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

Background: Dutch is a West-Germanic language spoken natively by around 24 million speakers. Although studies on typical Dutch speech sound development have been conducted, norms for phonetic and phonological characteristics of typical development in a large sample with a sufficient age range are lacking. Aim: To give a detailed description of the speech sound development of typically developing Dutch-speaking children from 2 to 7 years. Methods & Procedures: A total of 1503 typically developing children evenly distributed across the age range of 2;0–6;11 years participated in this normative cross-sectional study. The picture-naming task of the Computer Articulation Instrument (CAI) was used to collect speech samples. Speech development was described in terms of (1) percentage consonants correct—revised (PCC-R) and percentage vowels correct (PVC); (2) consonant, vowel and syllabic structure inventories; (3) degrees of complexity (phonemic feature hierarchy); and (4) phonological processes. Outcomes & Results: A two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed a significant increase in the number of PCC-R and PVC between the ages of 2;0 and 6;11 years (p < 0.001). The consonant inventory was found to be complete at 3;7 years of age for the syllable-initial consonants, with the exception of the voiced fricatives /v/ and /z/, and the liquid /r/. All syllable-final consonants were acquired before age 4;4 years. At age 3;4 years, all children had acquired a complete vowel inventory, and at age 4;7 years they produced most syllable structures correctly, albeit that the syllable structure CCVCC was still developing. All phonological contrasts were produced correctly at 3;8 years of age. Children in the younger age groups used more phonological simplification processes than the older children, and by age 4;4 years, all had disappeared, except for the initial cluster reduction from three to two consonants and the final cluster reduction from two to one consonant. Conclusions & Implications: This paper describes a large normative cross-sectional study of Dutch speech sound development which, in clinical practice, can help Dutch speech–language pathologists to differentiate children with delayed or disordered speech development from typically developing children. What this paper adds What is already known on this subject In recent years many studies have been conducted worldwide to investigate speech sound development in different languages, including several that explored the typical speech sound development of Dutch-speaking children, but none of these latter studies explored both phonetic and phonological progress within a comprehensive age range and a large sample that is representative of the Dutch population. What this study adds to existing knowledge This study serves to fill this gap by providing normative cross-sectional results obtained in 1503 typically developing Dutch-speaking children aged between 2;0 and 6;11 years on informative parameters of speech development: PCC-R and PVC, consonant, vowel and syllabic structure inventories, degrees of complexity (phonemic feature hierarchy), and phonological simplification processes. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The detailed description of typical Dutch speech sound development provides speech–language pathologists with pertinent information to determine whether a child's speech development progresses typically or is delayed or disordered

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

Item does not contain fulltextPurpose: The current study aims to provide normative data for the maximum repetition rate (MRR) development of Dutch-speaking children based on a large cross-sectional study using a standardised protocol.Method: A group of 1014 typically developing children aged 3;0 to 6;11 years performed the MRR task of the Computer Articulation Instrument (CAI). The number of syllables per second was calculated for mono-, bi-, and trisyllabic sequences (MRR-pa, MRR-ta, MRR-ka, MRR-pata, MRR-taka, MRR-pataka). A two-way mixed ANOVA was conducted to compare the effects of age and gender on MRR scores in different MRR sequences.Result: The data analysis showed that overall MRR scores were affected by age group, gender and MRR sequence. For all MRR sequences the MRR increased significantly with age. MRR-pa was the fastest sequence, followed by respectively MRR-ta, MRR-pata, MRR-taka, MRR-ka and MRR-pataka. Overall MRR scores were higher for boys than for girls, for all MRR sequences.Conclusion: This study presents normative data of MRR of Dutch-speaking children aged 3;0 to 6;11 years. These norms might be useful in clinical practice to differentiate children with speech sound disorders from typically developing children. More research on this topic is necessary. It is also suggested to collect normative data for other individual languages, using the same protocol

Process-Oriented Profiling of Speech Sound Disorders

The differentiation between subtypes of speech sound disorder (SSD) and the involvement of possible underlying deficits is part of ongoing research and debate. The present study adopted a data-driven approach and aimed to identify and describe deficits and subgroups within a sample of 150 four to seven-year-old Dutch children with SSD. Data collection comprised a broad test battery including the Computer Articulation Instrument (CAI). Its tasks Picture Naming (PN), NonWord Imitation (NWI), Word and NonWord Repetition (WR; NWR) and Maximum Repetition Rate (MRR) each render a variety of parameters (e.g., percentage of consonants correct) that together provide a profile of strengths and weaknesses of different processes involved in speech production. Principal Component Analysis on the CAI parameters revealed three speech domains: (1) all PN parameters plus three parameters of NWI; (2) the remaining parameters of NWI plus WR and NWR; (3) MRR. A subsequent cluster analysis revealed three subgroups, which differed significantly on intelligibility, receptive vocabulary, and auditory discrimination but not on age, gender and SLPs diagnosis. The clusters could be typified as three specific profiles: (1) phonological deficit; (2) phonological deficit with motoric deficit; (3) severe phonological and motoric deficit. These results indicate that there are different profiles of SSD, which cover a spectrum of degrees of involvement of different underlying problems

A standardized protocol for Maximum Repetition Rate assessment in children

Background/Aims: Maximum repetition rate (MRR) is often used in the assessment of speech motor performance in older children and adults. The present study aimed to evaluate a standardized protocol for MRR assessment in young children in Dutch. Methods: The sample included 1,524 children of 2–7 years old with no hearing difficulties and Dutch spoken in their nursery or primary school and was representative for children in the Netherlands. The MRR protocol featured mono-, tri-, and bisyllabic sequences and was computer-implemented to maximize standardization. Results: Less than 50% of the 2-year-olds could produce >1 monosyllabic sequence correctly. Children who could not correctly produce ≥2 monosyllabic sequences could not produce any of the multisyllabic sequences. The effect of instruction (“faster” and “as fast as possible”) was small, and multiple attempts yielded a faster MRR in only 20% of the cases. MRRs did not show clinically relevant differences when calculated over different numbers of repeated syllables. Conclusions: The MRR protocol is suitable for children of 3 years and older. If children cannot produce at least 2 of the monosyllabic sequences, the multisyllabic tasks should be omitted. Furthermore, all fast attempts of each sequence should be analyzed to determine the fastest MRR

A standardized protocol for Maximum Repetition Rate assessment in children

Background/Aims: Maximum repetition rate (MRR) is often used in the assessment of speech motor performance in older children and adults. The present study aimed to evaluate a standardized protocol for MRR assessment in young children in Dutch. Methods: The sample included 1,524 children of 2–7 years old with no hearing difficulties and Dutch spoken in their nursery or primary school and was representative for children in the Netherlands. The MRR protocol featured mono-, tri-, and bisyllabic sequences and was computer-implemented to maximize standardization. Results: Less than 50% of the 2-year-olds could produce >1 monosyllabic sequence correctly. Children who could not correctly produce ≥2 monosyllabic sequences could not produce any of the multisyllabic sequences. The effect of instruction (“faster” and “as fast as possible”) was small, and multiple attempts yielded a faster MRR in only 20% of the cases. MRRs did not show clinically relevant differences when calculated over different numbers of repeated syllables. Conclusions: The MRR protocol is suitable for children of 3 years and older. If children cannot produce at least 2 of the monosyllabic sequences, the multisyllabic tasks should be omitted. Furthermore, all fast attempts of each sequence should be analyzed to determine the fastest MRR

Clinical Reasoning for Speech Sound Disorders:Diagnosis and Intervention in Speech-Language Pathologists' Daily Practice

Item does not contain fulltex