In order to best diagnose M with a severe atypical inconsistent phonemic disorder, standardized measures had to be administered primarily, along with non-standardized measures such as a spontaneous language sample. M was administered both articulation and phonological tests to determine where his strengths and weaknesses were in regards to articulation in all word positions and to determine what phonological processes are still present in his speech that could be impacting his overall intelligibility. Several standardized articulation and phonology tests have been developed in order to diagnose and evaluate children with speech sound disorders, and there is no one test that is perfect for all children. A detailed comparison of multiple articulation…show more content… These three tests were the: Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation -2 (GFTA-2), The Clinician Assessment of Articulation and Phonology (CAAP), The Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP), and the non-standardized measure was the Phonetic & Phonological Systems Analysis (PPSA SODA) form. Although all of these measures can be extremely beneficial to the diagnosis of a child with an articulation disorder, there are positives and negatives to each test. A major benefit for each of the standardized measures is that they all are very quick to administer to a child, with colorful pictures that will likely capture a child’s attention. Also, all three standardized measures are well normed against typically developing children, allowing for more reliable standard scores and ultimately aiding with a more reliable diagnosis. Additionally, the three measures include CVC and multisyllabic words, though each targets these words differently. Finally, all three measures assess and report normative data for a variety of ages, ranging from young preschoolers up through school-aged children. Each test is generally easy to score, broken down into columns for easy addition and transfer of information to final score
