomy has been empirically supported (Gierut, 1998; Kamhi, 2006), it is possible that using only these two frameworks
to code IEP goals is not sensitive enough to capture the nuances that SLPs incorporate into their goal writing strategies. That
is, all approaches, whether cognitive-linguistic or sensory-motor, focus on individual phoneme production at some level.
This could make it reasonable and appropriate for short-term goals to be written primarily from a sensory-motor framework.
In order to best support practicing SLPs, it is necessary that we examine the function of these two frameworks to determine
their relevance to clinical practice. Additionally, as mentioned previously, this dichotomous framework does not incorporate
all possible therapy approaches or theoretical models. In particular, the psycholinguistic model (Stackhouse & Wells, 1997)
focuses on both speech output and input. While none of the goals in our present sample focused on speech input, it would be
prudent to consider the incorporation of such goals for future research. Future work should not only address these specific
limitations, but also explore the extent to which IEP goals align with treatment approaches for children with SSD, and
eventually how those treatment approaches affect child outcomes. Importantly, however, the present study strongly
suggests that future work understanding the extent to which theory may best inform clinical practice is warranted.

Acknowledgements

We thank the following funding source as well as participant recruitment support: R324A090012 from the U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, to Laura M. Justice.

Financial and Non-financial Disclosures

The authors acknowledge the funding source R324A090012 from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, to Laura M. Justice. The authors have no nonfinancial relationships to disclose.

Appendix A. Continuing education

CEU Questions

1. Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) outline the treatment goals and frequency of services for children who receive
special education services within the United States: True/False
2. Identify the two predominant frameworks used to dichotomize theories of phonological treatment:
a. Sensory-motor and sensory-oral
b. Sensory-motor and cognitive-linguistic
c. Phonological and articulation
d. Cognitive-linguistic and sensory-oral
194 K. Farquharson et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 52 (2014) 184–195

3. Indicators from the R-GORI that were consistently rated high for children with speech sound disorders are:
a. Observability and functionality
b. Functionality and generalizability
c. Measurability and generalizability
d. Daily Tasks and functionality
4. Overall, short-term goals were rated as cognitive-linguistic: True/False
5. Long-term goals that were written from a sensory-motor framework were more likely to be rated positively for
observability, measurability, daily tasks and:
a. Functionality
b. Generalizability
c. Clarity of goals
d. Alignment

References

Anthony, J. L., Aghara, R. G., Dunkelberger, M. J., Anthony, T. L., Williams, J. M., & Zhang, Z. (2011). What factors place children with speech-sound disorder at risk
for reading problems? American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 20, 146–160.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2012). 2012 schools survey report: SLP caseload characteristics. Available from www.asha.org/research/
memberdata/schoolssurvey/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2004). Preferred practice patterns for the profession of speech-language pathology.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (1997). Guidelines for audiologic screening. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
Biancone, T. L., Farquharson, K., Justice, L. M., Schmitt, M. B., & Logan, J. A. R. (2014). Quality of language intervention provided to primary-grade students with
language intervention. Journal of Communication Disorders, 49, 13–24.
Boavida, T., Aguiar, C., McWilliam, R. A., & Pimentel, J. A. (2010). Quality of individualized education program goals of preschoolers with disabilities. Infants &
Young Children, 23, 233–243.
Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Piasta, S. B., Curenton, S. M., Wiggins, A., Turnbull, K. P., & Petscher, Y. (2011). The Impact of Teacher Responsivity Education on
Preschoolers’ Language and Literacy Skills. Am J Speech Lang Pathol., 20, 315–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0104)
Catone, W. V., & Brady, S. A. (2005). The inadequacy of Individual Educational Program (IEP) goals for high school students with word-level reading difficulties.
Annals of Dyslexia, 55, 53–78.
Christle, C. A., & Yell, M. L. (2010). Individualized education programs: Legal requirements and research findings. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 18,
109–123.
Conti-Ramsden, G., Simkin, Z., & Pickles, A. (2006). Estimating Familial Loading in SLI: A Comparison of Direct Assessment Versus Parental Interview. J Speech Lang
Hear Res., 49, 88–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/007)
Drasgow, E., Yell, M. L., & Robinson, T. R. (2001). Developing legally correct and educationally appropriate IEPs. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 359–373.
Felsenfeld, S., Broen, P. A., & McGue, M. (1994). A 28-year follow-up of adults with a history of moderate phonological disorder: Educational and occupational
results. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 1341–1353.
Fey, M. E. (1992). Articulation and Phonology: Inextricable constructs in speech pathology. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 225–232.
Gierut, J. (1998). Treatment efficacy: Functional phonological disorders in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, S85–S100.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004). 20 United States Code § 1400 et seq. Available from www.idea.ed.gov
Kamhi, A. G. (2006). Treatment decisions for children with speech-sound disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 271–279.
Joffee, V., & Pring, T. (2008). Children with phonological problems: A survey of clinical practice. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 43,
154–164.
Justice, L. M., Bowles, R. P., Kaderavek, J. N., Ukrainetz, T. A., Eisenberg, S. L., & Gillam, R. B. (2006). The Index of Narrative Microstructure: A Clinical Tool for
Analyzing School-Age Children’s Narrative Performances. Am J Speech Lang Pathol., 15, 177–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2006/017)
Kaderavek, J. N., & Justice, L. M. (2010). Fidelity: An Essential Component of Evidence-Based Practice in Speech-Language Pathology. Am J Speech Lang Pathol., 19,
369–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0097)
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1997). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second edition. Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson.
Kurth, J., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2010). Individual education plan goals and services for adolescents with autism: Impact of age and educational setting. The Journal
of Special Education, 44, 146–160.
Lancaster, G., Kuesch, S., Levin, A., Pring, T., & Martin, S. (2010). Treating children with phonological problems: Does an eclectic approach to therapy work?
International Journal of Communication Disorders, 45, 174–181.
Larrivee, L., & Catts, H. W. (1999). Early reading achievement in children with expressive phonological disorders. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 8,
118–128.
Law, J., Garrett, Z., & Nye, C. (2004). The efficacy of treatment for children with developmental speech and language delay/disorder: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 924–943.
Lewis, B. A., Avrich, A. A., Freebairn, L. A., Hansen, A. J., Sucheston, L. E., Kuo, I., et al. (2011). Literacy outcomes of children with early childhood speech sound
disorders: Impact of endophenotypes. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 54, 1628–1643.
Lewis, B. A., Freebairn, L. A., Hansen, A. J., Iyengar, S. K., & Taylor, H. G. (2004). School-Age Follow-Up of Children With Childhood Apraxia of Speech. Lang Speech
Hear Serv Sch., 35, 122–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2004/014)
Lewis, B. A., Freebairn, L. A., Hansen, A., Stein, C. M., Shriberg, L. D., Iyengar, S. K., et al. (2006). Dimensions of early speech sound disorders: A factor analytic study.
Journal of Communication Disorders, 39, 139–157.
Lobach, D., Sanders, G. D., & Bright, T. J. (2012). Enabling health care decision-making through clinical decision support and knowledge management. Evidence
Report/Technology Assessment, 203, 1–784.
Mann Brumbaugh, K., & Smit, A. B. (2013). Treating children ages 3–6 who have speech sound disorder: A survey. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
44, 306–319.
McLeod, S., & Bleile, K. (2004). The ICF: A framework for setting goals for children with speech impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 20, 199–219.
Mullen, R., & Schooling, T. (2010). The National Outcomes Measurement System for pediatric speech-language pathology. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 41, 44–60.
Notari, A. R. (1988). The utility of a criterion-reference instrument in the development of the individualized education plan goals for infants and young children
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon.
Overby, M. S., Trainin, G., Smit, A. B., Bernthal, J. E., & Nelson, R. (2012). Preliteracy speech sound production skill and later literacy outcomes: A study using the
Templin Archive. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 43, 97–115.
Plante, E. (1998). Criteria for SLI: The Stark and Tallal legacy and beyond. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, 951–957.
Pretti-Frontcak, K., & Bricker, D. (2000). Enhancing the quality of individualized education plan (IEP) goals and objectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 92–105.
 K. Farquharson et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 52 (2014) 184–195 195

Redle, E. E. (2013). Improving practice through implementation science and knowledge translation. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/academic/questions/
Improving-Practice-Through-Implementation-Science-and-Knowledge-Translation/?utm_source=asha&utm_medium=enewsletter&utm_campaign=acces-
sar120513
Ruble, L., & McGrew, J. H. (2013). Teacher and child predictors of achieving IEP goals of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1884-x
Shriberg, L. D., Austin, D., Lewis, B. A., McSweeny, J. L., & Wilson, D. L. (1997). The Speech Disorders Classification System (SDCS): Extensions and lifespan reference
data. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 723–740.
Shriberg, L. D., & Kwiatkowski, J. (1988). A follow-up study of children with phonologic disorders of unknown origin. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53,
144–155.
Shriberg, L. D., Tomblin, J. B., & McSweeney, J. L. (1999). Prevalence of speech delay in 6-year-old children and comorbidity with language impairment. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 1461–1481.
Stackhouse, J., & Wells, B. (1997). Children’s speech and literacy difficulties: A psycholinguistic framework. London: Whurr Publishers.
U.S. Department of Education, & Individualized Education Program (IEP) (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Available from http://idea.ed.gov/
explore/view/p/,root,dynamic, TopicalBrief, 10.
Yell, M. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2003). Developing legally and educationally meaningful IEPs using curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective
Intervention, 28, 73–88.