ACQ Vol 11 no 2 2009

Assessment examples Gillon (2004) and Torgesen (1999) discussed standardised and criterion-referenced phonological awareness tasks that may be useful. Examples of standardised assessment measures are presented in table 1. Table 1. Examples of standardised phonological awareness assessment measures that are suitable across the lifespan Assessment Normed Normed age group population Preschool and Primary Inventory of 3;0–6;11 Australian Phonological Awareness (PIPA) (Dodd, and British Crosbie, MacIntosh, Teitzel, & Ozanne, 2000) The Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) 4;0–7;11 British

The home literacy environment is an important influencing factor in young children’s reading acquisition (Frijters, Barron, & Brunello, 2000). The use of parent questionnaires such as the “Early Literacy Parent Questionnaire” (Boudreau, 2005) or an adapted version for parents of children with Down syndrome (van Bysterveldt, Gillon, and Foster-Cohen, in press) may be useful for speech pathologists to gain an understanding of the home literacy context. Developing an assessment profile that integrates knowledge about the child’s spoken and written language abilities from varying sources is recommended. Intervention Research has established cost-effective methods to improve both spoken and written language skills of children with spoken language impairment. Gillon (2000, 2002) demonstrated that 20 hours of phonological awareness intervention significantly improved speech production, reading and spelling performance for New Zealand children with spoken language impairment, including children with severe speech impairment. An independent replication of Gillon’s (2000a) study was conducted in London with 5–7 year old British children who had speech impairment (Denne, Langdown, Pring, & Roy, 2005). The researchers based their intervention on the Gillon Phonological Awareness Training Programme (Gillon 2000b), but made some adaptations to the content and reduced the intensity of the treatment. Denne et al. (2005) found the intervention was effective in rapidly improving the children’s phonological awareness development. Consistent with Gillon’s results, large effect sizes were obtained for measures of phonological awareness. However, the transfer of phonological awareness skills to speech and reading was not evident following the 12 hours of intervention. Denne et al. highlighted the importance of program intensity and the need for increased time to ensure transfer effects. Alternatively, the adaptations made by Denne et al. to the program content may have weakened the component that specifically addresses the links between speech and print that were emphasised in the Gillon (2000) study. Gillon’s results (2000) are consistent with a large body of research demonstrating the effectiveness of phonological awareness training for varying populations. For example; the following groups have all demonstrated positive reading and/ or spelling outcomes in response to phonological awareness intervention: • older children with specific reading disability or dyslexia (e.g., Gillon & Dodd, 1995, 1997; Lovett & Steinbach, 1997; Truch, 1994); • young children from low socioeconomic backgrounds (e.g., Blachman, Ball, Black, & Tangel, 1994; Gillon et al., 2007); • children diagnosed with moderate learning difficulties (Hatcher, 2000); • children with Down syndrome (van Bysterveldt, Gillon, Foster-Cohen, 2009; Goetz et al., 2008); • children with childhood apraxia of speech (McNeill, Gillon, & Dodd, in press); • preschool and school-aged native speakers of: English (e.g., Brennan & Ireson, 1997; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992); Spanish (Defior & Tudela, 1994); German (Schneider, Kuspert, Roth, & Vise, 1997); Danish (Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988); and Samoan (Hamilton & Gillon, 2005). A meta-analysis of 52 controlled research studies in phonological awareness intervention confirmed that

(Muter, Hulme, & Snowling, 1997) Queensland University Inventory of Literacy (QUIL) (Dodd, Holm, Oerlemans, & McCormick, 1996) Sutherland Phonological Awareness Test – Revised (SPAT-R) (Neilson, 2003) The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) (Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). The Lindamood Auditory Conceptualisation Test (LAC) (3rd ed.) (Lindamood & Lindamood, 2004)

6;0–12;0 Australian

Grade 1–4 Australian

5;0–24;0 American

5;0–18;0 American

Informal phonological awareness assessments and the development of assessment probes are useful to gather baseline data prior to and during intervention to monitor treatment effectiveness (see Gillon, 2004, for a discussion of phonological awareness assessment tools and a critique of their psychometric properties). An evaluation of children’s phonological awareness skills should be carried out alongside other speech and language assessments. Areas of spoken language development known to specifically impact upon written language development should be included in a comprehensive assessment (e.g., children’s semantic and syntactic development). Children’s oral narrative abilities are also related to reading compre­ hension performance and oral narrative protocols that demonstrate optimal language sampling conditions should be administered to children suspected of having language impairment (Westby, 1999; Westerveld & Gillon, 1999/2000). Working with families and teachers Speech pathologists typically collaborate with families, teachers, and reading specialists in assessing children with speech and language impairment. Data collected related to children’s phonological awareness and phonological processing abilities should be integrated with teachers’ and parents’ knowledge in areas such as the children’s print concepts, letter knowledge, and literacy curriculum assessments, attitudes to reading, reading materials of interest, as well as visual and hearing abilities. Observing the child’s ability to use phonology in the reading and spelling process in classroom activities through analysing spelling attempts in writing samples or analysing reading errors when the child is reading aloud provides additional useful information.

73

ACQ Volume 11, Number 2 2009

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au