Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026
Predicting Speech Sound Production and Phonological Awareness Outcomes in Late-Talking and Typically Developing Preschool Children Using Early Phonological Pattern Use.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Macrae Toby, Ahmat Hamimah, Newbury Jayne, Chen Jiajie, Frengley Michaela, Strevens Laura, Tyson Kate, Wilson Black Joshua
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare late talkers to their typically developing peers in speech sound production and phonological awareness (PA) outcomes and to investigate whether phonological pattern use predicted these outcomes.
METHOD: The participants were 104 children (34 late talkers and 70 typically developing children) aged 2;0-2;7 (years;months) at the outset of the study. The use of atypical and omission phonological patterns at ages 3;6-4;4 was calculated from consonant mismatches in single words. Speech sound production and PA outcomes were assessed at ages 4;11-5;8.
RESULTS: t tests revealed that the typically developing children had significantly better speech sound production and PA outcomes than did the late talkers. Linear regression models revealed that omission patterns per consonant mismatch, but not atypical patterns per consonant mismatch, were a significant predictor of both speech sound production and PA outcomes. Once phonological pattern use was accounted for, group was not a significant predictor of either outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Late talkers had poorer speech sound production and PA outcomes than did typically developing children, although only speech sound production might be indicative of clinical concern in late talkers. Omission patterns per consonant mismatch, but not atypical patterns per consonant mismatch, predicted speech sound production and PA outcomes in the entire study sample. Speech-language pathologists should consider prioritizing for services or monitoring preschool-age children who show frequent use of omission patterns, including late talkers.
METHOD: The participants were 104 children (34 late talkers and 70 typically developing children) aged 2;0-2;7 (years;months) at the outset of the study. The use of atypical and omission phonological patterns at ages 3;6-4;4 was calculated from consonant mismatches in single words. Speech sound production and PA outcomes were assessed at ages 4;11-5;8.
RESULTS: t tests revealed that the typically developing children had significantly better speech sound production and PA outcomes than did the late talkers. Linear regression models revealed that omission patterns per consonant mismatch, but not atypical patterns per consonant mismatch, were a significant predictor of both speech sound production and PA outcomes. Once phonological pattern use was accounted for, group was not a significant predictor of either outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Late talkers had poorer speech sound production and PA outcomes than did typically developing children, although only speech sound production might be indicative of clinical concern in late talkers. Omission patterns per consonant mismatch, but not atypical patterns per consonant mismatch, predicted speech sound production and PA outcomes in the entire study sample. Speech-language pathologists should consider prioritizing for services or monitoring preschool-age children who show frequent use of omission patterns, including late talkers.