Browsing by Subject "Minimal pairs"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Minimal contrasts and maximal oppositions : an evidence-based practice brief
(2012-05) Crockett, Jeffrey Neil; Byrd, Courtney T.; Bedore, Lisa A.
This report presents a comprehensive review of efficacy studies for minimal contrasts therapy and maximal oppositions therapy. The target population was defined as children with phonological disorders who had no co-occurring impairments in hearing, receptive language, speech articulation, or oral-motor structure and function. Thirty three minimal contrasts studies from 1981 to 2008 and six maximal oppositions studies from 1990 to 2008 were identified. No studies from 2009 to 2012 were found. The majority of the studies were either Level III (descriptive studies, 34.2%) or Level IIb (quasi-experimental studies, 57.9%). Twenty three studies reported treatment duration, which ranged from six to 58 hours. Based on reports of treatment success and generalization to new linguistic and communicative contexts, it was found that minimal contrasts therapy has greater support in the literature. Additional studies using a uniform methodology will be needed to establish the validity of maximal oppositions therapy. Recommendations are made for future studies of minimal contrasts and maximal oppositions.
Phonological intervention as a means for word learning : a cross-modal case study
(2015-05) Adell, Julia; Bedore, Lisa M.; Quinto-Pozos, David; Nericcio, Mary A
Purpose: This study examined the efficacy of a phonological intervention that utilized the core vocabulary approach with a deaf, signing, late first language (L1) learner. The primary emphasis of this project was to attempt to demonstrate comparable success in word learning resulting from a sign language intervention modeled after a spoken language phonological intervention with a deaf adult sign language user. Method: Participant is a 32-year-old deaf female who had not been exposed to any formal sign language until age 31. Treatment utilized a core vocabulary approach that targeted phonological awareness tasks of increasing complexity. Independent and unique real-word productions were coded to track the participant's growing lexicon. Results: Accuracy within each treatment probe indicates improved word-knowledge and remediation of consistent phonological errors. Overall cumulative lexical growth exhibits efficacy of the phonological treatment approach as a means for word learning. Post-treatment baseline cognitive and linguistic measurements indicate valid experimental control as they remained at pre-treatment baseline levels. Conclusions: A phonological intervention in the signed modality is efficacious with an adult, deaf, late first-language learner as a means for word learning.