Pediatric Initial Evaluation Report

Speech-Language Diagnostic Evaluation Report
NAME: D (full name redacted) SCHOOL: redacted

DATE OF BIRTH: redacted CHRONOLOGICAL AGE: 3;7
TEACHER: Ms. Penny GRADE: Preschool
EXAMINER: Redacted EVALUATION DATE: 9/28/17
HISTORY INFORMATION:
D, a three-year, seven-month-old male, was seen for a speech and language assessment at
the [school name redacted] on September 28, 2017. Students at [school name redacted]
were evaluated as a part of a program for high-risk preschoolers.
Additional information from D’s family, teacher, or medical history was not attained.
ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
HEARING SCREENING:
D’s hearing was not screened at the time of assessment.
ORAL MOTOR STRUCTURE/FUNCTION:

A thorough oral-facial examination was not completed; however, D’s face, mouth, and
mandible (jaw) appeared symmetrical. His lips remained closed at rest, and there was no
evidence of a repaired cleft lip or additional inhibitory scar tissue.
ARTICULATION EVALUATION:
The Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–3 (GFTA-3) was administered as a formal
assessment of D’s articulation of consonant sounds at word level. During the GFTA-3, the
student spontaneously or imitatively produces a single-word label after looking at pictures.
Performance on this measure aides in diagnosis of a speech sound disorder, which is
difficulty with sound production or delayed phonological processes. The former affects a
specific speech sound in all word positions. In example, an individual with a phonetic error
during the production of “s” will present this error in initial (“soft”), medial (“blessing”),
and final position (“looks”). A phonological process simplifies adult speech through errors
in patterns of sounds. Examples include consistently substituting difficult consonants (“r”)
with ones that are easier to produce (“w”) or reducing/deleting the consonant cluster, or
blend (“str” to just “t”). The speech sounds are produced accurately but are not organized
correctly within the individual’s speech. While most of these types of errors are considered
normal during language acquisition, all are typically suppressed gradually in children’s
speech during the ages of 3-5 years.
The GFTA-3 provides standardized scores with a mean score of 100, and a standard
deviation of 15. Standard scores between 85 and 115 are considered to be within the
typical range. A standard score of 100 was obtained for D, which falls within normal limits.
The following errors were noted:

Initial Medial Final
“p” – pig, pajamas “g” - tiger “s” - house
“q” - quack “r” - giraffe “sh” - fish
“d” - drum “t” - vegetable “f” - leaf
“v” - vacuum “l” - yellow “ch” - watch
“l” - lion “th” - brother
“r” – ring, red
“sl” - slide
“sh” - shovel
“tr” - truck
“pl” - plate
None of these speech sound errors were present consistently in D’s speech. These sounds
were elicited correctly in other opportunities during the assessment. The most common
phonological process was gliding: substituting “y” or “w” for “r” or “l.” However, this
process only presented in 21% of the total opportunities, and gliding is one of the last
processes to be suppressed at 5 years of age. Therefore, this phonological process is not a
cause for concern. These results indicated average articulation skills with no disordered or
delayed phonological processes present.
LANGUAGE EVALUATION:
Formal and informal evaluation measures were used to evaluate D’s language skills.
Language was informally assessed during a 5-minute play sample.
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4) was administered to assess
receptive vocabulary. This formal evaluation measures only words that D comprehends.
The student is asked to point to the appropriate visual representation of the target word
from a field of four on a stimulus book. The PPVT-4 provides standardized scores with a
mean score of 100, and a standard deviation of 15. Standard scores between 85 and 115
are considered to be within the typical range. A standard score of 68 was obtained for D,
falling more than 2 standard deviations below the mean. D incorrectly identified
vocabulary from all categories: nouns, attributes, and present participles (-ing ending that
accompanies a form of “to be”). The results from the PPVT-4 indicated below-average
receptive vocabulary skills.
VOICE EVALUATION:
Informal evaluation measures were used to assess the student’s voice quality, and D
exhibited normal voice quality.
FLUENCY EVALUATION:
An informal evaluation of fluency indicated a normal speaking rate for D during the
evaluation.
DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS:
D demonstrated appropriate articulation skills as evidenced by a standard score within
normal limits on the GFTA-3. He exhibited impaired receptive vocabulary skills
characterized by a score of more than 2 standard deviations below the mean on the PPVT-4.
Therefore, D is able to produce intelligible speech, but understanding core vocabulary
words is an area of need. Additional formal testing and analysis of the language sample
should be completed in order to ascertain ability in other areas of his receptive and
expressive language.
PROGNOSIS:
Prognosis for D’s improvement in language abilities with treatment is good, provided his
continued participation and motivation. In addition to intervention, he will also have a
language-rich learning environment at school and extensive support from his classroom
teachers.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Courtney Karasinski, Ph.D., CCC-SLP [student name redacted]
Speech-Language Pathologist Student Clinician

Pediatric Initial Evaluation Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pediatric Initial Evaluation Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pediatric Initial Evaluation Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Speech-Language Diagnostic Evaluation Report

NAME: D (full name redacted) SCHOOL: redacted

ORAL MOTOR STRUCTURE/FUNCTION:

The following errors were noted:

You might also like