Initial
SPEECH EVALUATION
NAME: Female Student CA:
SCHOOL: School DOB:
TEST DATE:
EVALUATOR: REPORT DATE:
REASON FOR REFERRAL:
Student was referred for a speech-language evaluation of her speech articulation skills. Student is not currently in speech and language therapy at School. The present assessment is part of an evaluation to determine if speech services are required. This evaluation will report Student’s levels to determine if she is eligible for services. The team reported Student has difficulty with speaking clearly.
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS:
Student listened carefully to instructions and asked for repetitions when appropriate. When Student entered the SLP room, she demonstrated a friendly and cooperative demeanor. She attended during testing with no issues to report. It is believed that the test results are an accurate description of Student’s current abilities.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS: The following measures were given to evaluate Student’s present communication abilities:
Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation –Second Ed. (GFTA2)
Informal Language Sample
INFORMAL LANGUAGE SAMPLE:
A language sample was obtained during informal conversation. Student is capable of maintaining conversation in a socially appropriate way. Student listened, demonstrated turn taking abilities, and asked appropriate questions. Student demonstrated functional communication.
Articulation:
The GFTA2 revealed articulation skills to be below functional limits and adequate for 70% intelligibility for an unfamiliar listener. During testing, she demonstrated errors of articulation of /l/, /sh/, /j/, /v/, /th/ sounds at conversational level with some distraction to her message. She demonstrated a substitution of fricatives (e.g., /s/, /f/).
She seems to be unaware of her sound errors and needs direct therapy to correct these error sounds. She is stimulable to produce error sounds, within age of acquisition, in all positions given a model.
Voice:
The vocal parameters of pitch, quality, resonance, and loudness appeared within functional limits during the evaluation.
Fluency:
Speech was adequate and within functional limits during structured and spontaneous communication.
Oral Peripheral:
A cursory oral peripheral examination was performed to assess range, strength, and coordination of oral musculature. Articulators were found to be within functional limits for speech production.
CONCLUSION:
Student demonstrated below average skills in speech sounds that are within her age of acquisition (/l/, /sh/, /j/, /v/, /th/). She demonstrated sound blend errors that were within her age of acquisition /gl/ and /pl/. Student demonstrated appropriate social skills with the SLP during the testing. Receptive and expressive language appear to be functional at the time of testing and were not evaluated at this time. She does qualify for speech services, at this time, to address articulation errors that occur within the age of acquisition requirements. Final determination of eligibility will be made by the IEP committee.
ELIGIBILITY:
Speech or Language Impairment: a communication disorder, such as stuttering, impaired articulation, language impairment, or vocal impairment, which adversely affects a child’s educational performance. It does not include children who are bilingual or whose native language is other than English. There MUST be deficits in both English and Spanish for language to qualify for speech services.
o Language- receptive or expressive problem of processing (perception, understanding) or disorder of syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology.
o Speech- non-maturational articulation disorder characterized by substitutions, distortions, or omissions of speech sounds.
o Fluency- inappropriate rate of speech characterized by repetitions, prolongations, blocks, interjections, broken words, incomplete phrases, ancillary movement indicative of stress or struggle.
o Vocal Quality- distortions in frequency, intensity, pitch, respiration, intonation, or anything that deviates from the norm for age/sex of the individual.
______