Speech and Language Impairments Assessment and Decision Making

Speech and Language Impairments
Assessment and Decision Making
Technical Assistance Guide
Originally Developed By
Christine Freiberg
Speech/Language Pathologist
Wausau School District
Ann Wicklund
Assistant Director of Special Education
Wausau School District
Revised and Updated By
Sheryl Squier
Educational Consultant Speech and Language Programs
Department of Public Instruction
Elizabeth Burmaster, State Superintendent

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
February 2003
Acknowledgements
The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (WDPI) acknowledges the following speech and
language pathologists for their contributions during the development process of this guide.
Beth Daggett, Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District

Nina Cass, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Wendy Doland, Milwaukee Public Schools
Debra Franzke, Milwaukee Public Schools
Mark Leddy, University of Wisconsin-Madison and Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District
Kate Morand, Beloit School District
Erin Dyer Olson, Belleville School District
Barbara Rademaker, Mosinee School District
Task force members who developed the final draft of the Speech/Language criteria were:
David Damgaard, Wausau School District (now retired)

Peter Knotek, Racine Unified School District
James Larson, CESA #9 (now retired)
Teri Larson-Baxter, Parent Education Project, Eau Claire
Barbara Leadholm, Middleton-Cross Plains School District (now retired)
Nancy McKinley, Thinking Publications, Eau Claire
Kate Morand, Beloit School District
Barbara Rademaker, Mosinee School District
Mary Lee Reineking, Stevens Point Area School District
Francine Pease, Parent Education Project, Whitewater
Trici Schraeder, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Mary Sobczak, Parent Education Project, West Allis School District
Lisa Webne-Behrman, Madison School District
ii
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter I
IEP Team Process – Evaluation ....................................................................................... 2
Referral ............................................................................................................................. 2
The IEP Team................................................................................................................... 2
IEP Team Duties............................................................................................................... 3
Evaluation Activities.......................................................................................................... 3
Initial Evaluation................................................................................................................ 3
Reevaluation-General Provisions ..................................................................................... 4
Evaluation IEP Team Determinations ............................................................................... 5
Evaluation Participant Summary of Findings .................................................................... 5
Evaluation Report ............................................................................................................. 6
Chapter II
General Assessment Components and Considerations ................................................... 7
Substantiation of a Speech and Language Impairment ................................................... 8
Advantages and Disadvantages of Types of Assessment ............................................... 11
Children Who are Linguistically and Culturally Diverse.................................................... 12
Chapter III
Determining and Documenting Eligibility .......................................................................... 14
Discussion of the Eligibility Criteria for Speech or Sound Production............................... 14
Typical, Persisten, and Disordered Phonological Processes ..................................... 14
Conversational Speech Intelligibility........................................................................... 16
Anecdotal Reporting................................................................................................... 16
Measuring Conversational Speech Intelligibility ......................................................... 16
Measuring Speech Severity ....................................................................................... 17
Discussion of the Eligibility Criteria for Language............................................................. 19
Discussion of the Eligibility Criteria for Voice.................................................................... 21
Discussion of the Eligibility Criteria for Fluency ................................................................ 23
Chapter IV
Need for Special Education.............................................................................................. 25
Process for Determining the Need for Special Education………………..... .................... . 26
Chapter V
Reevaluation..................................................................................................................... 28
Discontinuing Without a Reevaluation .............................................................................. 28
Options for Students Dismissed from Speech and Language .......................................... 29
Chapter VI
Speech and Language Services ...................................................................................... 30
Related Services .............................................................................................................. 31
References............................................................................................................................... 32
iii
List of Appendices.................................................................................................................. 40
A Resources for Standardized Testing .......................................................................... 40
Test Evaluation Form ................................................................................................. 41
Distribution of Scores ................................................................................................. 44
B Documenting Communication in Natural Environments............................................. 45
Teacher Checklist....................................................................................................... 46
Observation in Classroom/Relevant Setting............................................................... 47
Developmental Milestones for Speech and Language............................................... 49
Anecdotal Reporting of Intelligibility Worksheet ......................................................... 52
C Definitions of Communication Disorders and Variations ............................................ 53
D Worksheets to Document a Speech/Language Impairment....................................... 57
Speech and Language Eligibility Checklist................................................................. 58
Educational Relevance of the Communicative Disorder ............................................ 60
E Resources for Speech or Sound Production .............................................................. 61
Sound Development Chart-Females .......................................................................... 62
Sound Development Chart-Males .............................................................................. 63
Calculating the Percentage of Consonants Correct ................................................... 64
F Worksheets to Document the Need for Special Education ........................................ 66
Speech/Language Need for Special Education Indicators ......................................... 67
Need for Special Education Worksheet...................................................................... 69
iv
Introduction
Development of the Technical Assistance Documents
With the passage of the new rules, Wisconsin Chapter PI 11.35, relating to need for special
education and Chapter PI 11.36 relating to new eligibility criteria for six of the impairment areas
contained in Sub.V Chapter 115, Wis Stats., it is imperative that all who are involved in
evaluating children have a clear understanding of the requirements. The Wisconsin Department
of Public Instruction (WDPI) has developed these technical assistance documents to assist the
reader in understanding each of the new provisions of the rules and to give guidance in
evaluating children to determine if they have an impairment and a need for special education.
The six documents relate to the impairments of: cognitive disabilities (CD), visual impairments
(VI), hearing impairments (HI), speech and language impairments (S/L), specific learning
disabilities (SLD), and emotional/behavioral disabilities (EBD). The overall purpose of these
documents is to serve as a resource for Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams and
designed to address four primary objectives:
1. To clarify changes in the new rules regarding need for special education and eligibility
criteria.
2. To operationalize the eligibility criteria for each of the impairment areas that have changed.
3. To highlight assessment practices that assist the IEP team when evaluating a child.
4. To provide clarification of the process the IEP team must use to determine if the child needs
special education and related services.
During the spring and summer of 2001, specific disability task forces met to provide input for the
content of the documents. These technical assistance documents are the end result. We
recognize the critical importance of appropriate identification both because each child should be
labeled only if necessary for educational services and because of concerns in Wisconsin and
nationally about increasing identification rates.
1
Chapter I
IEP Team Process–Evaluation
Evaluation is an essential part of the special education process for children with disabilities.
Children are evaluated initially to see whether or not they have an impairment and whether,
because of that impairment they need special education and related services. Information
gathered during the evaluation helps to determine the educational needs of the child and to
guide the IEP team in determining the services that are appropriate for the child. Federal and
state special education law is specific about requirements for evaluating students. This section
will briefly highlight those provisions of the law. Further details can be found in s. 115.782, Wis.
Stats., and in federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA) regulations 34
CFR 300.530-536.
Referral
• Any person who reasonably believes that a child is a child with a disability may refer the child
to a local education agency (LEA).
• Certain individuals such as physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers, administrators
of social agencies, and school personnel are required to make a referral when they suspect a
child has a disability.
• All referrals must be in writing.
• Prior to submitting the referral a person required to make a referral must inform the child’s
parent.
• When the LEA receives the referral, the 90-day timeline from receipt of referral to sending
placement notice begins.
• School districts must have written procedures describing the referral process.
The IEP Team
When a child is referred, the LEA appoints an IEP team (s. 115.777, Wis. Stats.). This IEP team
includes:
• The parents of the child. Parents are equal participants on the IEP team throughout the
process.
• At least one regular education teacher if the child is or may be participating in a regular
education environment. It is the intent of the law that the regular educator should be one who
is or will be teaching the child.
• At least one special education teacher who has extensive and recent training and
experience related to the child’s known or suspected disability or, where appropriate at least
one special education provider of the child.
• A LEA representative who is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of special
education, is knowledgeable about the general curriculum and is knowledgeable about the
availability of and authorized to commit LEA resources. This individual can also fill another
role if the individual meets the requirements for another role.
• An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results.
This individual can also fill another role.
2
• Other individuals at the discretion of the parent or LEA, including related services
personnel as appropriate. It is important to be aware that the occupational therapy, physical
therapy, and school nursing practice acts and professional standards require an evaluation
prior to providing services. A representative from birth to 3 programs or Head Start should be
included when referring preschool children.
• The child, whenever appropriate. The student must be invited to any IEP meeting where
transition is discussed.
IEP Team Duties
• The IEP team is responsible for three basic activities:

– First, to evaluate the child to determine whether the child has or continues to have a
disability and to identify the child’s educational needs.
– Second, for each child who has a disability, to develop, review, and revise the child’s
IEP.
– Third, to determine a special education placement for each child who has a disability.
• It is important to remember that these activities are part of a unified and fluid process. The
IEP team can complete these activities in one meeting or more than one. Evaluation
information is used to identify appropriate goals and objectives for the student to work on
throughout the year. The basic idea is that those who know and care about the child
collaborate to identify and meet the child’s needs.
Evaluation Activities
• The IEP team completes three basic activities during any evaluation. These activities are
common to both initial and reevaluations, although there are some procedural differences
between the two.
• First, the IEP team reviews existing data and determines whether additional data are
needed. A review of existing data is always the first step of any evaluation.
• If additional data are needed, the IEP team conducts any necessary tests and other
evaluation materials in order to determine if the child is or continues to be a child with a
disability.
– The LEA assesses the child in all areas of suspected need and conducts a non-
discriminatory evaluation. (The provisions for a nondiscriminatory evaluation are found at
s. 115.782(2), Wis. Stats.).
– Each participant who administers new tests or evaluation materials completes an
individual summary of findings.
• The IEP team then completes an evaluation report.
Initial Evaluation
• Following the receipt of an initial referral, the LEA provides the parent with a notice that a
referral has been made.
• The notice includes the individuals the LEA has appointed as IEP team participants in
addition to the parent and student as appropriate, and the qualifications of those participants.
3
• The IEP team reviews existing data and determines whether additional data must be
collected in order to determine whether the child is a child with a disability and to identify the
child’s educational needs.
• The IEP team must review existing data including information provided by the parents,
previous interventions and their effects, current classroom-based assessments, and
observations by teachers and others. After doing so, the IEP team decides whether additional
data are needed. Existing data would include any information from outside sources including
evaluation data for a child transitioning from a Birth-3 program or Head Start program.
• It is not required to have an IEP team meeting to review existing data, however the IEP team
may decide to this in a meeting.
• If the IEP team, which includes the parents, finds that no additional data are needed, the
LEA notifies the parents in writing of the finding and reasons for it.
• The next step is to invite the parents to an IEP team meeting and make a determination
about whether the child has a disability based on existing data.
• If there is a disagreement between the parent and the LEA that cannot be resolved about
whether additional data are needed, the parent or LEA may pursue mediation, due process
and/or complaints (as at all stages of the IEP process).
• If the IEP team, which includes the parent, determines additional information is needed,
the IEP team specifies what data are needed and the qualifications of evaluators who will
collect the data.
• Parents are notified of this decision in writing. The notification includes all evaluation
procedures, tests, or other evaluation materials that will be used, who will be conducting the
assessment (if known), and their qualifications.
• Parental consent is needed before administering new tests or other evaluation materials.
Parents may revoke their consent at any time prior to the completion of the evaluation.
• Following the administration of tests and other evaluation materials, the IEP team meets,
reviews all evaluation information, and makes a determination as to whether the child is a
child with a disability.
Reevaluation–General Provisions
• Reevaluations are conducted at the request of the child’s parent or teacher, when conditions
warrant, and at least once every three years.
• The procedures for reevaluation are essentially the same as for initial evaluations.
• Prior to beginning a reevaluation, the LEA provides the parents with written notice. This
notice informs the parents that the LEA intends to reevaluate the child and the reason for the
reevaluation.
• The notice also includes the IEP team participants, in addition to the parent and child (if
appropriate), who have been appointed by the LEA, their names and qualifications.
• The IEP team reviews existing data including:
 Existing evaluation data.
 Information provided by the parents.
 Previous interventions and their effects.
 Current classroom-based information.
 Observations and interviews.
4
• Upon reevaluation, if after reviewing existing data, the IEP team determines no additional
data are needed, the LEA notifies the parent in writing of the finding and the reason for it,
and the parent’s right to request assessment to determine whether the child continues to be a
child with a disability (please note that the parent is an IEP team participant and thus knows
that this decision has been made. Providing them with written notice is a statutory
requirement).
• Consideration of progress made is taken into account at a reevaluation.
• If additional data are needed, the parent is notified, and a description of the types of tests
and other evaluation materials to be conducted and names (if known) and qualifications of
examiners are provided.
• Parental consent is needed before administering new tests, assessments, or other
evaluation materials.
– Except, consent need not be obtained if LEA has taken reasonable measures and parents
fail to respond. This is different than if the parent refuses to give consent.
Evaluation IEP Team Determination
• Based on the review of existing data (and the results of new tests and other evaluation
materials if administered), the IEP team determines:
– whether the child has an impairment listed in state statute, s.115.76 (a), Wis. Stats.,
(Consideration of progress made is taken into account at a reevaluation),
– the present levels of performance and educational needs, and
– whether the child needs special education or related services.
• The IEP team may not determine that a child is a child with a disability solely because the
child has received insufficient instruction in reading or math or because the child has limited
proficiency in English.
Evaluation Participant Summary of Findings
• Each IEP team participant who conducts new tests, assessments, or other evaluation
materials submits a summary of their findings.
• This summary is made available to all IEP team participants at the IEP team meeting when
the data is discussed. It is also attached to the evaluation report.
• The summary of findings is:
 in writing,
 about one page in length,
 understandable to all IEP team participants, and
 includes information about the child’s strengths and needs that will be useful to program
planning.
• It is not intended to be a lengthy report nor just a list of standardized test scores.
• Each summary of findings becomes part of the evaluation report and is not a “stand alone”
document.
• Please note: It is not appropriate for an IEP team participant to make recommendations
about whether a child meets eligibility criteria on their individual summary of findings. This
decision rests with the IEP team as a group.
5
Evaluation Report
• The IEP team documents the evaluation findings in its evaluation report. This includes
information from:
• review of existing data,
• findings from any new or additional tests or evaluation materials administered including
participants’ summaries of findings, and
• determination of eligibility for special education including:
 whether the child has an impairment,
 if the child needs special education,
 additional required documentation if the child was evaluated for a learning disability. In
addition, for a child suspected of having a specific learning disability, each IEP team
member must certify in writing whether the report reflects his or her conclusion. If it does
not, the IEP team member must submit a separate statement presenting his or her
conclusions, and
 additional required documentation if the child was evaluated for a visual impairment or if
a child with a visual impairment requires Braille.
• The LEA informs all IEP team participants that they may request a copy of the evaluation
report or additional time before the IEP team develops an IEP for the child.
• The LEA asks each IEP team participant if they would like a copy of the report or additional
time prior to moving forward to develop the IEP.
• Any IEP team participant may request a copy of the evaluation report at any time, following
the evaluation.
• Unless provided earlier at an IEP team participant's request, a copy of the evaluation report
is provided to parents with the placement notice.
• If the IEP team determines the child is not a child with a disability, it identifies any
educational needs of the child and any LEA or non-LEA services that may benefit the child.
• Unless provided earlier, a copy of the evaluation report is provided with notice of IEP team
findings that the child does not have a disability.
6
Chapter II
General Assessment Components and Considerations
In order to assure student and parental rights, state, and federal rules and regulations must be
followed throughout the entire IEP process from referral to placement. According to Wisconsin
Administrative Code, the IEP team must include a DPI licensed speech-language pathologist
and information from the most recent assessment to document a speech and language
impairment.
Decision-making about an individual is based upon the professional judgment of the IEP team. It
is important to work collaboratively with each member of the IEP team to discover the
conditions, under which the child communicates most effectively, both verbally and nonverbally.
All evaluations need to be multifaceted and include:
• Multiple data sources such as teachers, parents, students, and other service providers
familiar to the student.
• Multiple types of data which are quantitative and qualitative in nature.
• Multiple types of tools and procedures such as standardized measures and alternative
methods of assessment.
• Multiple environments such as classrooms, playground, community settings, and home.
The major purpose of a speech and language assessment is to develop an understanding of the
child’s oral communication abilities and needs. Both standardized tests and descriptive
procedures are essential for the assessment of a child’s communication skills. A valid
assessment provides information about abilities and identifies the child’s educational needs.
Evaluation tools and procedures must be culturally, racially, and linguistically unbiased.
The purpose of a speech and language assessment is to:
• Determine the understanding and use of the student’s oral communication skills.
• Identify the student’s strengths and weaknesses relating to communication competence.
• Provide information for the IEP team to use to determine if the student has a speech and
language impairment.
7
Substantiation of a Speech And Language Impairment
Ch. PI 11.36 (5) (d), Wisconsin Administrative Code
In order to substantiate a speech and language impairment to the IEP team, the speech and
language assessment shall consider the following:
• Formal measures using normative data or informal measures using criterion
referenced data.
• Some form of speech or language measures such as developmental checklists,
intelligibility ratio, language sample analysis, and minimal core competency.
• Information about the child’s oral communication in natural environments.
• Information about the child’s augmentative or assistive communication needs.
There are a number of factors to be considered regarding the collection of data during the
evaluation process:
• Data collected must match the purpose of evaluation.
• Sufficient amount of data must be collected to substantiate a speech and language
impairment.
• Data from both standardized tests and descriptive procedures are essential for the
documentation of a child’s communication skills.
It is appropriate to include the following components in a speech and language assessment:

Review of records refers to the process of collecting existing information that is relevant to the
evaluation. Reviews may include information on developmental milestones, medical records,
prior assessments, school history, previous interventions attempted and their effects, and
information relative to family composition and experiences.
Formal measures using normative data refers to standardized instruments used for obtaining a
sample measure of a communication behavior. Consideration must be given as to the purpose
of the assessment and the age and general level of functioning of the child when determining
appropriate assessment tools. It is important to administer tests that are valid and reliable. A
valid test means that the test measures the content and communication process it claims to
measure. The content of the test should be the same content or communication process the IEP
team wants to measure in the evaluation. A reliable test is one that will produce consistent
scores over time and will produce consistent results between and within groups of students.
See Appendix A-Resources for Standardized Testing The Test Evaluation Form provides
the diagnostician with a source for reviewing appropriateness of norm referenced tests that may
be considered for an assessment. The Assessment Reference provides the diagnostician with a
graphic comparison of standardized test scores.
Informal measures using criterion referenced data refers to the process of systematically
collecting information across situations and settings through the use of interviews, checklists,
language samples, and observations. It also could include the informal measures of play-based
assessment, dynamic assessment, and portfolio assessment.
• Interviews provide information regarding developmental, behavioral, and learning
experience that provides essential understanding of the child’s communication abilities. An
interview may be conducted with child’s parent, classroom teacher, special education
teacher, day care provider or other staff member associated with the child. Information from
interviews may include:
8
 Goals and priorities others have established for the student.
 Previous interventions and their effects.
 The child’s preferred learning modality (i.e.,. visual, auditory, tactile, multi, etc.).
 The child’s communication interactions in the home, school, and community
environments.
 Identification of individuals who have had success when working with the child and the
individual’s instructional styles.
 The child’s ability to use their communication skills in a variety of situations.
• Checklists completed by parents, guardians, teachers and others describing the child’s
skills provide an overview of how people in the child’s environment perceive the child’s
communication skills. Checklists can be utilized to document how the child’s communication
skills affect classroom functioning, including academic performance or social, emotional, or
vocational development.
See Appendix B-Documenting Communication in Natural Environments The Teacher

Checklist provides a format for the classroom teacher to describe a child’s communication
ability. The Checklist Of Developmental Milestones For Speech And Language provides
information concerning the child’s observed level of communicative competence.
• Observation refers to the process of collecting information regarding the child’s

communication performance in natural environments. Observations can focus on both
individual performance and the environmental variables that surround the communicative
behavior.
See Appendix B-Documenting Communication in Natural Environments

The Observation of Speech and Language Behaviors in the Classroom Setting provides a
documented observational format.
• Play-Based Assessment is the systematic observation of a student in structured and

unstructured play. Information obtained from this type of assessment may include:
 Cognitive, social-emotional, and speech and language skills.
 Developmental level.
 Learning style.
 Interaction in different situations with different individuals.
 Task Completion.
 Fine and gross motor skills.
 Play behavior.
 Parent and child interaction.
• Dynamic Assessment is the observation of language and learning which the child uses in
completing a specific task under varying conditions. Dynamic assessment and protocols
can be used for assessing behaviors in speech or sound production, voice, fluency, and oral
communication. Dynamic Assessment is based on a test-teach-test approach in which a
student is presented with a task and receives different levels of support from the speech
and language pathologist or another examiner to accomplish the task. This enables the
examiner to determine what type and degree of assistance the student requires in order to
be successful. The student’s level of performance and the degree of assistance that
9
enabled the student to complete the task are recorded. This information can be used to
provide the starting point for intervention.
• Portfolio Assessment is a longitudinal ‘picture’ of the student as a life-long communicator.

Portfolios can be used to assess a student’s development and growth in communication
skills. A portfolio to assess student communication skills might include language samples,
summaries of observations of the student in various settings, video or audio recordings of
speech samples, a student’s self-evaluation, and samples of student work.
• Language Samples Analysis is a formalized method for examining the communication

skills of a child in a natural communication setting. The WDPI has supported the
“Systematic Analysis of Language Transcription” (SALT) project with IDEA discretionary
funds. This project resulted in the WDPI publication, Language Sample Analysis: The
Wisconsin Guide (1992). SALT is a language sample analysis that uses a recorded and
transcribed sample of dialogue between two speakers to identify and describe productive
language. SALT analyzes the student’s vocabulary, syntax, semantic and pragmatic
features and provides an interpretation of the analysis. Other methods of language sample
analysis include obtaining a mean length of utterance (MLU) and applying this numeric
value to compare syntax expectations at the various stages of development (Brown, 1973),
online computerized profiling (Fey and Long, 2001), Development Sentence Analysis (Lee,
1974).
10
Types of assessments that assist in the decision-making process are discussed in the chart
below developed by the Ohio Department of Education (1991).
Advantages and Disadvantages of Types of Assessments
Advantages Disadvantages
Norm-referenced Designed for diagnosis Not designed for identifying

Allow comparison with age or specific intervention objectives
Language Tests grade peer on an objective
standard
Facilitate comparisons across Norm group is representative of

several domains to assess national samples, but may not
discrepancies and broad be representative enough of the
strengths/weaknesses student’s background
Tests for regularities in Not designed for use in making

Criterion-referenced performances against a set of program placement or eligibility
Tests criteria decisions that require
comparison to a population
Useful for designing
interventions, interfacing with
curriculum objectives and
describing where a student is
along a continuum of skills
Easy to administer and practical Not designed to evaluate peer

Checklists or age-group level
Can give a broad evaluation in
areas judged important
Address crucial academic skills

which referral is often based
Permit guided evaluations of Can be time consuming

Structured Observations communication in context
Presence of observer may alter
Can focus on several aspects at behavior, especially with teens
once
Occur onsite; are based on

reality, current experience
Source: Ohio Department of Education (1991) Ohio Handbook for the Identification, Evaluation, and
Placement of Children with Language Problems. Columbus, OH. Reprinted by permission.
11
Children Who are Linguistically and Culturally Diverse
When assessing children, whose primary or dominant language is not English, there are several
factors to consider. First, it is important to establish what the child’s native language is. IDEA
defines ‘native language’ as the language spoken in the home. In some situations, such as in
the case of adoption, the language of the home may be English, but the child’s primary or
dominant language may be a language other than English. The IEP team should consult with
teachers of English as a second language and others as necessary, to determine what
language the child uses most often and competently, and what language the child appears to
understand best.
Second, it is important to establish the English proficiency of the child. This refers to a child’s
ability to use language effectively in various contexts and to meet the language demands of the
communication situation. To determine English proficiency levels, a teacher of English as a
second language may obtain a range of English proficiency levels (Levels 1-6) that determines
the amount of English understood and used by the child. Children who are learning English as a
second language acquire different ‘types’ of language skills at different time intervals.
Two types of English proficiency are:

• Basic Interpersonal Communication Skill (BICS) is required for social communication where
much of the information is embedded in the context of the situation. BICS proficiency is the
kind of skill demonstrated by children on the playground as they chat in informal situations.
This everyday communication is informal and children may rely on contextual cues. BICS
proficiency is acquired in two years on the average. (Cummins, 1984)
• Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) is demanded in academic situations
where less information is derived from the context. CALP requires that children derive their
understanding exclusively from the language used to convey the message. Situational cues
are limited or absent. CALP proficiency may take five to seven years (or more) to achieve
proficiency for cognitive and academic language demands. (Cummins, 1984).
Children need to acquire proficiencies all along the BICS-CALP continuum to succeed
academically. It is, therefore, necessary to determine where on the continuum the child is
performing during the assessment process.
Next, it is important to become familiar with the phonological (sound) and linguistic system of
the student’s primary or dominant language. This information may be obtained from a teacher of
English as a second language, a regular classroom teacher, the parent, an interpreter or
another individual who has knowledge of the first language. This information will assist in
determining if the child has language impairment or a difference due to the linguistic or cultural
difference.
Finally, the assessment should be descriptive in nature. Descriptive assessment or

ethnographic methods of assessment examine the communication skills of the student in a
variety of settings. In the WDPI publications Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Populations:
African American and Hmong (1997) and the Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Populations II:
Native American and Hispanic (2002), several activities are recommended when conducting an
ethnographic assessment. They are as follows:
• Critically examine your own world values, views, beliefs, way of life, communicative style,
learning style, cognitive style, and personal biases.
• Describe the child’s communication breakdown based on information from multiple sources.
12
• Interview members of the child’s family and collect data in regards to the child and home
environment.
• Consult the classroom teacher and aides.
• Employ procedures designed to describe the child’s linguistic behavior in natural settings.
• Summarize observations and identify patterns of communication, taking care to validate
observations by comparing information from multiple sources.
• Use caution when administering standardized assessments to these students. Typical
standardized tests are not normed on linguistically diverse populations so results must be
reported as estimates only.
In summary, each student is unique and will require an individualized approach during
assessment. When writing the evaluation report, focus on what the student can do and describe
specific skills observed in both formal testing and informal measures, as well as other
information reported by individuals during the interview process or through use of a checklist. All
information gathered by the IEP team should be considered in determining whether the child
has an impairment.
Guidance for IEP teams regarding definitions of the different areas of communicative disorders
and communication variations can be found in Appendix C—Definitions of Communication
Disorders and Variations.
13
Chapter III
Determining and Documenting Eligibility
DEFINITION PI 11.36(5)(a), Wisconsin Administrative Code
Speech or Language Impairment means:
An impairment of speech or sound production, voice, fluency, or language that

significantly affects educational performance or social, emotional, or vocational
development.
See Appendix D-Worksheets to Document a Speech/Language Impairment The Speech

and Language Eligibility Checklist offers the IEP team a checklist for decision making.
Discussion of the Eligibility Criteria

For
Speech or Sound Production
According to PI 11.36 (5), Wisconsin Administrative Code, the IEP team may identify a child as
having a speech or sound production impairment by meeting the following criteria:
1. The child’s conversational intelligibility is significantly affected AND the child displays
at least one of the following:
a. The child performs on a norm-referenced test of articulation or phonology at least
1.75 standard deviations below the mean for his or her chronological age, OR
b. Demonstrates consistent errors in speech sound production beyond the time

when 90 percent of typically developing children have acquired the sound, OR
2. One or more of the child’s phonological patterns of sound are at least 40 percent
disordered OR the child scores in the moderate to profound range of phonological
process use in formal testing AND the child’s conversational intelligibility is
significantly affected.
An impairment of speech or sound production may be determined by the administration of a

standardized test of articulation or phonology, or though analysis of a sample of the child’s
speech. Standardized measures chosen for this evaluation must appropriately consider the
child’s linguistic and cultural background. When norm-referenced tests of articulation or
phonology are not appropriate, a child must demonstrate consistent errors in speech sound
production beyond the time when 90 percent of typically developing children acquire the sound.
This mastery is described in Appendix E—Resources for Speech or Sound Production “The
Iowa Articulation Norms Project and Its Nebraska Replication (1990).
Typical, Persistent and Disordered Phonological Processes
When assessing the phonological processes that children produce it helps to understand which
phonological processes are typical, which processes persist in later pre-school years, and which
processes are disordered. Stoel-Gammon and Dunn (1985) have identified those typical
phonological processes that are expected to disappear by three years of age and those typical
14
phonological processes that are most likely to persist after three years of age. See the chart
below for a listing of these typical phonological processes.
Typical Phonological Processes

Phonologic Process Disappearing by Persistent Phonological Process, After
Age 3 Age 3
Diminutization Gliding
Reduplication Stopping
Syllable Deletion Vocalization
Fronting Depalatalization
Consonant Assimilation Final Consonant Devoicing
Final Consonant Deletion Cluster Reduction
Prevocalic voicing Epenthesis
Atypical, or disordered, phonological processes, that is, phonological speech processes that are
not naturally occurring include velarization (a form of backing), lateralization, glottal
replacement, neutralization, substitution of fricatives for stops, and initial consonant deletion
(Edwards, 1983; Strand & McCauley, 2000). See the chart below for an explanation of these
atypical phonological processes.
Atypical Phonological Processes
Atypical Phonological Processes Definition

Velarization–A Backing Process Alveolar speech sounds are replaced by
velars
Lateralization Fricative speech sounds are produced with
lateral emission
Glottal Replacement Consonant sounds are replaced by glottal
stops
Neutralization A group of consonant sounds is replaced by
one sound
Substitution of Fricatives for Stops Stop consonant sounds are produced as
fricative sounds
Initial Consonant Deletion The initial consonant in a word is deleted
In situations where the child’s native language is not English or when a child speaks a different
dialect of American English, it would not be appropriate to apply the sound development norms
for an English phonological system. It is important to become familiar with the phonological
(sound) and linguistic system of the student’s primary or dominant language. This information
may be obtained from a teacher of English as a second language, a regular classroom teacher,
the parent, an interpreter or another individual who has knowledge of the first language. This
information will assist in determining if the child has speech sound production impairment or a
difference due to the linguistic or cultural difference. The WDPI publications Linguistically and
Culturally Diverse Populations: African American and Hmong (1997) and the Linguistically and
Culturally Diverse Populations II: Native American and Hispanic (2002) both contain charts and
descriptions of the speech sound production characteristics for the specified populations to
assist the diagnostician.
15
Conversational Speech Intelligibility
The IEP team must document that the delayed speech or sound production significantly
affects the child’s conversational intelligibility.
Describing a student’s conversational speech intelligibility, and the severity of the student’s
reduced intelligibility, are key components of the eligibility criteria for a speech-language
impairment. It is important to measure a student’s conversational speech intelligibility for a
variety of reasons when a student exhibits an articulation or a phonological disorder. A speech
disorder is significant when it negatively affects conversational speech intelligibility and
interferes with functional communication. For example, when a student who is four exhibits a
phonological disorder as evidenced by a standard score that is below 74 on a test of phonology,
and produces phonological processes that should have disappeared by three years of age, then
he or she has a speech delay. If this same student’s speech intelligibility is also 62 percent, and
there is evidence from observing the child, in his or her natural learning contexts, that he or she
is unsuccessful communicating with peers and educators, then this child has a speech
impairment.
However, a student may have a possible articulation or phonological disorder and the speech
deficit may not cause a significant deterioration in conversational speech intelligibility or
functional communication. For example, a three-year-old child may have many articulation
errors and may still use several typical phonological processes, such as final consonant
deletion, fronting and stopping; thus suggesting a possible phonological delay. However, the
child’s speech intelligibility may be measured at 88 percent, which is a score well within the
average for a three-year-old child (Vihman & Greenlee, 1987; Vihman, 1998). Additionally,
parents may report that the child is successful communicating in most contexts, suggesting that
functional communication is not significantly affected. In this example, the child demonstrates a
possible phonological delay but it is not causing a significant deterioration in speech intelligibility
that significantly limits effective communication. Thus, this child does not have speech
impairment.
Anecdotal Reporting
Anecdotal reporting can be used in addition to formal methods to document that the delayed
speech or sound production affects the child’s conversational intelligibility as given in the
previous example. Appendix B-Documenting Communication in Natural Environments
Anecdotal Reporting Of Intelligibility Worksheet provides the diagnostician with a documented
checklist format to determine if reports of the child’s speech intelligibility significantly limit
effective communication.
Measuring Conversational Speech Intelligibility
A student’s conversational speech intelligibility can be assessed using a variety of procedures,

including estimates of conversational speech intelligibility and conversational speech sampling.
One of the most reliable and valid assessment procedures for evaluating conversational speech
intelligibility requires calculating the percentage of words understood by the listener from a
conversational speech sample (Gordon-Brannan & Hodson, 2000; Hodson, 2002; Kent, et. al.,
1994; Kwiatkowski & Shriberg, 1992; Pena-Brooks & Hedge, 2000; Strand & McCauley, 2000).
A trained speech-language pathologist who is not familiar with the student calculates the
percentage of words understood by a listener, while transcribing a child’s audiotaped
conversational speech sample. Using an audiotaped sample assures that the listener can not
16
use face-to-face visual signals and context to help “decode” the child’s speech. Also, when a
speech-language pathologist who is not familiar with the child completes the speech sample
transcription, a more accurate account of speech intelligibility can be determined. Some
clinicians recommend calculating “percent speech intelligibility” from a 100 word sample
(Gordon-Brannan & Hodson, 2000; Hodson, 2002) while others suggest a 200 word sample
(Strand &McCauley, 2000; Weiss, Gordon, & Lillywhite, 1987). The formula for calculating
percent speech intelligibility is provided below for a 100 word sample. This measure often
results in a statement such as “Susan’s conversational speech intelligibility was 63 percent, that
is, 63 of 100 words were understood by an unfamiliar speech-language pathologist who listened
to a tape-recorded sample of Susan's speech during conversation.”
Calculating Percent Speech Intelligibility

% of Intelligible = # of Intelligible Words X 100
Words Total # of Words
Data from a variety of clinical and research sources (Gordon-Brannan, 1994; Gordon-Brannan &
Hodson, 2000; Hodson, 2002; Pena-Brooks & Hedge, 2000; Vihman & Greenlee, 1987;
Vihman, 1998) reveals average speech intelligibility and range expectations for typically
developing 3-5 year olds. The chart below summarizes these speech intelligibility expectations.
Typical Speech Intelligibility Expectations

Average
Speech Speech
Age Intelligibility Intelligibility Range
3 73% 54%-80%
4 93% 73%-100%
5 Not Reported 90%-100%
Another frequently used procedure for assessing speech intelligibility requires an unfamiliar
speech-language pathologist to estimate a child’s speech intelligibility, but this measure is often
inaccurate (Gordon-Brannan & Hodson, 2000; Kent, et. al., 1994). This procedure may also be
used by the child’s family members or by educators. This procedure is best performed while
listening to an audiotaped sample. These estimates often result in statements such as “John’s
speech intelligibility was 80 percent when the context was known, as rated by his parents, and
when the context was not known his speech intelligibility was 70 percent, as rated by an
unfamiliar speech-language pathologist.” However, while estimates of speech intelligibility are
quick and simple to make, they are often unreliable measures of actual conversational speech
intelligibility and their validity as a measure of speech intelligibility has been strongly questioned
(Kent, et. al, 1989).
Measuring Speech Severity
Speech-language pathologists often make judgments of speech disorder severity using ratings
of typical mild, moderate, severe-profound. However, there is a measure that is more accurate
that was developed by Shriberg & Kwiatkowski (1992), called “percentage of consonants
correct.” This measure, which is closely related to percent of conversational speech intelligibility,
provides an index of speech impairment severity: mild, mild-moderate, moderate-severe, and
severe. See Appendix E-Resources for Speech or Sound Production The Procedure for
Calculating the Percentage of Consonants Correct gives the IEP team a method for completing
and interpreting this measure.
17
AND
3. The delayed speech or sound production significantly affects the child’s educational
performance or social, emotional, or vocational development.
In addition to documenting a delay in speech or sound production that significantly impacts the
intelligibility of the child’s speech, the IEP team must document that this delay affects the child’s
educational performance, or social, emotional, or vocational development.
See Appendix D—Worksheets to Document a Speech/Language Impairment The

Educational Relevance of the Communication Disorder Checklist offers the IEP team a checklist
to aid in determining how the communication disorder impacts the child’s social/emotional,
academic, and/or vocational areas.
evaluation process:
impairment.
18
For
Language
According to PI 11.36(5), Wisconsin Administrative Code, the IEP team must document that the
child’s oral communication or, for a child who cannot communicate orally, his or her primary
mode of communication is inadequate, as documented by all the following when identifying an
impairment in language:
1. Performance on norm-referenced measures at least 1.75 standard deviations below
the mean for chronological age.
The delay in receptive or expressive language must be documented through evaluation using
standardized norm-referenced tests. The child must score at or below 1.75 standard deviations
below the mean for chronological age. Report a receptive composite, expressive composite, or
total test composite score, rather than reporting an individual subtest score when documenting a
delay in language. At least two norm-referenced measures are needed for documentation.
There are various forms of language that can be impaired. They are:
• Semantics is the understanding or use of meaning. For example: concepts, vocabulary, and
ideas.
• Syntax is the understanding or production of correct grammatical forms, subject-verb
agreement, production of complex sentences (i.e,; with subordinating clauses).
• Pragmatics is the ability to communicate effectively in a variety of social contexts.
OR (Use of the Alternate Method)

In some situations, formal testing using norm-referenced tests is not appropriate or feasible.
Examples of such situations include:
• The child’s cognitive or physical limitations prevent establishing a baseline (basal) on the
test.
• There is no norm-referenced test available to measure specific communication areas of
concern.
• The population used to establish the norms for the test was not representative of, or did not
include children with similar disabilities.
• The child is not able to respond as specified in the standardization procedures due to their
mode of communication.
• The test cannot be administered as specified in the testing manual.
• The test is not designed for the age or population of the student being assessed.
There also are children who perform well on tests of specific language performance but who are
unable to use language for effective oral communication. These children exhibit a variety of
behaviors that interfere with verbal competence, but their language production deficits are
difficult to identify with tests of isolated skills. Identification of these children requires more
precise quantification of production disorders at the discourse level of analysis.
When technically adequate norm-referenced language measures are not appropriate as

determined by the IEP team to provide evidence of a deficit of 1.75 standard deviations below
the mean in the area of oral communication, then 2 measurement procedures shall be used to
19
document a significant difference from what would be expected given consideration to
chronological age, developmental level, and method of communication such as oral, manual,
and augmentative. These procedures may include language samples, criterion referenced
instruments, observations in natural environments, and parent reports.
AND
2. Performance in activities is impaired as documented by informal assessment such as

language sampling, observations in structured and unstructured settings, interviews,
or checklists.
The IEP team also must use informal assessment to document the child’s performance in
communication. The focus is on the child’s pragmatic language abilities, or the ability to use the
meaning and structure of language appropriately. The informal assessment should validate and
expand upon deficits noted in standardized testing. This documentation can be accomplished
through language sampling, checklists, observations, or interviews.
AND
3. The child’s receptive or expressive language interferes with oral communication or

his or her primary mode of communication.
A child must exhibit a significant delay or deviance in the acquisition of prelinguisitc skills,
receptive and/or expressive skills demonstrated in oral communication. A comprehensive
evaluation, consisting of formal and informal assessments of the child’s oral communication
abilities as they relate to peer and adult interactions and the child’s ability to function as a
learner in his or her present educational program are needed to provide the information through
which the IEP team determines if an impairment is present.
AND
4. The delayed oral communication significantly affects the child’s educational

performance social, emotional or vocational development.
The IEP team must also document how these delays affect the educational performance or
social, emotional or vocational development of the child.
See Appendix D-Worksheets to Document a Speech/Language Impairment The

evaluation process:
impairment.
20
For
Voice
According to PI 11.36 (5) Wisconsin Administrative Code, the IEP team may identify a child as
having a voice impairment by meeting the following criteria:
1. The child demonstrates atypical voice characteristic of loudness, pitch, quality, or
resonance for his or her age and gender.
An impairment of voice may be determined by the administration of a standardized test of voice,

or through perceptual, descriptive judgments of pitch, loudness, quality, and resonance.
There are a few standardized measures that are used to assess voice production of pitch,
loudness, quality, and resonance. However, perceptual, descriptive judgments including
statements of severity are the most common assessment activities used to document a child’s
voice impairment. That is, how extreme the vocal characteristics are from the typical production
of age and gender of matched peer groups, and how often and in what setting the behavior is
observed. These judgments include:
• Pitch: high, typical, or low,

• Loudness: loud, typical, or soft,
• Quality: may include descriptive terms such as hoarse, harsh, breathy, strained, or weak,
• Resonance: hyper-nasal (too much nasality) or hypo-nasal (not enough nasality).
AND
2. The child’s voice impairment is not due to any temporary factor such as respiratory
virus, infection, allergies, short-term vocal abuse, or puberty.
It is necessary to determine that the child’s voice impairment exists in the absence of an acute
respiratory virus or infection, and is not due to temporary physical factors such as allergies,
short-term vocal abuse, or puberty. This information can be gathered from a review of the
student’s school and health records.
AND
3. The child’s voice impairment significantly affects the child’s educational performance
or social, emotional, or vocational development.
The IEP team must document that the voice impairment significantly impacts the child’s
educational performance, or social, emotional, or vocational development. This may be
documented from a variety of sources such as:
• Direct observation by a speech-language pathologist and by other listeners known to the

child.
• An intelligibility ratio used to determine how understandable the child’s speech is.
• Interview data from a variety of sources.
An example of how an IEP team could document an impairment in voice is:
21
“John’s severe voice impairment significantly limits his speech intelligibility and his
effective communication with teachers and peers. This impairment negatively
impacts John’s access to the general education curriculum and is limiting his social
development.”
In this example, the IEP team documented the presence of a hoarse voice that made John’s
speech difficult to understand. The speech-language pathologist observed in testing that John
was not able to produce more than two to three words per breath or that his voice had sufficient
volume to be heard. According to John’s classroom teacher, students often ask John to repeat
what he has said during class discussions or in non-academic settings.
evaluation process:
impairment.
22
For Fluency
According to PI 11.36 (5), Wisconsin Administrative Code, the IEP team must document both of
the following when identifying a fluency impairment:
1. The child has behaviors characteristic of a fluency disorder.
An impairment of fluency may be determined through a differential diagnosis of overt behaviors,

linguistic skills, emotional responses and environmental factors.
Characteristics of a fluency disorder may include any of the following:
• Sound, part-word, whole-word, phrase and sentence repetitions, sound prolongations,

interjections, revisions.
• Tension-related behaviors or secondary characteristics such as excessive muscle tension,
extraneous body movements (eye blinking), hard vocal attack, tense voice, blocks.
• Rapid or varied and irregular speaking rate.
• Indistinct pronunciation.
• Poor breath stream management.
• Abnormal intonation or stress patterns.
• Poor rhythm, timing, or musical ability.
• Word substitutions.
• Language formulation difficulties such as mazing, word retrieval problems observed in verbal
expression or measured through language sample analysis.
• Anxiety toward speaking, avoidance of speaking situations, specific sound or words, or
speaking with specific people.
The most common fluency disorder is stuttering, but there are other fluency disorders, such as
cluttering. In addition, there are motor speech disorders that may affect the fluency of a child’s
speech, such as a child with cerebral palsy.
Cluttering is a speech and language disorder that may affect fluency, rhythm, speaking rate,
respiration, speech intelligibility, organization, expressive language, and articulation. The
individual is generally unaware of their speech problems, whereas the person who stutters is
very aware of their speech problems.
The IEP Team must document that the child has behaviors characteristic of a fluency disorder
by documenting as follows:
• Analyze the frequency of the nonfluent speech.

• Analyze the length or duration of disfluencies.
• Analyze the speaking rate.
• Analyze how the child functions as a communicator in various settings.
• Analyze the child’s anxiety toward speaking and avoidance of speaking situations.
AND
23
2. The fluency impairment significantly affects the child’s educational, performance or
social, emotional, or vocational development.
In addition to documenting a fluency disorder, the IEP team must document that this disorder
affects the child’s educational performance, or social, emotional, or vocational development.
This is done by reports from parents, educators, the child, other IEP team participants, or
through direct observation.
An example of how an IEP team could document an impairment in fluency in the evaluation
report is:
“Tony’s speech is characterized by a significant number of disfluencies. This

speaking behavior makes it difficult for Tony to communicate with peers and
adults, makes his speech difficult to understand, draws adverse attention to Tony,
and interferes with Tony’s ability to interact in social and educational settings.”
In the example provided, a sample of Tony’s conversational speech had yielded a significant
rate of disfluencies. The types of disfluencies observed in the speech sample were repetitions of
the first sound of syllable in a word and prolongations of vowels. The secondary characteristics
observed in the test situation, and also reported by the classroom teacher and parent include
eye-blinking, tension around the mouth area, and head jerks. Tony’s classroom teacher reports
that Tony rarely participates in class discussion, nor does he volunteer to answer questions.
The teacher says that Tony has a few friends and does not interact with most of the other
children in the class. Tony’s parents reported behavior at home to be consistent to what was
reported for Tony’s school behavior.

evaluation process:
impairment.
24
Chapter IV
Need For Special Education
Identifying an impairment using the eligibility criteria in PI 11.36, Wisconsin Administrative Code,
was the first step in determining if the child has a disability in speech and language. Once a
child is identified as a child with an impairment, the IEP team must then determine if the child
needs special education due to the impairment.
A disability under federal and state special education law means the student meets the eligibility
criteria for at least one of the impairments and has a need for special education. A student may
meet the eligibility criteria for a speech and language or another impairment area but does not
automatically need special education.
According the PI 11.35, Wisconsin Administrative Code:
PI 11.35 (2) A child shall be identified as having a disability if the IEP team has determined
from an evaluation conducted under s. 115.782, Wis. Stats., that the child has an
impairment under s. PI 11.36, Wisconsin Administrative Code that adversely
affects the child’s educational performance, and the child, as a result thereof,
needs special education and related services.
PI 11.35 (3) As part of an evaluation or reevaluation under s. 115.782, Stats., conducted by
the IEP team in determining whether a child is or continues to be a child with a
disability, the IEP team shall identify all of the following:
(a) The child’s needs that cannot be met through the regular education
program as structured at the time the evaluation was conducted.
(b) Modifications, if any, that can be made in the regular education program,
such as adaptation of content, methodology or delivery of instruction to
meet the child’s needs identified under par. (a), that will allow the child to
access the general education curriculum and meet the educational
standards that apply to all children.
(c) Additions or modifications, if any, that the child needs which are not
provided through the general education curriculum, including replacement
content, expanded core curriculum or other supports.
Throughout the determination of whether the student has an impairment, the IEP team also has
been discussing the child’s needs in relationship to program planning for the child. Once the IEP
team has determined the impairment, the IEP team participants now must decide whether the
student needs special education and related services as the result of the impairment.
Need for special education is an important issue that often is overlooked - A child does not
“automatically” need special education just because he/she meets the criteria for an impairment.
The IEP team should ask questions such as:
• Why does this impairment/why do these needs require special education?

• Does this really require special education and an IEP?
Could instructional strategies, options, or interventions be implemented in regular
education to address the child’s needs?
25
Process For Determining The Need For Special Education
If the IEP team determines that a child has an impairment and a need for special education, the
child is considered a child with a disability. “Disability” means impairment plus need for special
education. The new rules have included a process to assist the IEP team in determining if the
student needs special education. A tool for guiding the IEP team’s discussion about the child’s
need for special education can be found in Appendix F—Worksheets to Document the Need
for Special Education “Need for Special Education Worksheet”. The worksheet is not required
but may be useful in addressing the three issues related to need. As part of an evaluation or
reevaluation conducted by the IEP team in determining whether a child is or continues to be a
child with a disability, the rules state that the IEP team must address the following:
1. Needs that cannot be met through the regular education program as structured.
The first step of the process requires that the IEP team discuss the child’s needs that cannot
be met through the regular education program as structured at the time the evaluation was
conducted. When discussing this, the IEP team must remember that schools have an obligation
to address through regular education some level of variability in the classroom. This first
consideration requires the IEP team to scrutinize the regular education environment to identify
needs that cannot be met in that environment as structured. The IEP team must discuss the
match or mismatch between the student’s needs and the regular education program. If there is
a match between regular education and the child’s needs then the IEP team may decide that
the child may have an impairment but does not need special education. If the mismatch is too
great to meet the student’s needs, the IEP team’s analysis is not finished. An example of this
may be a child whose speech intelligibility is so poor that his peers or his teacher does not
understand his conversational speech. The IEP team must go on to the next level of analysis.
2. Modifications that can be made in the regular education program
The law states the IEP team must identify:
Modifications, if any, that can be made in the regular education program, such as
adaptation of content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to meet the child’s needs
identified under par.(a) that will allow the child to access the general education curriculum
and meet the educational standards that apply to all children.
Schools have an obligation to adequately address a range of needs in all regular education
programs. Flexibility, creativity, and strong teaching skills should be factors of the analysis.
As the IEP team starts to discuss modifications that may be needed in regular education they
should take into consideration the following:
• What is involved in implementing the modification? (Time to implement, time for training,
preparation, short-term versus ongoing)?
• Can the modification be used with other students as well?
• Is this modification based on the general education classroom curriculum?
Remember the IEP team is reviewing modifications that can be made in regular education to
allow the student to access the general education curriculum and meet the same educational
standards that apply to all students. Changes that do not alter the expectations or general
content of what is being taught are still considered the general education curriculum. If options
26
can be provided relatively easily within the general education curriculum to address the child’s
needs and allow them to access the general curriculum and meet the standards that apply to all
children, the child is likely not to demonstrate a need for special education.
3. Modifications or additions which are not provided through the general education
curriculum.
The last consideration the IEP team needs to address is modifications or additions, which are
not provided through the general education curriculum. The law states the IEP team must
identify:
Additions or modifications, if any, that the child needs which are not provided through the
general education curriculum, including replacement content, expanded core curriculum
or other supports.
Does the student have needs that cannot be met in regular education even after that
environment is carefully scrutinized and appropriate modifications are considered? If so, as the
IEP team considers the child’s needs, the IEP team participants will need to identify any
instruction and supports outside of the regular education curriculum that the student needs.
The eligibility criteria found in PI 11.36 (5), Wis. Admin. Code are intended only to identify
whether the child has an impairment, not to determine the special education or related services
a child receives. There are no ‘eligibility criteria’ to determine the need for speech and language
services, either as special education or as a related service. IDEA states that services and
placement for a child with a disability must be based on the child’s unique needs and not on the
child’s category of disability.
27
Chapter V
Reevaluation
Once an IEP team has identified a student as having a disability, the team must conduct a
reevaluation at least once every three years to determine whether the student continues to be
eligible to receive special education and to identify the student’s needs. At the time of
reevaluation, it is appropriate to consider progress the child has made from the intervention and
possible regression if the services were stopped. A student may not appear to meet the initial
eligibility criteria, but could quickly regress to that level if services are prematurely stopped. The
focus becomes making an informed decision as to whether the student continues to need
special education or related services.
If the IEP team decides the student no longer demonstrates a speech and language impairment,
does not need special education to address his or her speech and language needs, or does not
require speech and language services to benefit from their special education program, the
student is no longer an eligible child with a disability under IDEA.
Discontinuing Speech and Language Services Without a Reevaluation
A speech and language pathologist must be an IEP team participant whenever speech and
language services are added or discontinued for a child. If the child has been identified as a
child with a speech and language impairment along with another impairment area, speech and
language services can be discontinued at an IEP team meeting without initiating a reevaluation
of the child as long as the child will continue to receive some other special education services.
The IEP team must re-evaluate the child’s speech and language skills at the next reevaluation
to determine if the child continues to have a speech and language impairment. The IEP team
should document this decision in a short statement in the IEP. The statement should include a
description of why the decision was made. This will remind team members to consider speech
and language at the next reevaluation as well as serve as documentation. If discontinuing
speech and language services means the child will no longer receive any special education
services, the IEP team must conduct a reevaluation prior to discontinuing services.
For example, a child may be identified as a child with impairments in the areas of specific
learning disabilities and speech and language. The IEP team previously determined that the
child required learning disabilities services and speech and language services to remediate
deficits in reading, math, and language. At the annual IEP review, the IEP team decided that the
child no longer needs speech and language services because the language and communication
needs can be met in the general education environment and also by the learning disabilities
program. The IEP team may discontinue speech and language services at that time without
conducting a reevaluation because the child will continue to be a child with a disability and
receive special education services.
If the child is a child with a disability in an area other than speech and language and is receiving
speech and language as a related service, the IEP team can discontinue speech and language
services without conducting a reevaluation. The child would not have to be re-evaluated in the
area of speech and language at the next reevaluation unless the IEP team suspected the child
had a speech and language impairment or required speech and language services to benefit
from special education.
28
Some factors that an IEP team may consider as indicators that a child no longer needs speech
and language services include:
• The child has a functional and effective communication system.
• The child still has speech sound errors that do not interfere with the intelligibility of the child’s
speech.
• The identified impairment no longer has an adverse affect on the student’s education
performance, or social, emotional, or vocational development.
• The child has met all IEP objectives in speech and language areas.
• NOTE: The lack of a child’s progress in IEP objectives, in and of itself, does not justify
dismissing a student from speech and language services. The lack of progress may indicate
the need for the IEP team to consider a different service delivery model such as consultation
services or incorporating speech and language instruction into the regular education or
special education classroom. This discussion and any subsequent decision should include
documentation of various instructional strategies attempted over time.
• Extenuating circumstances of a medical, dental, social, or other nature that would interfere
with the child’s ability to benefit from or make progress in speech and language skills.
See Appendix E—Worksheets to Document the Need for Special Education Need for
Special Education Worksheet and Speech and Language Need for Special Education Indicators
assists in decision-making for the IEP team.
Options For Students Dismissed From Speech and Language
When an IEP team determines that a student does not require speech and language services,
teachers and parents may become concerned that the student will no longer be able to receive
access to supports for communication needs. If the IEP team determines that the student
continues to have a speech and language impairment, but not a need for special education, the
team should specifically document the continuing communication needs of the child. The IEP
team should then identify classroom modifications and accommodations the student needs in
order to meaningfully access the general education curriculum. The IEP team should also
identify any communication needs that can be met through other special education programs
the child continues to receive.
29
Chapter VI
Speech and Language Services
There are several sources of guidance available to IEP teams when considering whether a child
with a disability needs speech and language services. IDEA requires the IEP team to consider
the communication needs of every child with a disability. The IEP team determines if the
communication needs can be met in the general education curriculum or through another
special education provider, or the IEP team may determine that the communication needs
require speech and language services. In Wisconsin, speech and language services are those
services provided by an individual with an #820 license in speech and language pathology
issued by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
A speech and language pathologist has unique skills to provide services to improve voice,
fluency, speech intelligibility, or to establish a functional and effective communication system
that no other district staff member generally has. While speech and language pathologists also
have specialized skills and can provide services to improve language and communication, it is
possible that a child’s language and communication needs may be met in the regular education
classroom or through the regular education curriculum. Not every child who has a speech and
language impairment or who has a communication need requires speech and language
services. In considering the least restrictive environment (LRE) and the educational needs of the
child, the IEP team must begin by presuming the child will be educated with his non-disabled
peers in the regular education curriculum. The IEP team should also consider whether the
child’s language and communication needs could be met through other special education
services or by other special education providers.
Some examples of questions an IEP team might ask when determining the need for speech and
language include:
• Does this student’s present educational program, in either regular or special education,
provide for necessary instruction in language and communication skills?
• Are there interventions that still may need to be attempted in the child’s present educational
program or setting?
• What modifications can be made in either regular or special education such as adaptations of
content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to meet the needs identified and allow the
child to access the general education curriculum?
• Does this student correct any speech or language errors spontaneously?
• Is the student stimulable for correct production of sounds? Does the student correct errors in
response to being given an appropriate model to imitate?
• Are there other variables or impairments (i.e., sensory or physical) which interfere with the
attainment of oral communication skills?
• Is there evidence to suggest that this student will develop speech and language skills at his
or her own predicated rate without intervention?
• Is there a likelihood that this student will not improve is the student does not receive speech
and language services?
• Is there evidence that the student will improve as a result of receiving speech and language
services and that such services will contribute to achievement of the student’s overall
educational goal?
30
See Appendix F—Worksheets to Document the Need for Special Education Speech and
Language Need for Special Education Indicators provides a complete listing of indicators to
consider.
Related Services
Related services means transportation and such developmental, corrective and other
supportive services that are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special
education and includes speech/language pathology.
In Wisconsin, speech and language services can be either a special education service or a
related service. When a child is eligible to receive services due to a speech and language
impairment and the need for special education, the speech and language service provided to a
child is generally referred to as special education. When speech and language is needed by the
child to benefit from special education, the service is a related service.
Determination of the need for related services for a particular student involves a process of
determining educational relevance as well as educational necessity. That is, the IEP team must
identify those services (e.g., speech and language) that are needed for the student to have a
reasonable opportunity to benefit from special education.
To be educationally relevant, a related service must be necessary to support the student’s IEP
goals. The therapist should be able to identify the areas in the IEP where speech and language
services are needed for the child to benefit from special education.
The following questions are ones that can help guide the IEP Team in determining if the related
service is necessary for the child to benefit from special education:
1. What is the specific oral language deficit that is preventing the student’s access to or ability
to make meaningful progress in the special education service?
2. Is there an overlap or duplication of services? For example, children who require services to
improve their vocabulary may be receiving this service from a regular education teacher or
another special education provider who teaches vocabulary development. As another
example, a CD teacher or assistive technology specialist may have sufficient training and
experience to meet the needs of a child who requires services for augmentative
communication needs, such as picture communication boards or electronic communication
devices. An IEP team could, therefore, determine that a particular child’s augmentative
communication needs could be met through a service provider other than a speech and
language pathologist.
3. Does the student require services that can only be provided by a licensed speech and
language pathologist?
A speech and language pathologist has unique skills to provide services to improve voice,
fluency, speech intelligibility, or to establish a functional and effective communication system
that no other district staff member generally has.
It is important to remember that decisions regarding services must be made on a case-

by-case basis through the IEP process.
31
References
Assessment (general)
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, “Definitions of Communicative Disorders and
Variations,” ASHA 1993; Vol. 35, p. 40-41.
The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements website: www.unl.edu/buros/ (This website gives
information on Tests in Print, Mental Measurement Yearbooks, and access to current
commercially-produced tests).
Coster, Wendy, Theresa Deeney, Jane Haltiwanger, Stephen Haley, School Function
Assessment (San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation, 1998).
Cummins, J. Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy.

Cevedon, England: Multicultural Matters Ltd. 1984.
Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services.

(1997). A training and resource manual for the implementation of state eligibility criteria for
the speech and language impaired [Addendum]. Tallahassee, FL:Author.
Linder, Toni W., Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment: A Functional Approach to Working

with Younger Children (Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co., 1990). p. 304.
Ohio Statewide Language Task Force, “Ohio Handbook for the Identification, Evaluation, and
Placement of Children with Language Problems," (Columbus: Ohio Department of
Education): 1990.
Schraeder, Trici, Michelle Quinn, Ida J. Stockman, and Jon Miller, “Authentic Assessment as an
Approach to Preschool Speech-Language Screening," American Journal of Speech-
Language Pathology; Vol. 8; August, 1999: pp. 195-200.
Stockman, Ida; “The Concept of Minimal Competence Core Shows Assessment Promise;”
ASHA; July/August 1999: p. 50.
State of Connecticut: Department of Education, “Guidelines for Speech and Language

Programs: Determining Eligibility for Special Education Speech and Language Services,
Volume II” (Middletown: Connecticut Department of Education): 1999.
Conversational Speech Intelligibility and Severity Assessment

Bankson, N. W., and J.E. Bernthal (1998). Analysis and interpretation of Assessment Data. In
Bernthal, J. E., and N. W. Bankson (Eds.) Articulation and Phonological Disorders, 4th
Edition (pp. 270-298). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Berman, S. (2002). Clinical Phonology: Analysis and Treatment of Speech Disorders. Workshop
Presentation, April 19, 2002, Madison, WI.
Edwards, M. (1983). Issues in Phonological Assessment. In Locke, J. (Ed.) Assessing and

Treating Phonological Disorders: Current Approaches. Seminars in Speech and
Language, pp. 4, 354-355.
32
Gordon-Brannan, M. (1994). Assessing Intelligibility: Children’s Expressive Phonologies. In
Butler, K. and B. Hodson (Eds.), Topics in Language Disorders, pp. 14, 17-25.
Gordon-Brannan, M. and B.W. Hodson (2000). Intelligibility/Severity Measurements of

Prekindergarten Children’s Speech. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
May 2000, pp. 141-150.
Hodson, B. (2000). Enhancing Phonological and Metaphonological Skills: What Do We Know in

the Year 2000. Presentation at the Wisconsin Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Annual Convention, March 30, 2000.
Hodson, B. (2002). Phonology Update. Presentation at the Wisconsin Speech-Language-

Hearing Association Annual Convention, February 22, 2002.
Kent, R.D., Weismer, G., Kent, J., and J. Rosenbek (1989). Toward Phonetic Intelligibility
Testing in Dysarthria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, pp. 54, 482-499.
Kent, R.D., Miolo, G., and S. Bloedel (1994). Intelligibility of Children’s Speech: A Review of
Evaluation Procedures. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 1994, pp.
81-95.
Kwiatkowski, J., and L.D. Shriberg (1992). Intelligibility Assessment in Developmental

Phonological Disorders: Accuracy of Caregiver Gloss. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, pp. 28, 1095-1104.
Pena-Brooks, A., and M.N. Hegde (2000). Assessment and Treatment of Articulation and
Phonological Disorders in Children: A Dual Level Text. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Shriberg, L.D. and J. Kwiatkowski (1982). Phonological Disorders III: A Procedure for Assessing
Severity of Involvement. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, pp. 47, 256-270.
Stoel-Gammon, C. and C. Dunn (1985). Normal and Disordered Phonology in Children.

Baltimore: University Park Press.
Strand, E.A., and R.J. McCauley (2000). Differential Diagnosis of Severe Articulatory
Impairment in Children. Short Course Presentation at the American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association Annual Convention, November 2000, Washington, DC.
Vihman, M.M. (1998). Later Phonological Development. In Bernthal, J.E., and N.W. Bankson
(Eds.) Articulation and Phonological Disorders, 4th Edition, pp. 113-147. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Vihman, M.M., and M. Greenlee (1987). Individual Differences in Phonological Development:

Ages One and Three Years. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, pp. 30, 503-521.
Special Populations
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Special Education Home Page:
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/een/eligintro.html Available at site: Assessment
Guides and technical assistant materials for the new eligibility criteria: Cognitive
Disabilities, Emotional Behavioral Disabilities, Hearing Impairment, Specific Learning
Disabilities, and Visual Impairments.
33
Bober, Patricia A. and Sandra L. Corbett, “Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy: A
Resource and Planning Guide,” (Madison: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction):
1996.
Corbett, Sandra L. and Betty Ross-Thompson, “Educating Students with Traumatic Brain
Injuries: A Resource and Planning Guide,” (Madison: Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction): 1996.
Easterbrooks, Dr. Susan and Sharon Baker-Hawkins, “Educational Service Guidelines, Deaf
and Hard of Hearing Students,” (National Association of State Directors of Special
Education: Alexandria, VA): 1995.
Freiberg, Christine; “Linguistically Culturally Diverse: African American and Hmong” (Madison:
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction): 1997.
Freiberg, Christine; “Linguistically Culturally Diverse II: American Indian and Spanish Speaking”
(Madison: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Tomahawk, CESA #9): 2002.
Pugh, G. S. and J. Erin (Eds.); “Blind and Visually Impaired Students, Educational Service
Guidelines,” National Association of State Directors of Education; National Agenda
Resources; 1999.
The National Agenda for the Education of Children and Youths with Visual Impairments,
Including Those with Multiple Disabilities; AFB Press; 1995.
United States Department of Education; “Educating Blind and Visually Impaired Students: Policy
Guidance, Notice”; Federal Register Park IV; June 8, 2000.
Wisconsin Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired: 1-800-832-9784.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, “MEMO: English as a Second Language (ESL)

Program Services for Children of Parents Who Are Deaf and Use American Sign
Language (ASL),” May, 2001.
Speech or Sound Production

Bowen, Caroline; “The Gradual Acquisition of the Speech Sound System," in Developmental
Phonological Disorders: A Practical Guide for Families and Teachers (Melbourne: ACER
Press): 1998.
Hodson, Barbara Williams and Mary Louise Edwards; Perspectives in Applied Phonology
(Aspen Publishers, Inc., 1997).
Hodson, Barbara and Mary Gordon-Brannan; “Intelligibility/Severity Measurements of

Prekindergarten Children’s Speech;" American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology;
Vol. 9; May 2000, pp. 141-150.
Ingram, David; Procedures for the Phonological Analysis of Children’s Language (Baltimore:
University Park Press, 1981).
Smit, Ann Bosma, et. al.; “The Iowa Articulation Norms Project and Its Nebraska Replication”;
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders; Vol. 56, No. 4; November, 1990: pp. 779-798.
34
Voice
Andrews, M.L.; Voice Treatments for Children and Adolescents (San Diego: Singular Publishing
Group, 2001).
Andrews, M.L.; Manual of Voice Treatment: Pediatrics to Geriatrics 2nd Edition (San Diego:
Singular Publishing Group, 1999).
Baken, R.J. and R.F. Orlikoff; Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice 2nd Edition; (San
Diego: Singular Publishing Group, 2000).
Boone, Daniel R. and S.C. McFarlane; The Voice and Voice Therapy (Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall Press, 2000).
Cotton, R. and J.K. Casper; Understanding Voice Problems: A Physiological Perspective for
Diagnosis and Treatment, 2nd Edition (Baltimore: William and Innegan, D. E.; “Maximum
Phonation Time for Children with Normal Voices,” Folia Phoniatrica; pp. 37, 209-215.
Glaze, L.E., D.M. Bless, P.H. Milenkovic, and R.D. Susser; “Acoustic Characteristics of
Children’s Voice”; Journal of Voice; 2 no.4; pp. 312-319.
Hayes, W.O. and R.H. Pindzola; Diagnosis and Evaluation in Speech Pathology, 5th Edition
(Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998).
Kent R.D., J. Kent, and J. Rosenbek; “Maximum Performance Test of Speech Production,"
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders; pp. 52; 367-387.
Stemple, J.C., L.E. Glaze, and Klaben B. Gerdeman; Clinical Voice Pathology: Theory and
Management, 3rd Edition (San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, 2000).
Verdolini, K.; “Voice Disorders," in Diagnosis in Speech/Language Pathology; edits by J. B.

Tomblin, H.L. Morris, D. C. Spriestersbach; (San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, 1994).
Fluency
Stuttering Foundation of American website: www.stutterSFA.org
References for Cluttering
Daly, D.A. (1993) “Cluttering: Another Fluency Syndrome,” In Stuttering and Related Disorders
of Fluency (New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 1993).
Daly, D.A. The Source for Stuttering & Cluttering (East Moline: LinguiSystems, 1996).
Daly, D.A. and M.L. Burnett;" Cluttering Assessment, Treatment, Planning, and Case Study
Illustration”; Journal of Fluency Disorders; Vol. 20, 1996.
Myers, F.L., & St. Louis, K.O. (Eds.). (1992) Cluttering: A Clinical Perspective (reissued in 1996
by Singular Publishing Group: San Diego, CA).
Myers, Florence L., and Ken St. Louis; “Management of Cluttering and Related Fluency
Disorders”; In Nature and Treatment of Stuttering, 2nd edition. (Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
1997).
35
Stuttering
Andrew, G. and R. Ingram; “Stuttering Considerations in the Evaluation of Treatment;” British
Journal of Communication Disorders; (6) 1971: pp. 129-138.
Arndt, J. and Healey, E.C.; “Concomitant Disorders in School-Age Children Who Stutter”;
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools; Vol. 32, pp. 68-78.
Brutten , G. and S. Dunham; “The Communication Attitude Test: A Normative Study of Grade
School Children”; Journal of Fluency Disorders, Vol. 14; pp. 371-377.
Culatta, R. and S. Goldberg; “Culture and Stuttering”; In: Stuttering Therapy (Needham Heights:
Allyn & Bacon, 1995).
Curlee, R.F and G. M. Siegel (Eds.); Nature and Treatment of Stuttering, 2nd edition. (Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, 1997).
Curlee, R. (Ed.); Stuttering and Related Disorders of Fluency (New York: Thieme Medical
Publishers, Inc., 1993).
Dell, C. W.; “Treating the School-Age Child Who Stutters: A Guide for Clinicians”; Publication
No. 14; (Memphis: Stuttering Foundation of America): 2000.
Emerick, L., and W. Haynes; Diagnosis and Evaluation in Speech Pathology; 3rd ed.
(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1996).
Gordon, P.A. and H.L. Luper; “The Early Identification of Beginning Stuttering I: Protocols”;
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology; May, 1992; Vol. 1, (3): pp. 43-53.
Gordon, P.A. and H.L. Luper; “The Early Identification of Beginning Stuttering II: Problems”;
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology”; September, 1992; Vol. (4): pp. 49-55.
Gregory, Hugo; Stuttering: Differential Evaluation and Therapy (revised). (Austin: Pro-Ed, 1986).
Guitar, Barry; “Stuttering”; In Speech Evaluation in Medicine; J. Darby (Ed.) (New York: Grune &
Stratton, 1981).
Guitar, Barry; Stuttering: An Integrated Approach to Its Nature and Treatment 2nd Edition;
(Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1998. Also 1991 Edition with T. J. Peters).
Manning, W.H.; Clinical Decision Making in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Fluency Disorders
(Albany: Delmar, 1996).
Onslow, M.; “Identification of Early Stuttering: Issues and Suggested Strategies”; American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology; September, 1992; Vol. 1 (4): pp. 21-27.
Peters, T.J. and Barry Guitar; Stuttering: An Integrated Approach to Its Nature and Treatment
(Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1991).
Pindzola, R., M. Jenkins and K. Lokken; “Speaking Rates of Young Children," Language,
Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, Vol. 20: pp. 133-138.
Pindzola, R. and D. White; “ A Protocol for Differentiating the Incipient Stutterer”; Language,
Speech and Hearing Services in Schools; Vol. 17; (1): pp. 2-15.
36
Rustin, L. W., Botterill, and E. Kelman; Assessment and Therapy for Young Dysfluent Children,
(San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, 1996).
St. Louis, Ken O. (ed.) The Atypical Stutterer: Principles and Practices in Rehabilitation (New
York: Academic Press, Inc., 1986).
Starkweather, C.; Fluency and Stuttering (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1987).
“Stuttering Therapy: Prevention and Intervention with Children”; Publication No. 20.; (Memphis:
Stuttering Foundation of America); 1992.
Van Riper, Charles; The Nature of Stuttering (Eglewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982).
Yaruss, J.S.; “Real-Time Analysis of Speech Fluency: Procedures and Reliability Training,"
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology; Vol. 7; (2): pp. 25-37.
Language
Websites:
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association website: www.asha.org
Computerized Profiling (Mark Fey and Steve Long, 2001): www.cwru.edu.artsci/cosi/cp.htm
Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT): www.waisman.wisc.edu/salt/
US Department of Education: www.ed.gov/pub/. Links to checklists that assess readiness skills

for assessment of Kindergarten aged children (example of checklists)
Materials and Articles:
Pragmatic Communication Skills Protocol, (Oceanside: Academic Skills Associates: CA, 1989).
Brown, R.; The First Language: The Early Stages (Cambridge: Harvard University,
1973).Casby, Michael; “The Cognitive Hypothesis and Its Influence on Speech Language
Services in the Schools,” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools; 23;
July, 1992: pp. 198-202.
Dore, J.; “A Pragmatic Description of Early Language Development’; Journal of Psycholinguistic

Research’ (4): pp. 343-350.
Dore, J.; “Holophrases, Speech Acts, and Language Universals”; Journal of Child Language; (2)
1975: pp. 21-40.
Dore, J.; “Variation in Preschool Children’s Conversational Performances’; In Children’s

Language: Vol. I); Nelson, K.; (New York: Gardener Press) pp. 397-444.
“IDEA and Your Caseload: A Template for Eligibility and Dismissal Criteria for Students Ages 3-
21”; (Rockville: ASHA): 2000.
Johnson, Weinrich and Johnson; “A Sourcebook of Pragmatic Activities” (both volumes: PK-6
and Adolescents) (Tucson: Communication Skills Builders) 1984.
37
Kleiman, Larry I.; Functional Communication Profile, (LinguiSystems: Moline, IL)
Lee, Laura; Developmental Sentence Analysis; (Evanston: Northwestern University Press):

1974.
Miller, Jon and Leadholm, Barbra; Language Sample Analysis: The Wisconsin Guide, (Madison:
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 1992).
Miller, Jon F.; Assessing Language Production in Children; (Baltimore: University Park Press,
1981).
Moore-Brown, Barbara J. and Judy K. Montgomery; “Making a Difference for American’s

Children: Speech Language Pathologists in Public Schools,” (Thinking Publication: Eau
Claire, WI) 2001.
Paul, Rhea; Language Disorders from Infancy through Adolescence, 2nd Edition; (St. Louis:
Mosby, 2000).
Retherford, Kristine S.; Guide to Analysis of Language Transcripts, (Thinking Publications: Eau
Claire, WI, 2000).
Richard, Gail; The Source for Processing Disorders; (LinguiaSystems: Moline, IL, 2001).
Shipley and McAfee; Assessment in Speech-Language Pathology, 2nd Ed.; (San Diego: Singular
Publishing Group, 1998).
Simon, Charlann S.; Evaluating Communicative Competence, 2nd Edition; (Thinking

Publications: Eau Claire, WI, 1994).
Tyack, D. and R. Gottsleben; Language, Sampling, Analysis and Training; (Palo Alto:
Consulting Psychologists Press, 1974).
Wetherby, Amy and Barry Prizant; Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales, (Applied
Sylbolics: Chicago, IL, 1993).
38
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Resources for Standardized Testing

Test Evaluation Form
Distribution of Scores
Appendix B: Documenting Communication in Natural Environments

Teacher Checklist
Observation in Classroom/Relevant Setting
Developmental Milestones for Speech and Language
Anecdotal Reporting of Intelligibility Worksheet
Appendix C: Definitions of Communication Disorders and Variations
Appendix D: Worksheets to Document a Speech/Language Impairment

Speech and Language Eligibility Checklist
Educational Relevance of the Communicative Disorder
Appendix E: Resources for Speech or Sound Production

Sound Development Chart-Females
Sound Development Chart-Males
Calculating the Percentage of Consonants Correct
Appendix F: Worksheets to Document the Need for Special Education

Speech/Language Need for Special Education Indicators
Need for Special Education Worksheet
39
Appendix A
Resources for Standardized Testing
40
Test Evaluation Form
Title/Name of Test Author
Publisher Date of Publication
I. Purposes of the Test

A. The purposes of the test are described adequately in the test manual.
B. The purposes of the test are appropriate for the intended local uses of the instrument.
Comments:
II. Construction of the Test

A. Test was developed based on a contemporary theoretical model of speech language
development and reflects the findings of recent research.
B. Procedures used in developing test content (e.g. selection and field-test of test
items) were adequate.
Comments:
III. Procedures
A. Procedures for test administration:
1. Described adequately in the test manual.
2. Appropriate for the local population.
B. Procedures for scoring the test:

C. Procedures for test interpretation:

41
IV. Linguistic Appropriateness of the Test
A. Directions presented to the child are written in the dialect used by the local
population.
B. Test items are written in the dialect used by the local population.
Comments:
V. Cultural Appropriateness of the Test

A. Types of tasks that the child is asked to perform are culturally appropriate for the
local population.
B. Content of test items is culturally appropriate for the local population.
C. Visual stimuli (e.g. stimulus pictures used on the test) are culturally appropriate for
the local population.
Comments:
VI. Adequacy of Norms

A. Procedures for selection of the standardization sample are described in detail.
B. Standardization sample is an appropriate comparison group for the local population
in terms of:
1. Age
2. Ethnic background
3. Place of birth
4. Community of current residence
5. Length of residency in the United States
6. Socioeconomic level
7. Language classification (e.g. limited English proficient)
8. Language most often used by child at home
9. Language most often used by child at school
10. Type of language program provided in school setting (e.g. bilingual.
education)
Comments:
42
VII. Adequacy of Test Reliability Data
A. Test-retest reliability
B. Alternate form reliability
C. Split-half or internal consistency
Comments:
VIII. Adequacy of Test Validity Data

A. Face validity
B. Construct validity
C. Concurrent validity
D. Predictive validity
Comments:
From the CESA #9, Tomahawk, Program Evaluation Guide, 1985
43
Distribution of Scores
Standard
Deviations -3 SD -2 SD -1 SD Mean +1 SD +2 SD +3 SD
Percentiles .1 2 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 84 98 99
Stanines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15 55 70 85 100 115 130 145
Standard 03 1 4 7 10 13 16 19
Scores (S.D.)
Average Range
-3 -2 -1 Mean = +1 +2 +3
Zero
44
Appendix B:
Documenting Communication in
Natural Environments
45
Teacher Checklist
Student Date
Teacher Grade
To the teacher, please read each of the following statements. Indicate those statements that are
representative of the student's language and communication behavior.
1. In your opinion the student demonstrates a noticeable communication problem which maybe
affecting educational performance.
2. The communication problem is most noticeable during:

Comprehension tasks—written—verbal
Classroom discussion
Social Communication
Mathematics
Language Arts
Spelling
Oral Reading
Other
3. The student understands subject-related vocabulary.
4. This student understands subject-related concepts.
5. The student follows written or spoken instructions.
6. The student understands figurative language.
7. The student has reasoning and problem solving abilities.
8. The student's responses to questions are appropriate.
9. The student participates appropriately in class.
10. The student relates stories and experiences.
11. The student's sentence structure interferes with his/her ability to clearly express a message.
12. The student's speech is easily understood.
13. The student is fluent in oral communication.
Revised from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Graduate Extern Manual, 2001
46
Observation in Classroom/Relevant Setting
Name Age Sex
ID Number School
Grade Date of Observation Location Check One
Regular Classroom Sp. Ed. Classroom Home Other

Subject/Activity Duration
Instructional Setting Check One
whole group instruction small group instruction cooperative group individual instruction
Speech/Language Skills Data

Not
Yes No Observed
1. Is speech sound articulation adequate?

2. Is intelligibility adequate for successful communication in this setting?
3. Is use of voice appropriate in terms of quality, loudness and pitch?
4. Is voice adequate for successful communication?
5. Is speech fluent?
6. Is fluency adequate for successful communication?
7. Are vocabulary and concepts understood and used appropriately?
8. Are sentences of appropriate grammatical length and complexity used

and understood?
9. Are directions followed appropriately?
10. Are pragmatic skills used appropriately?
11. Are language skills adequate for successful communication in this

setting?
Comments:
47
Academic, Social and Behavioral Factors
Not
Yes No Observed
1. Does this student have difficulty meeting the academic requirements of

this activity?
2. Does this student avoid speaking in class?
3. Does this student seem frustrated/anxious in meeting the

communication demands of the activity?
4. Do social interactions appear to be affected by this student's

speech/language skills?
Comments:
List there any additional factors, which may have affected this student's communication performance in
this setting?
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Does this observation appear consistent with this student's "typical" communication performance per
teacher or other informant? Yes No
Developed by the Milwaukee Public Schools Speech and Language Disabilities Program 2001.
48
Developmental Milestones for Speech and Language
AGE LANGUAGE AND SPEECH BEHAVIORS
1 yr. recognizes his or her name

understands simple instructions
initiates familiar words, gestures, and sounds
uses "mama," "dada," and other common nouns
1 1/2 yrs. uses 10 to 20 words, including names

recognizes pictures of familiar persons and objects
combines two words, such as "all gone"
uses words to make wants known, such as "more," "up"
points and gestures to call attention to an event and to show wants
follows simple commands
imitates simple actions
hums, may sing simple tunes
distinguishes print from nonprint
2 yrs. understands simple questions and commands

identifies body parts
carries on conversation with self and dolls
asks "what" and "where"
has sentence length of two to three words
refers to self by name
names pictures
uses two—word negative phrases, such as "no want"
forms some plurals by adding "s"
has about a 300-word vocabulary
asks for food and drink
stays with one activity for six to seven minutes
knows how to interact with books (right side up, page turning from left to right)
2 1/2 yrs. has about a 450-word vocabulary

gives first name
uses past tense and plurals; combines some nouns and verbs
understands simple time concepts, such as "last night," "tomorrow"
refers to self as "me" rather than name
tries to get adult attention with "watch me"
likes to hear same story repeated
uses "no" or "not" in speech
answers "where" questions
uses short sentences, such as "me do it"
holds up fingers to tell age
talks to other children and adults
plays with sounds of language
49
3 yrs. matches primary colors; names one color
knows night and day
begins to understand prepositional phrases such as "put the block under the
chair”
practices by talking to self
knows last name, sex, street name, and several nursery rhymes
tells a story or relays an idea
has sentence length of three to four words
has vocabulary of nearly 1,000 words
consistently uses m, n, ng, p, f, h, and w
draws circle and vertical line
sings songs
stays with one activity for eight to nine minutes
asks '"hat" questions
4 yrs. points to red, blue, yellow, and green

identifies crosses, triangles, circles, and squares
knows "next month," "next year," and "noon"
has sentence length of four to five words
asks "who" and "why"
begins to use complex sentences
correctly uses m, n, ng, p, f, h, w, y, k, b, d, and g
stays with activity for 11 to 12 minutes
plays with language, e.g., word substitutions
5 yrs. defines objects by their use and tells what they are made of
knows address
identifies penny, nickel, and dime
has sentence length of five to six words
has vocabulary of about 2,000 words
uses speech sounds correctly, with the possible exceptions being y, th, j, s/z, zh,
and r
knows common opposites
understands "same" and "different"
counts ten objects
uses future, present, and past tenses
stays with one activity for 12 to 13 minutes
questions for information
identifies left and right hand on self
uses all types of sentences
shows interest and appreciation for print
6-7 yrs. identifies most sounds phonetically

forms most sound-letter associations
segments sounds into smallest grammatical units
begins to use semantic and syntactic cues in writing and reading
begins to write simple sentences with vocabulary and spelling appropriate for age
uses these sentences in brief reports and creative short stories
understands time and space concepts, such as before/after, second/third
comprehends mathematical concepts, such as "few," "many," "all," and "except"
50
8, 9, 10 yrs. by second grade, accurately follows oral directions for action and thereby
acquires new knowledge
substitutes words in oral reading, sentence recall, and repetition; copying and
writing
dictation are minimal
comprehends reading materials required for various subjects, including story
problems and simple sentences
by fourth grade, easily classifies words and identifies relationships, such as
"cause and effect"
defines words (sentence context)
introduces self appropriately
asks for assistance
exchanges small talk with friends
initiates telephone calls and takes messages
gives directions for games; summarizes a television show or conversation
begins to write effectively for a variety of purposes
understands verbal humor
11, 12, 13, displays social and interpersonal communication appropriate for age
14 yrs. forms appropriate peer relationships
begins to define words at an adult level and talks about complex processes
form an abstract point of view; uses figurative language organizes materials
demonstrates good study skills follows lectures and outlines content through
note taking paraphrases and asks questions appropriate to content
Adolescence interprets emotions, attitudes, and intentions communicated by others' facial

expressions and and body language
young adult takes role of other person effectively
is aware of social space zones
displays appropriate reactions to expressions of love, affection, and approval
compares, contrasts, interprets, and analyzes new and abstract information
communicates effectively and develops competence in oral and written
modalities
Source: Ohio Statewide Language Task Force. (1990). Developmental milestones: Language behaviors.
In Ohio Handbook for the Identification, Evaluation and Placement of Children with Language
Problems (1991).
Columbus: Ohio Department of Education. Reprinted by permission.
51
Anecdotal Reporting of Intelligibility Worksheet
How well is your child understood when s/he talks to you and to other people?
Please check the boxes that apply.
Other
Immediate Childcare Familiar
Parent(s) or Family Provider(s) or Relatives or
Guardian(s) Members Teacher(s) Friends Strangers
Understood the first
time
Understood after 2-3
attempts
Understood after
many attempts
How often do you and other people understand your child when s/he is speaking?
Please check the boxes that apply.
Other Childcare
Immediate Provider(s) Familiar
Parent(s) or Family or Relatives or
All of the time
(100%)
Most of the time (75%)
Sometimes
(50%)
Rarely
(25 % or less)
Never
(0%)
When your child is not understood by you and by other people, what does s/he do? Please
check the boxes that apply.
Other Childcare
Immediate Provider(s) Familiar
Parent(s) or Family or Relatives or
Repeat
Say different words
Gesture or point
Give up / walk away
Other (describe)
52
Appendix C
Definitions of Communication Disorders

and
Variations
53
Definitions of Communication
Disorders and Variations
Ad Hoc Committee on Service Delivery in the Schools
American Speech-Language Hearing Association
These guidelines are an official statement of the American Speech-Language-Hearing

Association (ASHA). They provide guidance on definitions of communication disorders and
variations, but are not official standards of the Association. They were developed by the Ad Hoc
Committee on Service Delivery in the Schools: Frances K. Block, chair; Amie Amiot, ex offico;
Cheryl Deconde Johnson; Gina E. Nimmo; Peggy G. Von Almen; Deborah W. White; and Sara
Hodge Zeno. Diane L. Eger, 1991-1993 vice president for professional practices, served as
monitoring vice president for professional practices, served as monitoring vice president. The
1992 guidelines supersede the paper title “Communication Disorders and Variations,” Asha,
November 1982, pages 949-950.
I. A COMMUNICATION DISORDER is an impairment in the ability to receive, send, process,

and comprehend concepts or verbal, nonverbal and graphic symbol systems. A communication
disorder may be evident in the processes of hearing, language, and/or speech. A
communication disorder may range in severity from mild to profound. It may be developmental
or acquired. Individuals may demonstrate one or any combination of communication disorders.
A Communication disorder may result in a primary disability or it may be secondary to other
disabilities.
A. A SPEECH DISORDER is an impairment of the articulation of speech sounds,

fluency, and/or voice
1. AN ARTICULATION DISORDER is the atypical production of speech sounds
characterized by substitutions, omissions, additions or distortions that may
interfere with intelligibility.
2. FLUENCY DISORDER is an interruption in the flow of speaking characterized
by atypical rate, rhythm, and repetitions in sounds, syllables, words, and phrases.
This may be accompanied by excessive tension, struggle behavior, and
secondary mannerisms.
3. VOICE DISORDER is characterized by the abnormal production and/or
absences of vocal quality, pitch, loudness, resonance, and/or duration, which is
inappropriate for an individual’s age and/or sex.
B. A LANGUAGE DISORDER is impaired comprehension and/or use of spoken, written

and/or other symbol systems. The disorder may involve (1) the form of language
(phonology, morphology syntax), (2) the content of language (semantics), and/or (3) the
function of language in communication (pragmatics) in any combination.
1. Form of Language
a. PHONOLOGY is the sound system of language and the rules that
govern the sound combinations
b. MORPHOLOGY is the system that governs the structure of words and
the construction of word forms.
54
c. SYNTAX is the system governing the order and combination of words
to form sentences and the relationships among the elements within a
sentence.
2. Content of Language
a. SEMANTICS is the system that governs the meanings of words and
sentences.
3. Functions of Language
a. PRAGMATICS is the system that combines the above language
components in function and socially appropriate communication
C. A HEARING DISORDER is the result of impaired auditory sensitivity of the

physiological auditory system. A hearing disorder may limit the development,
comprehension, production, and/or maintenance of speech and/or language. Hearing
disorders are classified according to difficulties in detection, recognition, discrimination,
comprehension, and perception of auditory information. Individuals with hearing
impairment may be described as deaf or hard of hearing.
1. DEAF is defined as a hearing disorder which limits an individual’s aural/oral

communication performance to the extent that the primary sensory input for
communication may be other than the auditory channel.
2. HARD OF HEARING is defined as a hearing disorder, whether fluctuating or
permanent, which adversely affects an individual’s ability to communicate.
The hard of hearing individual relies upon the auditory channel as the primary
sensory input for communication.
D. CENTRAL AUDITORY PROCESSING DISORDERS are deficits in the information

processing of audible signals not attributed to impaired peripheral hearing sensitivity or
intellectual impairment. This information processing involves perceptual, cognitive, and
linguistic functions that, with appropriate interaction, result in effective receptive
communication of auditorily presented stimuli. Specifically, CAPD refers to limitations in
the ongoing transmission, analysis organization, transformation, elaboration, storage,
retrieval, and use of information contained in audible signals. CAPD may involve the
listener’s active and passive (e.g., conscious and unconscious, mediated and
unmediated, controlled and automatic) ability to do the following:
•Attend, discriminate, and identify acoustic signals;
•Transform and continuously transmit information through both the peripheral

and central nervous systems;
•Filter, sort, and combine information at appropriate perceptual and conceptual

levels;
•Store and retrieve information efficiently; restore, organize, and use retrieved
information;
•Segment and decode acoustic stimuli using phonological, semantic syntactic,

and pragmatic knowledge; and
55
•Attach meaning to a stream of acoustic signals through use of linguistic and
nonlinguistic contexts.
II. COMMUNICATION VARIATIONS
A. COMMUNICATION DIFFERENCE/DIALECT is a variation of a symbol system

used by a group of individuals that reflects and is determined by shared regional,
social, or cultural/ethnic factors. A regional, social or cultural/ethnic variation of a
symbol system should not be considered a disorder of speech or language.
B. AUGMENTATIVE/ALTERNATIVE COMMUNICATION systems attempt to

compensate and facilitate, temporarily or permanently, for the impairment and
disability patterns of individuals with severe expressive and/or language
comprehension disorders. Augmentative/alternative communication may be
required for individuals demonstrating impairments in gestural, spoken, and/or
written modalities.
56
Appendix D
Worksheets to Document
a
Speech/Language Impairment
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction INSTRUCTIONS: This form is provided to assist school district
ELIGIBILITY CHECKLIST individualized education program (IEP) teams in determining if a student
appropriately can be determined to have an impairment under Chapter 115,
SPEECH & LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT
Wis. Stats., and the eligibility criteria established in PI 11.36, Wis. Admin.
ELG-SPL-001 (Rev. 07-06) Code. The IEP team should complete this form to document determination
of eligibility for special education services and keep it on file with the student
This form is provided for Local Use Only.
record.
Student Name Date of Eligibility Determination
For Eligibility, THE IEP TEAM MUST DOCUMENT AN IMPAIRMENT IN AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR AREAS:
I. LANGUAGE (All three in either method must be checked Yes.)
Yes No The child scores at or below 1.75 SD on formal test measures.

Yes No There is documentation that this delay impairs oral communication in the child’s natural environment: (method to document)
language sample checklist interview observation report
Other: Describe ________________________________________________________________________________
Yes No This language delay significantly affects the child’s educational performance or social, emotional or vocational development.
OR
Yes No Formal testing is not appropriate. List reason(s):

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes No Two informal measures are used to document the communication delay. List two types of measures:
__________________________________________ ______________________________________________________
Yes No This delay significantly impacts the child’s educational performance or social, emotional or vocational development.
II. SPEECH OR SOUND PRODUCTION (All three must be checked Yes.)
Yes No There is documentation of delayed speech or sound production. One of the following must be checked:
Scores at or below 1.75 SD on test of articulation or phonology. (or)
Has consistent speech sound errors when 90% or typically developing children produce sound correctly. (or)
Presence of one of more disordered phonological processes occurring at least 40%. (or)
Scoring in the moderate to profound range on a test of phonological process use.
Yes No The delay in speech or sound production significantly affects the intelligibility of the child’s speech. Document methods:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes No The delayed speech or sound production significantly affects the child’s educational performance or social, emotional or
vocational development.
III. VOICE (Both must be checked Yes.)
Yes No There is documentation of a vocal impairment without short-term physical factors or respiratory virus or infection.
Yes No The vocal impairment significantly affects the child’s educational performance or social, emotional or vocational development.
IV. FLUENCY (Both must be checked Yes.)
Yes No The child has speaking behaviors characteristic of a fluency disorder.

Yes No The fluency disorder significantly affects the child’s educational performance or social, emotional or vocational development.
EXCLUSIONS
THE IEP MAY NOT IDENTIFY AN IMPAIRMENT IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ARE PRESENT. Please check if
present.
Speech or language skills that are mild, transitory, or developmentally appropriate.

Speech or language performance that is consistent with developmental levels unless the child requires speech or language services to
benefit from their educational program(s).
Speech or language skills that are a result of a dialectical difference or learning English as a second language.
Auditory processing unless the IEP team is able to document that the auditory processing results in an impairment of oral communication
skills.
A tongue thrust unless the IEP team can document that the child has an impairment in speech or sound production.
A child with elective or selective mutism or school phobia must also have documentation of a delay in oral communication skills.
DOCUMENTATION OF PARTICIPATION OF S/L PATHOLOGIST
THE IEP TEAM MUST INCLUDE A SPEECH AND LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST AND INFORMATION FROM THE MOST RECENT ASSESSMENT
WHEN DOCUMENTING A SPEECH OR LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT OR WHEN DISCUSSING THE NEED FOR SPEECH OR LANGUAGE
SERVICES.
Check here to indicate a speech and language pathologist was an IEP team participant and attended IEP meetings when the team discussed
eligibility for a speech and language impairment or the need for speech and language services (or both).
Educational Relevance of the Communication Disorder
_______________________does/does not demonstrate a communication disorder that

Name of Student does/does not negatively impact his/her ability to benefit from
the educational process in one or more of the following areas:
Academic-ability to benefit from the curriculum

Social-ability to interact with peers and adults
Vocational-ability to participate in work related activities
Academic Impact Social Impact Vocational Impact

List academic areas impacted List social areas impacted by List job related skills/
by communication problems: communication problems: competencies student cannot
_______________________ _______________________ demonstrate due to
_______________________ _______________________ communication problems:
_______________________ _______________________
Below average grades Peers tease student about

communication problem
Inability to complete
language-based activities Student demonstrates Inability to understand/
vs. non-language-based embarrassment and/or follow oral directions
activities frustration regarding
communication problem
Inappropriate response
Inability to understand to coworker/ supervisor
oral directions Student demonstrates comments
difficulty interpreting
communication intent
Grades below the Unable to answer/ask
student’s ability level questions in a coherent/
Other concise manner
Other
Other
_____________________________ ____________________________
Speech-Language Pathologist LEA (Designee)
_____________________________ ____________________________
Other Professional Other Professional
_____________________________ ____________________________
Parent Date
From A training and Resource Manual for the implementation of State Eligibility Criteria for the Speech and Language Impaired
[Addendum] (p. 20), by the Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services, Division of
Public Schools, 1997, Tallahassee, FL: Author. Reprinted with permission.
60
Appendix E:
Resources for Speech

or
Sound Production
61
Sound Development Chart
Age at which 90% females have acquired each phoneme and word-initial cluster
Phoneme yrs:mo 3.0 3.6 4.0 4.6 5.0 5.6 6.0 6.6 7.0 7.6 8.0 8.6 9.0
m
h initial
w initial
p
b
d
f
k
g
n
j initial
t
th voiced
l
f final
v
sh
ch
l final
th
dz
r
r final voiced
ng final
s
z
Word-initial clusters 3.0 3.6 4.0 4.6 5.0 5.6 6.0 6.6 7.0 7.6 8.0 8.6 9.0
tk kw
pl bp kl gl fl
pr br tr dr kr gr fr
sp st sk
sm sn
sw
sl
skw
spl
spr str skr
thr
Source: Smit, Et. Al.

"The Iowa Articulation Norms Project and its Nebraska Replication" Lois Fulton and Patty Soens
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders Kenosha Unified School District
Volume 55, 779-798, November, 1990
62
Sound Development Chart
Age at which 90% males have acquired each phoneme and word-initial cluster
Phoneme yrs:mo 3.0 3.6 4.0 4.6 5.0 5.6 6.0 6.6 7.0 7.6 8.0 8.6 9.0
m
h initial
w initial
p
b
n
d
f
k
t
g
j initial
f final
v
l
sh
ch
l final
th voiced
dz
th
r
r final voiced
ng final
s
z
Word-initial clusters 3.0 3.6 4.0 4.6 5.0 5.6 6.0 6.6 7.0 7.6 8.0 8.6 9.0
tk kw
pl bp kl gl fl
pr br tr dr kr gr fr
sp st sk
sm sn
sw
sl
skw
spl
spr str skr
thr
Source: Smit, Et. Al.

"The Iowa Articulation Norms Project and its Nebraska Replication" Lois Fulton and Patty Soens
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders Kenosha Unified School District
Volume 55, 779-798, November, 1990
63
Calculating Percentage of Consonants Correct
1. Collect a Speech Sample
• Tape-record a continuous speech sample of at least 50-100 words.
• Determine the meaning of the utterances to ensure accurate transcription. The child’s
utterances may be glossed to aid later analysis.
• Identify and exclude any dialectical differences, casual speech pronunciations, or

allophonic variations.
2. Consider Exclusion Criteria
• Consider only intended consonants in words. All vowels, including /∂ / and /3‘/ should
be excluded. Exclude the addition of a consonant before a vowel since the intended
production is the vowel (e.g. [hon] for on is not scored).
• The second or successive repetition of a consonant should not be included. Only the first
production should be scored (e.g., in “ba-balloon,” score only the first /b/).
• Words that are partially or completely unintelligible should be excluded. Words whose
gloss is highly questionable should also be excluded. Score only intelligible words or
words that can be reliably identified.
• Target consonants that occur in the third or successive repetitions of adjacent words
should be excluded unless articulation of the word changes. For example, the
consonants in only the first two words of the series [kæt}, kæt], [kæt] are counted, while
the consonants in all three words are counted in the series [kæt], [kæk], [kæt].
3. Determine Incorrect Consonant Productions
• The following consonant sound changes are scored as incorrect:

(a) Deletions of the target consonant.
(b) Substitutons of another sound for a target consonant, which includes replacement by
a glottal stop or a cognate.
(c) Partial voicing of initial target consonants.
(d) Distortions of a target sound, no matter how subtle.
(e) Addition of a sound to a correct or incorrect target consonant (e.g., [kirks] or cars).
• Initial /h/ deletion (e.g., [I] for he) and final n/ŋ substitutions (e.g., [ran] for ring) are
counted as errors only when they occur in stressed syllables.
• They are counted as correct when they are produced in unstressed syllables. They
are counted as errors only when they occur in stressed syllables. (e.g., [fid∂‫ ]ُٴ‬for feed
her and [rΛnin] for running).
• Score dialectical differences and casual speech productions based on the consonant
the child intended (e.g., [aks] for ask is correct in African-American English, but [ats]
for ask incorrect).
• Allophonic variations should be scored as correct (e.g., [w∂‫ُٴ‬re] for water).
64
4. Calculate the Percentage of Consonants Correct
• The PCC is calculated by using the following formula:
Number of Correct Consonants divided by the number

of Correct Plus Incorrect Consonants
X 100
=PCC
Example:
50 consonants produced correctly divided by
200 total consonants attempted
X 100
=25% (PCC score)
5. Determine the Severity Level
The following scale is used to determine the severity of the disorder:

85-100% mild
65-85% mild-moderate
50-65% moderate-severe
<50% severe
65
Appendix F
Worksheets to Document
the
Need for Special Education
66
Speech/Language Need for Special Education Indicators
Does the child’s communication need interfere with peer and adult interactions in school,
home, and community? The following are examples of indicators:
1. Parents have voiced their concern about their child’s communication problem and its effect
on the child or other family members.
2. Teachers have voiced their concern about the child’s communication problem and its effect
on the child and the child’s classmates.
3. This student has experienced negative peer group reaction or ridicule during speaking
situations or because of his/her communication problem.
4. This student is aware of his/her communication problem and is concerned about it.
Does the child’s speech and language need interfere with the child’s ability to function as
a learner in his/her present educational program or setting? The following are examples
of indicators:
1. This child’s communication problem interferes with intelligibility or makes it difficult to

understand the content of his/her verbal message.
2. The child avoids speaking in class.
3. The child exhibits observable frustration or anxiety when speaking or attempting to speak.
4. The child’s communication problem may be more pronounced during certain times of the
day.
5. The child has difficulty following directions or is able to follow only part of the directions.
6. The child’s reading or spelling skills reflect their sound production errors.
7. The child is not able to contribute during a class discussion.
8. The child does not respond appropriately to questions. For example, the student answers a
‘who’ question with a ‘what’ answer.
9. The child has difficulty expressing ideas and experiences in a logical, accurate, clear, and
sequential fashion.
10. The child has difficulty getting information, asking for assistance, or having their needs and
wants met by asking appropriate questions.
11. The student does not use grammatically intact sentences or uses sentence fragments.
12. The child makes comments that are not appropriate to the context of the discussion.
67
Does the child’s communication need require special education and related services?
The IEP team should consider the following questions:
1. Does the student correct any of the communication errors spontaneously?
2. Does the student correct errors in response to being given a cue or an appropriate model to
imitate?
3. Are there other variables or impairments (i.e., sensory or physical) which interfere with the
attainment of oral communication skills?
4. Does the child’s present education placement already provide for necessary instruction in
the communication need?
5. Are there interventions that still may need to be attempted in the child’s present education
program or setting?
6. Is there evidence to suggest that the child will develop speech and language skills at his/her
own predicated rate without intervention?
7. Is there the likelihood that this child will not improve if he/she does not receive special
education?
8. Is there evidence to suggest that the child will improve as a result of receiving special
education and that such services will contribute to achievement of the child’s overall
educational goal(s)?
Adapted from: CESA #9 Program Evaluation Project, 1985
68
Need for Special Education
Yes 1. Does the student have needs that cannot be met in regular education as
structured?
If yes, list the needs below. Use reverse side or attach additional pages if
needed.
No
If no, there is no need for special education

Yes 2. Are there modifications that can be made in the regular education program to
allow the student access to general education curriculum and to meet the
educational standards that apply to all students? (Consider adaptation of
content, methodology and/or delivery of instruction.)
If yes,
A. List modifications that do not require special education. Use reverse side
of page or attach additional pages if needed.
B. List modifications that require special education. Use reverse side of

page or attach additional pages if needed.
No If no, go to question 3.
Yes 3. Are there additions or modification that the child needs which are not
provided through the general education curriculum? (Consider replacement
content, expanded core curriculum, and/or other supports.)
If yes, list below. Use reverse side of page or attach additional pages if
needed.
No
In order for the IEP team to determine that the student needs special education, the IEP
team must answer “yes” to question 1 AND list needs under 2B and/or 3.
69

Speech and Language Impairments Assessment and Decision Making

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Speech and Language Impairments Assessment and Decision Making

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Speech and Language Impairments Assessment and Decision Making

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Speech and Language Impairments

Assessment and Decision Making

Technical Assistance Guide

Revised and Updated By

Elizabeth Burmaster, State Superintendent

Beth Daggett, Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District

David Damgaard, Wausau School District (now retired)

Development of the Technical Assistance Documents

IEP Team Process–Evaluation

The IEP Team

IEP Team Duties

• The IEP team is responsible for three basic activities:

Evaluation IEP Team Determination

Evaluation Participant Summary of Findings

General Assessment Components and Considerations

It is appropriate to include the following components in a speech and language assessment:

See Appendix B-Documenting Communication in Natural Environments The Teacher

• Observation refers to the process of collecting information regarding the child’s

See Appendix B-Documenting Communication in Natural Environments

• Play-Based Assessment is the systematic observation of a student in structured and

• Portfolio Assessment is a longitudinal ‘picture’ of the student as a life-long communicator.

• Language Samples Analysis is a formalized method for examining the communication

Advantages and Disadvantages of Types of Assessments

Norm-referenced Designed for diagnosis Not designed for identifying

Facilitate comparisons across Norm group is representative of

Tests for regularities in Not designed for use in making

Easy to administer and practical Not designed to evaluate peer

Address crucial academic skills

Permit guided evaluations of Can be time consuming

Occur onsite; are based on

Two types of English proficiency are:

Finally, the assessment should be descriptive in nature. Descriptive assessment or

DEFINITION PI 11.36(5)(a), Wisconsin Administrative Code

Speech or Language Impairment means:

An impairment of speech or sound production, voice, fluency, or language that

See Appendix D-Worksheets to Document a Speech/Language Impairment The Speech

Discussion of the Eligibility Criteria

b. Demonstrates consistent errors in speech sound production beyond the time

An impairment of speech or sound production may be determined by the administration of a

Typical, Persistent and Disordered Phonological Processes

Typical Phonological Processes

Atypical Phonological Processes

Atypical Phonological Processes Definition

Measuring Conversational Speech Intelligibility

A student’s conversational speech intelligibility can be assessed using a variety of procedures,

Calculating Percent Speech Intelligibility

Typical Speech Intelligibility Expectations

Measuring Speech Severity

See Appendix D—Worksheets to Document a Speech/Language Impairment The

OR (Use of the Alternate Method)

When technically adequate norm-referenced language measures are not appropriate as

2. Performance in activities is impaired as documented by informal assessment such as

3. The child’s receptive or expressive language interferes with oral communication or

4. The delayed oral communication significantly affects the child’s educational

See Appendix D-Worksheets to Document a Speech/Language Impairment The

An impairment of voice may be determined by the administration of a standardized test of voice,

• Pitch: high, typical, or low,

• Direct observation by a speech-language pathologist and by other listeners known to the

An example of how an IEP team could document an impairment in voice is:

2. The communication problem is most noticeable during:

3. The student understands subject-related vocabulary.

4. This student understands subject-related concepts.

5. The student follows written or spoken instructions.

6. The student understands figurative language.

7. The student has reasoning and problem solving abilities.

8. The student's responses to questions are appropriate.

9. The student participates appropriately in class.

10. The student relates stories and experiences.

12. The student's speech is easily understood.

13. The student is fluent in oral communication.