Speech and Language Evaluation
Name: Mark Client Classification: Language Disorder
Address: 1747 Capital Circle N.E. Apt. #602 Diagnostic Code: 02-315.31
Tallahassee, FL 32308 File Number: 15, 983
Birth date: 7/24/96 Evaluation Date: 11/07/03
Referred By: Julia St. Petery, M.D. Age: 7-10
Diagnostic Team: Andrea Clinician, B.A.
Erin Clinician, B.S.
Supervisor: Delores Supervisor, M.S., CCC-SLP
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:
(Include client’s name, type of assessment, referral source, and reason for referral.
__________________ was seen at the L. L. Schendel Speech and Hearing Clinic for a speech and
language evaluation on _______ ___ , _____. He/She was referred by _______________, his/her
____________________. The client was accompanied to the clinic by _________________ (mother,
father, case worker, etc.), ____________________ (name of person accompanying child). She/He
wants to gain information about ……. __________stated….. The following is a summary of results
based on the case history form, parent interview, assessment results and observations obtained before
or during the evaluation.
The following information was gathered from the parent interview and the child history form.
(As needed include the points listed and any other significant information in a narrative case
history write up.)
Mark was the product of an unremarkable full term-pregnancy. He had no newborn difficulties
that the parents recall. Mark achieved motor milestones at the typical times. His parents reported
that speech was late to begin, with a few words at 2 and no word combinations until 3. Mark‟s
speech has always been hard to understand, even for members of the family, although by now they
can usually figure out what he means. His mother reported that Mark had two to three ear
infections before the age of 2, but none after that age. His parents noted no feeding problems.
Medical history is unremarkable. Mark is in the first grade at Orange Park Elementary School. His
teacher has not mentioned any problems with his classroom performance. Mark has received no
other testing up to this date.
I. Evaluation/Assessment Findings
A hearing screening was conducted for frequencies of 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz and 4000 Hz at the 20 db
hearing level. The client (passed/failed) the screening at ________ frequencies. (if passed) These
results indicate that ____________ „s hearing is adequate for speech reception, but the results do
not rule out the possibility of a mild hearing loss that could be medically significant. (if failed) It
is recommended that ___________ receive a full audiological evaluation
Examination of the oral mechanism revealed no structural abnormalities, but Mark had difficulty
producing rapid, smooth repetitions of syllables such as /pa/, /ta/, and /ka/. This difficulty was
even more pronounced in utterances with more than one consonant, such as /pata/. Cognitive
skills were assessed informally by observing response to questions, conversational topics, response
to directions and analysis of drawings. Mark appeared to perform at age level on these tasks.
Additionally, the following speech areas were judged to be within normal limits:
Mark achieved the following standardized test scores.
Area Assessed Test Used %ile Standard
1. Articulation Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation (2000) 5 75
2. Receptive Vocabulary
i.e.Pointing to Receptive One Word
pictures as named Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT,2000) 61 104
3. Linguistic Structure
i.e. Producing sentences Structure Photographic
Language Test (1996) 3 72
4. Auditory Comprehension Test of Auditory Comprehension of
i.e.Understanding words Language Revised (1998) 40 95
5. Global Language Measure
i.e.Listening to and Clinical Evaluation of Language
producing language Fundamentals(CELF—4, 2003) 14 84
Mean: 100 Standard Deviation: 15 Average Range: 85-115
The average range of performance for the above tests is 85-115. Therefore, these results indicate
below average performance in the areas of saying words correctly and forming statements. His
performance in the areas of naming common pictures and pointing to pictures to match words and
phrases fell within or above the average range. This indicates strength in this area. His overall
score on a variety of listening and language production tasks as, assessed by the CELF-4, fell
slightly below the average range of 85-115. On the CELF-4 consistent with his performance on the
RWOPVT, he displayed strengths in the area of naming common pictures and categories.
Weaknesses on the CELF-4 were revealed in the area of forming sentences when given
connectives such as “since” and “because”.
His articulation errors were as follows:
The results of the AAPS revealed the following articulation errors:
Target Position Actual Production Example of Error
/w/** initial /w/ goes to /r/ “wagon” goes to “ragon”
/f/** initial /f/ goes to /sw/ “fork” goes to “swork”
/k/ initial /k/ goes to /t/ “cow” goes to “tow”
Non-standardized assessments of Mark‟s speech and expressive language skills included :
1. A language sample (clinicians this is usually for clients 5 and under)was used to assess Mark‟s
The language sample was obtained during a play session with Mark before the diagnostic session. The
utterances in this language sample were evaluated and the Mean Length of Utterance and Type Token
Ratio (i.e. number of different words versus total number of words) were calculated. Children of Mark
‟s age (and over) typically use a Mean Length of Utterance of at least 5.0 and a Type Token Ratio of at
least .45. Mark‟s MLU of 3.8 and TTR scores of .40 both fell below the expected levels of
2. A narrative sample (this is usually for school age clients) was used to assess Mark‟s expressive
The narrative sample was obtained by asking Mark to make up a story and tell it to the clinician. The
binary decision tree as recommended by Carol Westby, 1993 was used to analyze his narrative
structure. Mark‟s story was rated as a reactive sequence. This level of story telling is typically
produced by early elementary students. The narrative included clear goals and intentions of characters,
an initiating event, temporally related events and consequences. A clear plan to resolve a problem
situation was a missing component in his story. These results indicate adequate narrative skill for a
child of Mark‟s age.
3. Articulation Tracking- The clinician listened to and noted Mark‟s production of speech sounds
during his conversational speech as well as during his test answers. Only minimal articulation errors
were noted. These errors consisted of /r/ sounding like /w/ in some instances. Since the /r/ was not
always it error it was judged to be developing. Therefore these results indicate that Mark is developing
normally in the area of speech production.
4. Pragmatic (i.e. appropriate use of language) skills- Mark greeted and conversed easily with
clinicians. He initiated topics and gave details regarding topics of interest to him. He did however
have some problems with topic maintenance when topics were introduced by the other communication
5. Intelligibility Rating – 95% Correct Consonants. According to Shriberg, et al, 1997, a Percent
Correct Consonants of 85-100% indicates a normal to mildly compromised intelligibility level.
II. Behavioral Observations
Mark worked well during the assessment and seemed to put forth his best effort. Rapport was
quickly established and he interacted as requested with the examiners. He was cooperative and
followed directions well. However, he did become frustrated during the free-play session when the
examiner was unable to understand him and turned to his mother to provide a “translation”.
Mark currently exhibits a moderate disorder in expressive language, particularly in the areas of
syntax and morphology and sentence formulation. His articulation and phonological skills seem to
be developing normally.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Include recommendations for therapy or no therapy.
Example: It is recommended that ___________receive speech/language (pick one or both) therapy.
Services may be obtained through public or private agencies. Although therapy has been
recommended by this agency, this report does not necessarily mean that your child qualifies for school
based speech/language therapy. If you wish to know if your child is eligible for speech/language
therapy in his/her school, you will need to share a copy of this report with the school‟s staffing
specialist. _______ may be placed on the waiting list at the L. L. Schendel Speech and Hearing
Clinic at the Florida State University. Due to limited space at the clinic, services may not be available
until a future date and enrollment is not guaranteed. His/Her status on the waiting list will expire in
two years, that is, as of 11/07/05(use two years from the evaluation date) If you have not received our
services by this date, or you continue to have concerns about your child‟s communication status at that
time, a re-evaluation should be sought to determine any changes in your child‟s communication status.
Two to three 30-60 minute sessions per week should be appropriate for Mark‟s intervention schedule.
(Students when writing a report for a Medicaid client make a more exact therapy time statement such
as, “It is recommended that Mark receive two 60 minute sessions per week.)
The following specific goals are recommended:
1. Decrease omission of final consonants.
2. Increase production of age-appropriate consonant sounds.
3. Increase self-monitoring of intelligibility in connected speech.
4. Increase use of helping verbs, such as “can”, “will”, and “is” in sentences.
5. Increase use of grammatical morphemes, at first emphasizing those that are easy to
pronounce, such as “-ing”.
The following suggestions are for parents and teachers to use to help ____________’s speech
1. Model correct production of problem sounds. For example, if Mark says “Look at the tate.” A
modeled response would be “Yes, Mark I see the cake.” Emphasize the error sound so that he
will have several opportunities to hear it produced correctly, etc.
2. While riding along in the car, play the “What‟s Happening” game that involves telling actions
that you see as you ride, such as, “He is waving, that boy is riding a bike, the lady is shopping,
etc.” Praise Mark and the other children for each different action that is said..
Prognosis for improvement of _________________‟s articulation and expressive language skills
appears to be (excellent, good, fair, guarded, poor) based on _____________________. Mention any
positive or negative factors affecting prognosis. The above information was summarized in a
feedback session with __________________, the client‟s ___________ after the evaluation. It was a
pleasure working with ________________. If there are any questions regarding this evaluation, please
contact the supervisor, Delores Hudson at 644-8446.
Andrea Clinician, B. A.
Erin Clinician, B. S. Delores Supervisor, M. S., CCC-SLP
Graduate Clinician Diagnostic Supervisor