Measuring speech sound development: An item response model approach

Priester, Gertrude; Post, Wendy J.; Goorhuis-Brouwer, S.M.

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.06.011

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A range of studies have examined the typical speech sound development of Dutch-speaking children (Beers, 1995;Fikkert, 1994;Jongstra, 2003;Levelt, 1994;Levelt et al;2000, Priester andGoorhuis-Brouwer, 2013;Stes, 1977;Van den Berg et al, 2017). Dutch is a West-Germanic language and the majority language in the Netherlands and parts of Belgium, as well as in Suriname, Aruba and the Dutch Antilles.…”

Section: Dutch Phonetics and Phonologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Determining the age of acquisition (75% of the children) and age of mastery (90% of the children), he showed that all vowels were already present at age 3 years and that at around the age of 4 most consonants were correctly produced by 75% of the children, with an exception for /s/ and /r/. More recently, Priester and Goorhuis‐Brouwer (2013) also used a picture‐naming task to chart the phonetic acquisition of speech sounds in 1035 typically developing Dutch children between the ages of 3;8 and 6;3 years. They observed that all children > 4;3 years pronounced most sounds (single consonants and consonant clusters) correctly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A range of studies have examined the typical speech sound development of Dutch‐speaking children (Beers 1995; Fikkert 1994; Jongstra 2003; Levelt 1994; Levelt et al . 2000, Priester and Goorhuis‐Brouwer 2013; Stes 1977; Van den Berg et al . 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2017). The Stes (1977) and Priester and Goorhuis‐Brouwer (2013) studies did have large samples, but both only reported on phonetic development, with the latter study being restricted to consonants. Furthermore, having been collected in the late 1970s, the findings Stes reports are most likely at least partly outdated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Speech sound development in typically developing 2–7‐year‐old Dutch‐speaking children: A normative cross‐sectional study

Haaften

Diepeveen

Engel-Hoek

et al. 2020

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Dutch is a West‐Germanic language spoken natively by around 24 million speakers. Although studies on typical Dutch speech sound development have been conducted, norms for phonetic and phonological characteristics of typical development in a large sample with a sufficient age range are lacking. Aim To give a detailed description of the speech sound development of typically developing Dutch‐speaking children from 2 to 7 years. Methods & Procedures A total of 1503 typically developing children evenly distributed across the age range of 2;0–6;11 years participated in this normative cross‐sectional study. The picture‐naming task of the Computer Articulation Instrument (CAI) was used to collect speech samples. Speech development was described in terms of (1) percentage consonants correct—revised (PCC‐R) and percentage vowels correct (PVC); (2) consonant, vowel and syllabic structure inventories; (3) degrees of complexity (phonemic feature hierarchy); and (4) phonological processes. Outcomes & Results A two‐way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed a significant increase in the number of PCC‐R and PVC between the ages of 2;0 and 6;11 years (p < 0.001). The consonant inventory was found to be complete at 3;7 years of age for the syllable‐initial consonants, with the exception of the voiced fricatives /v/ and /z/, and the liquid /r/. All syllable‐final consonants were acquired before age 4;4 years. At age 3;4 years, all children had acquired a complete vowel inventory, and at age 4;7 years they produced most syllable structures correctly, albeit that the syllable structure CCVCC was still developing. All phonological contrasts were produced correctly at 3;8 years of age. Children in the younger age groups used more phonological simplification processes than the older children, and by age 4;4 years, all had disappeared, except for the initial cluster reduction from three to two consonants and the final cluster reduction from two to one consonant. Conclusions & Implications This paper describes a large normative cross‐sectional study of Dutch speech sound development which, in clinical practice, can help Dutch speech–language pathologists to differentiate children with delayed or disordered speech development from typically developing children.

show abstract

Section: Dutch Phonetics and Phonologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Speech sound development in typically developing 2–7‐year‐old Dutch‐speaking children: A normative cross‐sectional study

Haaften

Diepeveen

Engel-Hoek

et al. 2020

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this protocol, it is suggested that MRR should not be assessed in children under the age of 3 years. The maximum age up to seven years has been chosen, because previous research has shown that speech sound development continues up to seven years (Priester and Goorhuis-Brouwer, 2013). Monosyllabic sequences and bi-and trisyllabic sequences should be described as separate outcome measures and if children cannot produce the monosyllabic sequences, the bi-and trisyllabic sequences should not be administered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maximum repetition rate in a large cross-sectional sample of typically developing Dutch-speaking children

Haaften

Diepeveen

Terband

et al. 2021

International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The current study aims to provide normative data for the maximum repetition rate (MRR) development of Dutch-speaking children based on a large cross-sectional study using a standardised protocol. Method: A group of 1014 typically developing children aged 3;0 to 6;11 years performed the MRR task of the Computer Articulation Instrument (CAI). The number of syllables per second was calculated for mono-, bi-, and trisyllabic sequences (MRR-pa, MRR-ta, MRR-ka, MRR-pata, MRR-taka, MRR-pataka). A two-way mixed ANOVA was conducted to compare the effects of age and gender on MRR scores in different MRR sequences. Result: The data analysis showed that overall MRR scores were affected by age group, gender and MRR sequence. For all MRR sequences the MRR increased significantly with age. MRR-pa was the fastest sequence, followed by respectively MRR-ta, MRR-pata, MRR-taka, MRR-ka and MRR-pataka. Overall MRR scores were higher for boys than for girls, for all MRR sequences. Conclusion: This study presents normative data of MRR of Dutch-speaking children aged 3;0 to 6;11 years. These norms might be useful in clinical practice to differentiate children with speech sound disorders from typically developing children. More research on this topic is necessary. It is also suggested to collect normative data for other individual languages, using the same protocol.

show abstract

A scoping review of Rasch analysis and item response theory in otolaryngology: Implications and future possibilities

Liu,

Mueller,

Sedaghat

2024

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveItem response theory (IRT) is a methodological approach to studying the psychometric performance of outcome measures. This study aims to determine and summarize the use of IRT in otolaryngological scientific literature.MethodsA systematic search of the Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was performed for original English‐language published studies indexed up to January 28, 2023, per the following search strategy: (“item response theory” OR “irt” OR “rasch” OR “latent trait theory” OR “modern mental test theory”) AND (“ent” OR “otorhinolaryngology” OR “ear” OR “nose” OR “throat” OR “otology” OR “audiology” OR “rhinology” OR “laryngology” OR “neurotology” OR “facial plastic surgery”).ResultsFifty‐five studies were included in this review. IRT was used across all subspecialties in otolaryngology, and most studies utilizing IRT methodology were published within the last decade. Most studies analyzed polytomous response data, and the most commonly used IRT models were the partial credit and the rating scale model. There was considerable heterogeneity in reporting the main assumptions and results of IRT.ConclusionIRT is increasingly being used in the otolaryngological scientific literature. In the otolaryngology literature, IRT is most frequently used in the study of patient‐reported outcome measures and many different IRT‐based methods have been used. Future IRT‐based outcome studies, using standardized reporting guidelines, might improve otolaryngology‐outcome research sustainably by improving response rates and reducing patient response burden.Level of evidence2.

show abstract

Measuring speech sound development: An item response model approach

Cited by 4 publications

References 12 publications

Speech sound development in typically developing 2–7‐year‐old Dutch‐speaking children: A normative cross‐sectional study

Speech sound development in typically developing 2–7‐year‐old Dutch‐speaking children: A normative cross‐sectional study

Maximum repetition rate in a large cross-sectional sample of typically developing Dutch-speaking children

A scoping review of Rasch analysis and item response theory in otolaryngology: Implications and future possibilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About