Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 8-1962 Specific Language Disability as Related ot Clinical Failure in Public School Speech Therapy G. Lorraine Hansen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Speech Pathology and Audiology Commons Recommended Citation Hansen, G. Lorraine, "Specific Language Disability as Related ot Clinical Failure in Public School Speech Therapy" (1962). Master's Theses. 4652. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/4652 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPECIFIC LANGUAGE DISABILITY S RELATED TO CLINICAL FAILURE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL SPEECH THERAPY by G. Lorraine Hansen A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty of Western Michigan University in Pa'ttial Ful.fillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Western Michigan University Kalama,soo, Michigan August 1962 .t69423 The �il:t4fl' wu:hi.$ to ·exp;-es• her dup,st &PPl,'eciatiora tO •ll tm.,$e who ai.4-d in this study� Spee1-1 acb\ow1-4gment is ·due Dr. J.Qhn Bue� for �iding tl\e wrtter in the -.y0s of researeh� to �s. M4rt'•"t ••sonfoi- •ha�ing her ••t:kn.owll"' edge of ,setcUic � diMl.>!:M,t)'; to MJ"·s. DQX-Othy H9J.son f� ext•nding he e<ptri� in interpreting the: Bendiar-Gas1!alt Tests; to, Dt-.. ·CharJJt• M«nge 4rtd the J<alamazoo County Boardof Eduettion for unselfiahly off•l'� theb' swdenis., t1.mfa ind inveluablt •••:I.sun�; atld esP,tCU.llY to D:t-. 'Cnatil4!!$ Van Riper for his constant tnapmtion•, $up,ort, � direction. With­ ()Ut ti. help ot these people., ·th!• atucly would bl" l.lwn impossible. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. BACXGROUND OF THE PROBLEM . '• . ·• . l Introduction· • • • ·� • . -· . · • . l Speech defects and reading ability . l Speech defects and spelling ability • • • • • 4 Clinioal indication of the relationship aJI\Ol\g speech, reading, e.nd writing skills • • s , Speoifio la�ge disability •••••.••• • 6 Specifi¢ language disability nd speech defects ••• •••••••• • • • • • 8 Further justification of the problem • • • • • 10 Suaiary . • ,. .. • • • • • 11 State•nt of the problem ••.••••••• • • l2 :CI. METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING SUBJECTS ANl) OBTAINING AND EVALUATING DATA •••••••. 14 s-.lection of subj eats· • • • • • • . " 14 Proc:eduJ;>es used in obtaWng data . 16 Goodenough Draw-A-Man Test . 17 Bende�Ge$t&lt Test •• ••. 18 Wide Range Achievement T st . 19 Gr•y's Oral Reading Test ••• • . • • 21 Arm Extension Test • • • • , • • • • • • • • 21 Monroe Au�itory Word-Diac�imin/ltion Te$t and Monroe Sound Blending Test • • • . • • • • • . 22 Temp1in-Darley Diagnostic Articulation Test • 24 Wechsler Intelligence Seale for Children • • • .24 Identifiction of familial language patterns • 25 Profile of specific. language disability • • • 26 Evaluation of the dat• ' . 30 Su111nlry • • . • . • • . , , , , • . • " . 32 Chapter Page III. PRESENTATION OF DATA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 33 Diagnostic ca e· studies • • • • • • • • • • • 33 Subject I • • • • • • • .. .. 34 Subject 2 . • • • • • • • • • • • 36 Subject 3 ., ..... • • • • • • • • • • • 39 Subject 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 40 Subject 5 • • • • • • • • • • • • •. • • • • 44 Subjec;t $ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 47 Subject 7 • • • • • •• • • • .. • •• . .. 49 Subj.ect 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5.2 Subject 9 • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • S4 Subject 10 • • . • • • . • • , , • • • • • • • • 57' Further analysis of data •••••• • • . S9 SUJlinWlry· • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 66 IV. IHT&RPRETATION OF RESULTS . • • • • • • • • • • • 70 SUJJNry· • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 72 v. SUMMARY . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 73 BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 76 APPENDIX A . -. Sl APPENDIX B • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 82 �PPENDIX C • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 83 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page I. Diagnostic Indication of Specific Language Disability found in ten cases of Clinical Failure in Pblic School Speech Therapy •• 60 II. Te Compr1scn of Speech, Reding, an Spellin Skills in Ten Cases of Cliical Failule in Pblic School Spech Terapy • • • • 64 LIST OP FIGURES .,.,, 'FIGURE Page l. Cor.np.Jrison of Intellectual bility a.nd Academic Achievement of Subj-ect l • • • • • � • • 35 2. Comparison of Intellectual bility and Academio Achievement of .Subject 2 ••� ••••• 38 . " 3. Compai,ison of Intell.-ectual Ability and Aca4emie Achievement of Subject 3 , • . • . • • • • 41 4. Compariscm of Irttellecttal Ability and Academic Achi�vement of Subj;ect 4 • . • • . �. ••• 43 s. Comparison of ·1ntelle: atual Ability and Academic Achi•vemctnt of S@j_.ect s • . • • • . 46 6. Comparison of Intellectual Ability and Academic Achtevement of Subject 6 • • • • • • • • 48 7. Compar1$on of Inte;J.le�tual Abil,ity &nd Aoademi<: Achievement of Subject 7 • • . • . .. Bl a. COJnparison of Int•llectual Ability and Academia Achievement of Subject 8 •••. 53 CCl.llparis()rt of Intellectual kbil:tty and Academic Achievement of Subject 9 • • • • • • • • 56 10. Compa�1son of Intellectual Ability and Aaadea.de AahievE:1J1ent: ot Subject 10 • • . 58 11. -Perc•nt:age of DiAgnQsti� Itnis Sh9Wft in Cases of Clinical Faiiui-e in Public School Spee.ch Ther•py. • • • • • • • • •. ii .• • • · • • • • • 62 12. Tll.e .ReUtio.nship <>f Speach, Reading; and Spe.lling Skills ill Subjects Dugnosed a.s Having the Syn4rome ·of Specifie language Disability •••• 67 13. The Relationship of S1peech, Ret.d/ltlg, &nd S.pelling SkiUS lln Subjects Diagnosed •a Not Ha\ving th• Syndt-ome of Specific La.ngUiage Di&ilbility •••• 68 CHAPTER I BA . GROOlID OF THE PROBLEM Intrc:>duct:f.Qn. The term language as used in this thesis refers to the complex symbolic processes of speaking, reading, and wi-iting. Speech is the primary process of language. Read­ ing and writing are ••condary processes formed by written symbols which reflect the primary symbols of speech. Due to the integral relat:ionahip of these elements, a facility or dia,ability in one might f.ffect the others. If this is true, then it Dlight 4lso be possible t�t one currently existing fac­ tor could affect the entire area of 1-nguage including any, or al.l, of the interNlatad processes. It is the purpose of this thesis to investigate a syndrome believed to be of this nature. It is u,uauy designated by the term specific la!!QU!ge.disability. Specifically stated, the problell\ was to determine whethel' or not •eecific 14nguage diH.bili9{ is a factor x-elated to clinical failure in public school speech therapy. A justification of this problem is primarily baaed on the validity of the concepts stated above, Therefore, it is essential to review the exi.sting liteJ>&ture relative, to the iJ\ .. t•gral relationship among the elements of .language and to the specifia syndrome of specific lM§1u!ge disability.· Speegh defects and readip9: abillS)'. The relationship of l 2 speech defects and reading ability has been subj•ct to extensive investigation. Robinson and Artley in reviewing the existing literature both concluded that speech defects may be a causal factor in i:'e,-ding defects, a conseuence of Idi defects, or that they may exist concurrently as the result of some third fac­ tor.1 Investigation of the individual studie• from which Robinson and Artley reached the previous conclusions, though not conclu­ sive, clarifies the interrelationship between speech defects and ·reading ability. Moas studied 36 matched pairs, one a speech defective and one a. noJ'm&l control, of second graders in the public schools of Alabama. He concluded that "spe�h defects are a definite handi­ cap in Ol'&l 'reading in the second grade, both in reading and in 2 the nwnber of ·e.rrors made.tt ' Yedinack also studied second grade speech defective children and found "children with fun.ctional .· articulation,C-- . defects are signi icantly inferior in both oral and silent reading to ohi1dren with normal speaking ability".3 1a. M. Robinson, Why Pu ils !!!! in Reading (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 146)� 11 p. � and A. Stel'l Artley, ttA Study of Certain Factors Presumed to be Associated with R.ead­ illQ' and Speech X>ifticulties," Journal of Speech u,\d Hearing Jlisot'ders, XIII .(1948), p. 359.. - 2H. A� ·Mo�a, "The Effect of Speech Defects on Second GMde. Reading Achievement," Quarterly Journal. of Speech, XXIV (1938), p. 654. 3J. c. Yedinack, "A Study of the Linguistic functioning of Chiidren with Articulatory and Reading Viaabilities," Journal _2! Gell$tic Psychology. XXXCIV (1949), p. 57. 3 A. third author to reach this concll.lsion was Gibbons, who in a study of 20 speech d•fectives, reported a,n incidence of reading retardation of one year when compared with a matched control group on Gray's Standardized Oral Reading Paragraphs Test.1 However, a study by Hall, based on 21 speech defectives and 64 controls, found no significant relationship between speech and silent reading-.2 Other researohers have consid•red the relationsh p of speech and readj,ng by studying the reading-defective child. Stullken repor ed that eight per cent of his cases of reading . 3 disability had pronounced speech defects. Monroe studied 415 reading defective cases and con luded that defective speech might be either a cau54l actor :1n reading difficulti�s or exis�