Download getcap - Stephen F. Austin State University

STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY
ELNITA STANLEY SPEECH AND HEARING CLINIC
SPEECH AND LANGUAGE EVALUATION
NAME: Client's Name
DATE OF BIRTH: January 1, 2009
AGE: 10 years 10 months
PARENT(S): John & Jane Smith
DATE OF EVALUATION: January 1, 2009
DIAGNOSIS: list diagnosis
GRADUATE CLINICIAN: Grad Clinician's Name
SUPERVISING SLP: Supervisor's Name
REASON FOR REFERRAL: Client was referred for a speech/language evaluation by
Refering Person's Name on January 1, 2009due to concerns with list concerns. This
assessment was conducted on January 1, 2009 and aided in determining if a delay or
disorder exists and whether the condition affected development to such a degree that
there is a need for speech and language services.
HISTORY/HEALTH ASSESSMENT:
The following information was obtained from parent reports, interviews, and screenings:
Birth: Birth history
Developmental: developmental hisotry
Medical: medical history
Educational: eduational history
Social: social history
Family and Environmental: family & environmental history
Hearing Screening: On January 1, 2009, Client passed a pure tone screening
indicating his/her hearing was within normal limits for the following decibel and
Hertz levels: record tested levels here
PREVIOUS EVALUATION AND THERAPY: include if applicable to client
COMMUNICATION AND LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT:
Clinician's name, graduate student clinician, administered the following assessments on
Jnauary 1, 2009. Client was 10 years 10 month at the time of this evaluation.
Oral-Facial Examination
An oral-facial examination was given in order to evaluate the structural and
functional integrity of the oral mechanism.
Structure: Client's lips and tongue were of normal size, shape, and
symmetry. The relationship of the mandible to the maxilla was normal/or
describe. Examination of the hard and soft palates revelaed no abnormalities/or
report any abnormalities.
Function: Client was able/not able to protrude, retract, elevate depress
and lateralize his/her tongue. He/She was was/was not to protrude and retract
both his/her lips and tongue in quick succession. Adequate velopharyngeal
closure was evident/not evident on production of /a/. Diadochokinetic rate was
judged to be adequate/inadequate.
Summary: All structures and functions of Client's oral mechanism was
judged to be adequate/inadequate for the normal production of speech.
Speech and Language Sample
A speech and language sample was conducted in order to informally assess
various aspects of Client's speech and language. Upon analysis of the sample,
Client's Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) was calculated to be
. This score
along with Client's syntactic abilities, when applied to Brown’s Stages of
Language Development, revealed components characteristic of Brown’s Stage
. Client's chronological age of
implies that she should be functioning
at a Stage
level with an MLU of
. A Type Token Ratio (TTR) was
computed to determine the number of different words Client's uses. The total of
different words is divided by the total number of words produced. Client's TTR
was calculated to be
,
/
, which indicates that describes. Include
infromation on speech intelligibility in connected speech, voice, fluency, etc
Photo Articulation Test (PAT-3)
The PAT-3 was administered in order to assess Client's articulation skills at the
single word level. Phonemes were elicited in the initial, medial, and final position
of words through presentation of various photographs. Results are as follows:
Substitutions:
Initial Position:
Medial Position:
Final Position:
Omissions:
Initial position:
Medial Position:
Final Position:
Distortions:
Initial position:
Medial Position:
Final Position:
Raw Score:
Percentile:
Age Equivalent:
Standard Score:
Severity:
The mean standard score for the PAT-3 is 100 with average scores ranging
between 85-115. Based on the results of the PAT-3, Client's standard score of
falls
standard deviations below the mean indicating the presence of
a note severity articulation disorder.
Preschool Language Scale (PLS-4)
The PLS-4 was given to assess Client's auditory comprehension and expressive
communication skills. Results were as follows:
Auditory Comprehension:
Raw score:
Standard Score:
Percentile Rank:
Age Equivalent: 10years, 10 months
In the area of Auditory Comprehension, Client achieved a
raw score of
, which converted to a standard score of
.
His/Her standard score of
was
standard deviations
below the mean when compared to the performance of other
children of the same chronological age. These scores indicate a
severity receptive language disorder. Receptively, Client did list
deficits no higher than client's age level. Client did not list deicits
no higher than client's age level.
Expressive Communication:
Raw Score:
Standard Score:
Percentile Rank:
Age Equivalent: 10 years, 10 months
In the area of Expressive Communication, Client achieved
a raw score of
, which converted to a standard score of
. His/Her standard score of
was
standard
deviations below the mean when compared to the performance of
other children of the same chronological age. These scores
indicate a severity expressive language disorder. Expressively,
Client did list skills no higher than client's age level. Client's did
not list deficits no higher than client's age level.
Total Language Score:
Raw Score Total:
Standard Score:
Percentile Rank:
Age Equivalent: 10years, 10 months
BEHAVIOR: professional description here
EVALUATION SUMMARY:
Briefly describe evaluation results by severity here
Based on the results above, Client appears to demonstrate disordered/delayed
communication in the areas of state deficit areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GOALS:
Based on the results of this test battery it is recommended that Client attend speech and
language therapy (2) times per week for (45)-minute sessions. The goals are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
__________________________________
Name of Supervisor
Supervising Speech-Language Pathologist
_________________________________
Name of clinician
Graduate Student Clinician
*This report was completed by the above named student clinician under the supervision
of the supervisor whose name appears on this report.