Phonological Intervention Options: Variations of Minimal Pair Contrasts

1
Phonological Intervention Options Variations of
Minimal Pair Contrasts

• Minimal Pairs
• Maximal Oppositions
• Empty Set
• Multiple Oppositions

2
Minimal Pairs

• Single contrastive pairings of childs error with
  the target sound
• Example g d / ___
• go doe gate date gown down
• Assumes child will fill in the gap between what
  is trained and what still needs to be learned
  across the rule set
• Assumes adult-based categories (e.g., backing)
  are the basis for childs error and sound
  organization
• Predicts that target contrast is generalizable to
  other phonetically similar sounds affected by the
  childs error pattern (e.g., g d will
  generalize to other alveolars affected by backing
  process)

3
Research Support

• Weiner (1981) reported a case study claiming that
  minimal pairs were efficient and effective in
  eliminating or reducing error patterns in
  children who displayed multiple phonological
  errors.
• Although a more recent study by Ingham and Saben
  (1991) questioned the effectiveness of this
  approach, minimal pairs has generally been widely
  adopted as a phonological approach for children
  with speech disorders.

4
Maximal Oppositions

• Single contrastive pairings of comparison sound
  with the target sound
• Comparison sound must be known, independent, and
  maximally different from target sound (i.e.,
  contrasts known unknown using maximally
  different phonemes)
• Example m d / ___
• moo dew more door mate date
• Assumes phonemic distinctiveness (i.e., salience)
  of comparison sound will facilitate learning
• Assumes child will fill in the gap of missing
  phonemic features (i.e., frication, voicing,
  coronal) based on distinctiveness of contrastive
  pairing
• Predicts that target contrast will create
  system-wide change on basis of child filling in
  phonemic gaps

5
Research Support

• Gierut (1990) compared the relative effectiveness
  of maximal oppositions to minimal pair therapy
  with three children who exhibited phonological
  disorders. She reported that the results
  indicated that maximal oppositions were more
  effective than minimal pair therapy in
  improvement of trained sounds and the addition of
  more untrained sounds to the childrens phonetic
  inventory.

6
Empty Set

• Single contrastive pairings of two target sounds
• Treatment sounds must be unknown, independent,
  and maximally different from each other (i.e.,
  contrasts unknown unknown using maximally
  different phonemes)
• Example r d / ___
• row doe ray day rye dye
• Assumes phonemic distinctiveness (i.e., salience)
  of two target sounds will facilitate learning
• Assumes child will fill in the inventory gaps
  based on distinctiveness of contrastive pairings
  and learning 2 new sounds simultaneously
• Predicts that target contrast will create greater
  system-wide change on basis of child filling in
  phonemic gaps and learning more than one phoneme
  at a time

7
Research Support

• Gierut (1991) examined the effectiveness of the
  treatment of the empty set in comparison to
  minimal pair therapy with three children who had
  phonological disorders. She reported that
  treatment of the empty set resulted in greater
  phonological change than was obtained with
  minimal pair therapy. Gierut further claimed
  that the empty set resulted in the addition of
  more untrained sounds to the childs inventory
  than occurred following minimal pair therapy.
  Finally, learning was enhanced by maximal
  differences and major class distinctions.

8
Multiple Oppositions

• Multiple contrastive pairings of childs error
  with several target sounds from across an entire
  rule set.
• Targets selected from phoneme collapse on basis
  of distance metric
• Example d
• f
• g t? _____
• st
• dew Dane door
• food fame four
• goo chew gain chain Gore chore
• stew stain store

9
Multiple Oppositions

• Assumes learning is facilitated by the size and
  nature of linguistic chunks presented to the
  child (learning of the whole is greater than the
  sum of its parts)
• Assumes learning is a dynamic interaction between
  childs unique sound system and intervention
• Predicts learning will be generalized across a
  rule set (i.e., learning will generalize to
  obstruents and clusters collapsed to g in the
  117 phoneme collapse) and result in system-wide
  restructuring.

10
Research Support

• Williams Kalbfleisch (2002) reported
  intervention data using the multiple opposition
  treatment approach with 14 children who exhibited
  moderate to profound phonological impairments.
  They found that 86 of the target sounds that
  were treated achieved statistical significance in
  21 treatment sessions or less. Further,
  system-wide phonological change, as measured by
  PPK, significantly increased from a pre-treatment
  mean of 38.7 to a post-treatment mean of 62.5.
  An increase was observed for each child.

11
Video Examples of 4 Contrastive Approaches with AS

• Use data sheets to collect data with video for
  each intervention approach
• Use rating sheet to evaluate each intervention
  approach
• Which one do you prefer? Why?
• Which one do you think AS prefers? Why?

12
Target Selection and Intervention Models
Minimal Pairs Maximal Oppositions Empty Set Multiple Oppositions
Proportional contrasts Early sounds Frequency of occurrence Nonproportional contrasts Later sounds Nonproportional contrasts Later sounds Functional characteristics Distance metric
13
Does One Approach Fit All?

• Probably not. I think approaches can best be
  selected on basis of childs PI and severity.
• For children with mild-moderate phonological
  severity, minimal pairs may be most appropriate
• For children with severe phonological severity
  and large gaps in their phonetic inventory,
  maximal oppositions, empty set, or multiple
  oppositions may be most appropriate
• As children progress in tx, they may start with
  one approach (e.g., multiple oppositions) and
  shift to another approach (e.g., minimal pairs)
• We need intervention studies that compare
  different tx approaches in variety of independent
  labs