Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Apr 13.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Linguist Phon. 2010 Dec 15;25(4):265–286. doi: 10.3109/02699206.2010.528822

Table 1.

Participant characteristics of the two children treated in the non-word (NW) condition and the two children treated in the real word (RW) condition

Child Treatment Condition Treated Sound Age Gender GFTAa Sounds excluded from phonemic inventory Phonetic Inventory Complexityb Stimulabilityc Number of Pre-Treatment Baseline Assessments
1 Non-word ɹ 6;9 M 77 ʃ tʃ dʒ ɹ E No 2
2 Non-word ɹ 3;0 M 70 v θ ð l ɹ C No 3
3 Real Word ɹ 3;3 F 77 f v θ ð z ʃ ɹ E No 2
4 Real Word ɹ 3;11 M 66 f v θ ð z tʃ dʒ l ɹ D Yes 4
a

Standard scores obtained on the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation 2 (Goldman & Fristoe, 2000)

b

Phonetic Inventory Complexity Levels defined by Dinnsen, Chin, Elbert, & Powell (1990), with Level A being least complex and Level E being most complex.

c

Stimulability of treatment sound in isolation (i.e., just the consonant sound /ɹ/) prior to the onset of treatment