Phonological Disorders in Spanish Speaking Children: Accounting for Mexican DialectKaren Wing, M.S., & Peter Flipsen Jr., Ph.D. Idaho State University

INTRODUCTION

• The current study aimed to extend the analysis of Goldstein & Iglesias (2001) who found that dialect must be accounted for when assessing phonology in speakers of Puerto Rican Spanish.

• Mexican Spanish is more widely used in the US and is more similar to General Spanish than Puerto Rican Spanish.

METHOD

Participants

• 27 children were recruited from head start preschools in the Boise, ID area.

• All were from Spanish speaking homes reported to be using the Mexican dialect.

• They were originally assigned to groups based on parent and teacher report.

• Typically Developing (TD: 14F; 10M); ages ranged from 4;4-6;0 (mean=5;0).

• Phonologically Disordered (PD: 3F); ages ranged from 4;6-5;3 (mean=4;10).

Data Collection

• Main measure = the Contextual Probes of Articulation Competence-Spanish (CPAC-S; Goldstein & Iglesias, 2006).

• Percentage Consonants Correct (PCC) and use of phonological processes were calculated from the CPAC-S relative to both General and Mexican Spanish.

RESULTS

Percentage Consonants Correct (PCC)

Table 1. PCC Findings from CPAC-S

Phonological Process Use

•The CPAC-S examines nine common error patterns (processes). Three of the CPAC-S processes (see Table 2) are considered normal dialect variations in Mexican Spanish. Note however that some of these are phoneme specific (e.g., not all instances of stopping are considered normal for that dialect).

Table 2. CPAC-S Phonological Process Findings

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to the children who participated and their parents as well as the staff of the Western Idaho Community Action Partnership, Inc. Thanks also to Dr. Elizabeth Cartwright, Juanita Deleon, Dr. Jeanne Johnson, and Kristin Orlando for their valuable assistance.

ASHA 2010

DISCUSSION

•The current findings support those of Goldstein & Iglesias (2001). Significant differences were obtained for the typically-developing children in PCC and phonological process use. Dialect differences should be accounted for in testing for phonological disorders in Spanish speaking children who use the Mexican Spanish dialect.

•There were no differences for those children classed as phonologically disordered. The very small sample size in that group likely affected the findings.

•There was a better match in classification as typical vs. disordered between referral sources and CPAC-S results when Mexican Spanish dialect was accounted for. This suggested that parents and teachers were likely already accounting for the dialect being spoken in their referrals.

REFERENCES

•Goldstein, B., & Iglesias, A. (2006). Contextual Probes of Articulation Competence-Spanish: Examiner’s Manual. South Carolina: Super Duper Publications.

•Goldstein, B., & Iglesias, A. (2001). The effect of dialect on phonological analysis: Evidence from Spanish-speaking children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 394-406.

•Trujillo, L. (1974). A linguistic study of a living dialect: the Spanish of the southwest United States. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED215574).

RESULTS (cont’d)

•Three additional unique Mexican Spanish features not considered in the CPAC-S (but see Trujillo, 1974) were also examined

Table 3. “Other” Phonological Process Findings

Speaker Referral Classification

•Goldstein & Iglesias (2001) suggested that a CPAC-S score of PCC < 85 would constitute a phonological disorder. Using this standard relative to the General Spanish Referent, 22/27 (81%) children had been correctly classified by parents and/or teachers. Put another way, 5/27 (19%) had been incorrectly classified.

• 3/24 children classified by parents/teachers as ‘typically-developing’ would be considered disordered (under-referral) and 2/3 children classified by parents/teachers as disordered would be considered typically-developing (over-referral) using the CPAC-S and the General Spanish Referent (see also Figure 1).

Philadelphia, PA

  General Spanish Referent Mexican Spanish ReferentSignificance?

Mean (SD) Range Mean (SD) Range

All 89.9 (9.9) 56.1-98.9 94.8 (6.3) 73.9-100.0 p < .05

TD 91.4 (7.6) 70.6-98.9 95.9 (4.9) 85.0-100.0 p < .05

PD 78.3 (19.2) 56.1-89.4 86.3 (10.7) 73.9-92.8 ns (p > .05)

  General Spanish Referent

Mexican Spanish Referent

 Significance?

Mean % use (SD) Mean % use (SD)

Final ConsonantDeletion

All 8.5 (11.4) 0.0 p < .05TD 8.3 (11.9) 0.0 p < .05PD 9.5 (8.2) 0.0 ns (p > .05)

Initial ConsonantDeletion

All 1.9 (4.0) 0.0 p < .05TD 1.2 (2.4) 0.0 p < .05PD 8.0 (9.2) 0.0 ns (p > .05

Stopping All 5.5 (3.2) 0.8 (2.1) p < .05TD 5.2 (2.7) 0.5 (1.2) p < .05PD 7.5 (6.7) 3.2 (5.6) ns (p > .05)

RESULTS (cont’d)

Figure 1. Speaker Classification (referral vs. CPAC-S)

•Using the same 85% cutoff, but applying the Mexican Spanish Referent to all the children, resulted in 26/27 being classified as typically developing. Two children had been inappropriately classified as phonologically disordered. Overall 25/27 (93%) of the children had been correctly classified by parents and/or teachers relative to the CPAC-S using the Mexican Spanish Referent.

Re-Analysis

•The analyses in Tables 1-3 were then repeated using speaker groups defined using scores on the CPAC-S rather than the original referrals.

•In almost all cases findings were unchanged. The one exception was that group differences were not obtained (p > .05) for the typically-developing children for the h/x substitution.

  General Spanish Referent

Mexican Spanish Referent

 Significance?

Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Alveolar onset loss / reduction to diphthong

All 2.5 (5.5) 0.0 p < .05TD 2.5 (5.2) 0.0 p < .05PD 5.6 (8.2) 0.0 ns (p > .05)

v/b substitution All 15.1 (11.0) 0.0 p < .05TD 15.8 (12.3) 0.0 p < .05PD 9.5 (8.3) 0.0 ns (p > .05)

h/x substitution All 2.5 (6.0) 0.0 p < .05TD 2.8 (6.3) 0.0 p < .05PD 0.0 0.0 ----

TypicallyD eveloping

N = 24

Phonologica llyD isordered

N = 3

O pin ionParent & Teacher R eport

Typica llyD eveloping

N = 23

Phonologica llyD isordered

N = 4

'R eal'Assessm ent D ata

W hole G roupN = 27