Our Blogs

Clinical Café by Debby Hutchins, MS, CCC-SLP

Previously we talked about scoring tests and writing diagnostic reports that give a vivid picture of a client. We were, in essence, talking about levels of interpretation. The topic for this month’s Clinical Café covers in-depth analysis and interpretation. You definitely have some options with psychometrically sound tests to make them clinically useful and sophisticated. Are you getting the most from your test and manual? Read on!

Interpreting Performance in Layers

In the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation, Second Edition manual (page 5), also known as the GFTA-2, the authors discuss levels of analysis that lead to different layers of interpretation. If you use the Level 1 or Level 2 scoring procedures, you have different amounts of information for interpreting the normative scores and the examinee’s overall performance. As you read in the manual, Level 1 scoring allows a global interpretation of the examinee’s normative scores with respect to his or her same-aged peers. Level 2 scoring gives the additional categorization of errors—how is the sound incorrect—that deepens to another layer of interpretability.

If there are numerous errors and/or the speech sample is highly unintelligible, then you may need a still deeper layer of interpretation. The psychometrically linked partner test to the GFTA-2 is the Khan-Lewis Phonological Analysis, Second Edition (KLPA-2), which organizes sound errors into 10 phonological processes divided into three process areas (manual, pages 10-14). Keep in mind that you can start right in with this layer, if your clinical judgment tells you that enough sound errors exist to warrant a process-based approach that addresses the examinee’s sound system as a rule-governed system. What’s more, you can analyze 34 additional phonological processes descriptively for even more in-depth interpretation.

One important point to remember: When you do articulation testing only, as with the GFTA-2, you should not refer to errors as phonological process errors. This terminology is available only with a phonological process-based test instrument such as the KLPA-2.

Interpreting Performance in Scores

Each normative score has opportunities and limitations in its interpretability. That is the reason for so many types of normative scores—each one has a specific use and value. You may want to put a bookmark in each of your test manuals at the following pages for easy reference:

• GFTA-2 pages 31-33
• KLPA-2 pages 42-48
• EVT pages 35-40
• CASL pages 89-98
• OWLS LC/OE pages 98-102
• OWLS WE pages 120-125

On these pages, you will find information on interpreting each of the normative scores appropriately. This is important because all too often these scores can be misunderstood and then inadvertently misused.

Interpreting Performance for Intervention and Collaboration

After completing professional analysis and interpretation of test results, you then explain these results to parents and teachers and plan intervention. The descriptive analysis worksheets for the Oral Written and Language Scales (OWLS LC/OE and WE) and Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL) can assist you in that process (These worksheets are available to you through our Web site www.speechandlanguage.com and are located on the right-hand side of each product page.) Likewise, the KLPA-2 provides a vehicle for describing interpretive results in the Phonological Summary and Progress Report. This handy form can be used to explain sound errors in detail, assist in developing goals and benchmarks (objectives), and provide a method of reporting progress over time.

2005—A Resolution

New Year is the time for resolutions. Consider making this resolution your own: Start utilizing all the levels of analysis and interpretation that your tests and manuals provide. Personally, I prefer this resolution to exercise regimens or diets. Bring on the chocolate!

Kathleen Williams welcomes the group.

AGS Publishing National Speech and Language Consultants are gearing up to provide valuable workshops and ASHA-approved continuing education seminars across the country. Last month they assembled in Minneapolis for their own unique training program.

AGS Publishing Event

This motivating event was coordinated by Dr. Kathleen Williams, Vice President of Product Development, and Inga Weberg, Associate Director of Marketing, both from AGS Publishing.

Dr. Ronald Goldman

Dynamic speakers led the training sessions. The first speaker, Dr. Ronald Goldman talked about teaching young school children articulation and early reading skills with the new Sounds and Symbols Early Reading Program. His discussion included an interesting overview of current and past research on literacy, as it is affected by language development and articulation skills. Along with sharing information on his own studies working with children, Goldman included scientific findings from the work of renowned authors in the field, such as Lloyd Dunn, Richard Woodcock, and Macalyne Fristoe.

Ronald Goldman speaks about literacy.

Tina Radichel, M.S. CCC-SLP

Next, Tina Radichel, M.S. CCC-SLP, New Product Manager at AGS Publishing, introduced consultants to the ASHA-approved workshop titled, “The Role of Speech-Language Pathologists in Early Literacy.” This workshop demonstrated how critical the training and background of speech-language pathologists can be in designing spoken and written language programs that promote reading skills.

Nancy Lewis, M.S. CCC-SLP

Another major contributor to the program was Nancy Lewis, M.S. CCC-SLP. She discussed the second edition of the Khan-Lewis Phonological Analysis (KLPA-2). This assessment works alongside the GFTA-2 to extend the analysis of articulation and phonological usage. Lewis also invited consultants to participate in a case study using the GFTA-2 results and KLPA-2 software analysis for planning remediation for fictitious students. It provided a hands-on method for learning how effective the two assessments can be when used together.

Nancy Lewis discusses KLPA-2.

All in all, the back-to-school training day prepared AGS Publishing national consultants for providing valuable workshop experiences and inservice programs throughout the United States. Give them a call.

More Information

For information about these speech and language inservices, seminars, and ASHA-approved workshops, visit the AGS Publishing website, ags.pearsonassessments.com/workshops/inservice.asp

Clinical Café by Tina Radichel, M.S., CCC-SLP

If speech development were easy, children wouldn’t need speech-language pathologists. But easy it is not. Speech production uses a set of arbitrary sounds and sound combinations that are based on an equally arbitrary set of rules (Kent, 1998, in Bernthal & Bankson, 1998). Unfortunately, children don’t always master these rules in the same way. Enter the need for speech assessment and time-consuming analysis and interpretation.

Looking at speech assessment on a continuum means knowing that each child may require a different level of sound analysis. At a basic level, simply counting errors on a set of single words and comparing that number to a set of national norms may be sufficient in a particular case. At the most complex level, a generative analysis of a child’s sound production in conversation offers a depth and breadth of data that can offer a rich description of the child’s individual sound system. More often than not, however, assessment needs will fall somewhere between these extremes.

How do you determine the place on the continuum that matches your particular child’s needs? Simply stated, it depends (sorry, no easy answers here). You may initially need to determine a cursory number of errors to get a general idea of severity. But then you want more information, so you choose to analyze this number of errors by type of error (substitution, deletion, distortion, or addition). Or you want to look at distinctive features (place, manner, and voicing changes, or labials vs. stridents, etc). Then you decide that information isn’t enough either; you would like to organize the child’s errors by phonological process (cluster simplification, velar fronting, stopping, etc.). And so it goes.

The ability to move easily between levels of information is key to effective assessment. For example, one of the reasons that the GFTA-2/KLPA-2 combination of tests is so powerful is that the continuum is integrated with one well-controlled, representative normative group. The combination of these two tools increases the validity and ease of moving through the continuum to deeper analysis without jeopardizing the reliability and validity of the data. What’s more, you can stop whenever you determine you have the information you need. It is this philosophical premise of a continuum of assessment and the necessity of flexibility that serves as the foundation of the tests, as well as the newly released, newly designed GFTA-2/KLPA-2 ASSIST scoring and reporting software.

Analysis and Interpretation of Formal Testing

Clinical decision-making in speech-language pathology has always been both an art and a science. Cliché, yes, but true. A formal test or a criterion-referenced checklist can provide you with a wealth of data, but you must then engage your “gray matter” and insert the data into the context of a child’s history, experience, life, and environment. At some point, the test data can tell you no more than a number or set of numbers. You must decide how those numbers fit together and “where to go from here.”

In short, you must use your clinical judgment!
“Egads!” you say. “Think? No, it’s summer! I can’t do that!”

Knowing that test scores tell you only a piece of what the child knows and can do, further dynamic procedures (e.g., the GFTA-2 Sounds-in-Sentences and Stimulability sections) can easily help you broaden the picture of the child’s sound system. These two sections of the GFTA-2 use consonant sounds in an authentic/dynamic way and provide more information for analysis and interpretation that is not possible through formal testing means. Best practices in speech-language pathology and educational psychology have long supported the use of a full range of assessment tools and information-gathering methods to complete an assessment that is valid and leads to intervention. (Feuerstein, 1979; Lidz, 1991; Moore-Brown & Montgomery, 2001; Paul, 1995; Schraeder, Quinn, Stackman, & Miller, 1999)

The bottom line of interpretation is simple: while each child’s speech system is unique, there are also a number of very common ways to talk about it. When making interpretive judgments about test scores, test manuals are invaluable resources for clinical decision-making and report-writing. In addition, software that can generate standard wording for describing test scores accurately can do much of the initial report-writing work for you! None of us have a lot of time these days, so efficiency is key to getting your professional interpretations down on paper. Both the GFTA-2 and KLPA-2 manuals offer excellent assistance in the analysis and interpretation of test scores, including special cases and considerations.

Planning Intervention

The rubber meets the road in clinical intervention. No assessment will make a good speech and language outcome, but excellent assessment tools can give you the necessary foundation for sound thinking in clinical practice. You make the difference in bridging the gap and making the data work for you clinically. Logic indicates that the deeper you go on the continuum of assessment, the more information you have for planning intervention. For example, knowing that a child may have 80 percent of his or her errors as substitution errors may help qualify a child for services and describe the test scores. Then you as a clinician must make the leap to determine what targets to pursue in therapy. On the other hand, if you know that those substitution errors are largely errors in the phonological process Liquid Simplification, you can determine if the errors are age-appropriate and on which targets to focus. The more depth of information you have up front, the easier and more effective intervention planning is after assessment. In this outcome-based world, there is no better reason for having an integrated continuum of assessment than better and more effective intervention!

While we can’t tell you what specific intervention activities will work with each individual child or group of children, we do want you to be able to spend more time on planning than on “crunching” the data and writing lengthy repetitive reports. Our new GFTA-2/KLPA-2 ASSIST software (brand new design too!) integrates scoring and reporting for both the GFTA-2 and KLPA-2. Check it out at http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/static/a11750.asp.

A Big Thanks!

As always, we’d like to thank you for your ongoing service to people with communication needs and remind you that we at AGS Publishing are here to support you with that effort. If you’d like to discuss this topic further, please feel free to use the SLP Forum Discussion Center as the vehicle for an ongoing discussion with your colleagues. Should you have questions regarding these or other Pearson Speech and Language products, we welcome your phone calls at 1-800-627-7271, or through our website contact form.

Enjoy the complexity of speech assessment!

References

Bernthal, J. E., & Bankson, N. R. (1998). Articulation and phonological disorders (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Feuerstein, R. (1979). Dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford Press.

Moore-Brown, B. J., & Montgomery, J. K. (2001). Making a difference for America’s children: Speech-language pathologists in public schools. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.

Paul, R. (1995). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence. St.Louis, MO: Mosby.

Schraeder, T., Quinn, M., Stockman, I. J., & Miller, J. (1999). Authentic assessment as an approach to preschool speech-language screening. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 6, 195-200.

Clinical Café by Tina Radichel, M.S., CCC-SLP

An Ode to Retesting Test, test, and test again.
Wait, wait a minute-does it matter WHEN?

Is it weeks or months, days or years?
Do I have enough info to tell all my peers?

What will happen to the students’ scores?
Will kids remember the answers or run out the doors?

Will the scores be valid, reliable, and true?
Will I interpret correctly so no one will sue?

Oh, test publisher, hear my refrain;
Give me some guidance, it’s taxing my brain!!

One should begin any dry but important topic with a bit of levity…hence the original poem above (inspired by Dr. Seuss, of course)! Welcome to the second issue of the Clinical Cafe, with today’s “espresso shot” topic of test-retest reliability. We, in Development for Pearson’s Assessment group, get numerous calls each month from professionals around the country regarding rules and strategies for retesting students. So, here’s another “insight” to read with your morning (or afternoon or evening) coffee and share with your colleagues.

Overall, test-retest reliability is an index of temporal stability. It tells how much the individual’s normative score might possibly change on retesting if a period of time has elapsed between test administrations. Change could reflect the person’s growth or fluctuation in the ability being measured, random differences in performance, or the individual’s recollection of the earlier administration. A test-retest coefficient is a statistical measure that is obtained by administering the same test twice, with a certain amount of time between administrations, and then correlating the two score sets. Reliability between two parallel forms with different content is known as an alternate-form coefficient (as in the PPVT-III).

When making a decision on retesting, follow the steps below.

1. Determine why you are conducting a retest: Did the examinee’s performance fall below your expectations due to illness, bad day, test anxiety, student behavior, etc? If this is the case, as soon as the examinee is up to it, you should be able to retest, especially if you use a parallel form. Are you involved in a pre/post test situation where you are attempting to ascertain gain? If so, you’d want to schedule the second administration after the completion of instruction or therapy to determine the effectiveness of the treatment.Has the student recently transferred from a different school? If the original test administration was done in another school or setting by a clinician that you do not know, and you question the reported results, you may choose to re-test.
2. Locate the section in each of the Pearson test manuals that discuss test-retest reliability:
   

   TEST	Manual Page(s)	Test-Retest Time Interval	Test-Retest Median Interval	Reliability Coefficients
   CASL	121-124	7-109 days	6 weeks	.65-.96
   EVT	67-69	8-203 days	42 days	.77-.90
   GFTA-2*	52-54	0-34 days	14 days	.79-1.00
   KLPA-2*	66-67	0-34 days	14 days	.79-1.00
   OWLS LC/OE	123-125	20-165 days	8 weeks	.73-.89
   OWLS WE	146-147	18-165 days	9 weeks	.87-.90
   PPVT-III Form A	48-51	One month	30 days	.91-.93
   PPVT-III Form B	48-51	One month	30 days	.91-.94
   PPVT-III A & B**	48-51	0-7	Same day	.88-.95

   *Read further for an additional issue related to test content.

   1. **The PPVT-III is unique among Pearson speech-language tests in that it has parallel forms (Forms A & B). As written in the Alternate-Forms Reliability Coefficients section on page 48 of the PPVT-III manual, most test subjects were given both forms of the test in the same day.
   2. Make a clinical decision based on all the information:While some tests provide clinicians with an exact test-retest waiting period, some do not. So much depends on the reason for the retesting. After reviewing the information provided in the manual and following the above steps, you may rely on your professional clinical judgment to determine when to confidently retest. You can be confident of the test reliability if your retesting falls within the respective test interval in the above table since you will be matching standardization procedures.

   Test Content and Test-Retest Reliability: A Related Consideration

   Test content also should be considered when determining the need for retesting. For example, articulation is a developmental skill area; you would expect more of a change in performance earlier on the growth curve (i.e., ages 2-5), which then will flatten and stabilize around 8 years of age. Retesting a young student at a given time interval on the GFTA-2 and/or the KLPA-2 would likely have greater change attributed to growth than retesting a student at 10 years of age. This is one reason that the test-retest time interval is narrower for these two tests.In language, skills that are “closed set” (e.g., syntax) should be considered differently than those that are “open set” (e.g., vocabulary, nonliteral language). Vocabulary has a steep growth curve similar to articulation, but does not flatten at a particular age; it grows throughout the life cycle. Conversely, syntax forms are a closed set; you learn them early, and they are generally static. So it helps to make the test-retest decision-making and data analysis seem clearer when you take into account test content.

   Dancing the Line of Clinical Judgment and Test Standardization

   Yes, it is difficult to know sometimes what you can and can’t make decisions on. Test standardization is a rigorous process and we appreciate professionals being concerned about “following the rules.” At the same time, no test can anticipate all the situations and nuances of the clinical arena, so there is a point at which the rules end and your clinical judgment begins. We’re happy to continue to help you clarify the line on which to “dance.”If you want more information on standardized test development, the Development Team at Pearson’s Assessment group is in the process of creating an ASHA-approved CE presentation (available end of summer) on the basics of assessment. If you are interested in scheduling a continuing education activity for your school, district, or your state speech-language-hearing association, please contact:

   Email: speechandlanguage@pearson.com

   As always, we’d like to thank you for your ongoing service to people with communication needs, and we are here to support you with that effort. If you’d like to discuss this topic further, please feel free to use the SLP Forum as the vehicle for an ongoing discussion with your colleagues. Should you have questions regarding these or other Pearson Speech and Language products, we welcome your phone calls at 800-627-7271 or use our web site at http://psychcorp.pearsonassessments.com. Oh, yes, and if you’d like to copy the poem at the top, feel free (but don’t forget to cite the Clinical Café)!

   Enjoy the summer!

Clinical Café by Tina Radichel, M.S., CCC-SLP

Periodically we see a trend in calls and e-mail questions from customers. Because you are a distinguished member of the SLPForum, we’d like to supply you with a bit of continuing education that may help you and your colleagues in your day-to-day clinical practice. We would also like to offer you a FREE gift in this e-mail, so read on!

Our particular insight this issue relates to the more accurate scores available from the GFTA-2 and KLPA-2 results. Grab a cup of coffee and sit back for a two-minute read that will save you hours of thinking time later.

Since the publication of the GFTA-2, questions have been raised about the difference between scores on the 1986 edition of GFTA and the GFTA-2. The 1986 GFTA norms were percentiles extrapolated from two different databases: the National Speech and Hearing Survey (Hull, Mielke, Willeford, & Timmons, 1976) and the Khan and Lewis work of 1986. The use of two unrelated databases collected at two different points in time is part of the reason for score differences. However, the key reason for the difference in scores lies in how the normative scores were developed.

The psychometrician who worked on the original GFTA norms applied the methods of normative score development based on a “normal” distribution of data. This method did not result in scores that appropriately represented the extremes of the distributions of articulation errors for each age. For example, according to the 1986 norms, a female who was aged 6 years 6 months and made no errors would have a percentile rank of 99. This would mean that only 1 percent of girls that age made no errors. Of course, this is not true. According to the GFTA-2 norms, the percentile rank for girls at 6-6 making no errors is appropriately listed at >65. This means that, at this age, 65 percent make one or more errors and 35 percent make no errors. Speech-language pathologists know, and research on normal articulation development tells us, that this is a more accurate representation.

As stated in the GFTA-2 manual, articulation ability is not normally distributed in the general population in the same way as many other abilities. The expectation that children master all sound production by age 8 makes the “normal curve” for articulation inherently skewed. Many state/district’s qualification criteria for special services are based on a system of using percentiles derived from forcing articulation data into a normalized distribution scale. Forcing data in this manner is not appropriate based on articulation development.

Here’s another example: If a boy who is 4-6 has a percentile rank of 2 on the 1986 GFTA or on another articulation test with scores developed by forcing the data into a normalized distribution, this would equate to a standard score of 70. This score is two standard deviations (SDs) below the mean and represents a significant difference or distance from average. Alternatively, if this same boy gets a standard score of 70 on the GFTA-2, he would have a percentile rank of 6. This rank of 6 is equivalent to the percentile rank of 2 on a “normalized” distribution or on a test developed by those means. In either case, this child’s articulation is significantly different from normal or average and is in need of remediation.

So you are now saying, “Help! Now what?”

If you need to incorporate GFTA-2 non-normalized distribution results into a qualification system that is based on a normalized distribution system, here’s what you do:

• Determine the cut-off percentile for services in your state/district.
  Example:
  the 10th percentile.
• Look at the “Percentile Rank to Standard Score Table” in the norms section of one of your favorite tests that is based on the bell curve.
  Examples:
  PPVT-III Norms Booklet – Page 44
  EVT Manual – Page 172
  CASL Norms Book – Page 121
  OWLS LC/OE Manual – Page 183
• According to this table based on a normalized distribution, determine the Standard Score that equates to your district/state cut-off.
  Example:
  10th Percentile = Standard Score of 81.
• Use this Standard Score as your qualification criteria instead of the percentile rank on the GFTA-2.
  Example:
  In a system based on normalized distribution criteria, any child who receives a Standard Score of 81 or below on the GFTA-2 would qualify for services.

Voila!

As stated in this example, if your school district/state uses a specific percentile (10th), this is equivalent to a standard score of 81 in a normal distribution. The standard score of 81 represents a specific variance from average (regardless of the distribution). Because articulation is not normally distributed, using the standard score of 81 allows you to keep the same reference point (as different from average). The percentiles vary depending on the age of the child, but his or her reference to average does not. Keeping the metric of 81 as your cut-off means that you are serving the children who are similarly discrepant from average regardless of age.

Compare your test results using this FREE booklet!

Call AGS Publishing Customer Service at 1-800-328-2560 or submit the online contact form to get your complimentary GFTA-2 Supplemental/Developmental Norms Booklet (Ask for item number 11754). Using the information presented in this booklet, you can check, for example, that a male child aged 4-6 should have mastered the articulation of 29 of the 77 sounds possible on the GFTA-2 (using 90% as the acquisition level cut-off). Compare the GFTA-2 test results to the developmental normative data to determine which sounds are developmentally appropriate and which are not. Then you can base your therapy strategy on this information.

Here’s something else . . .

We recently published Khan Lewis Phonological Analysis – Second Edition (KLPA-2). The KLPA-2 (item number 11820) is a norm-referenced, in-depth analysis of overall phonological process usage. It is a companion tool for the GFTA-2 articulation test. The KLPA-2 was designed to provide further diagnostic information on the 53 target words elicited by the GFTA-2 Sounds-in-Words. This tool will help you deepen your analysis of speech sound patterns.

In closing, we’d like to thank you for your ongoing service to people with communication needs and we are here to support you with that effort. Assessment analysis and interpretation is an important topic for our field; if you’d like to discuss this topic further, please feel free to use the SLPForum Discussion Center as the vehicle for an ongoing discussion with your colleagues.

http://www.speechandlanguage.com/forum/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi

Should you have questions regarding these or other Pearson Speech and Language products, we welcome your phone calls at 800-627-7271 or use our web site at http://ags.pearsonassessments.com.

Enjoy the spring!

Left to right- Kathleen Williams (EVT Author), Ron Goldman, Dr. Macalyne Fristoe (GFTA Co-Author)

Do you use the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation? The Goldman-Fristoe-Woodcock? How about Listening to the World? Sounds and Symbols?

The common denominator for all of these products (and several others) is Dr. Ron Goldman. In addition to his work as a busy author, Dr. Goldman has served as the training director for the Sparks Center for Developmental and Learning Disorders, the president of the American Speech-Language Hearing Foundation (ASHF), and the vice president of planning for the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA). He has also participated on committees and review boards for organizations including the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), the Louisiana Speech and Hearing Association, the Speech and Hearing Association of Alabama, the Tennessee Speech and Hearing Association, the National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Department of Education. He has received numerous awards for his work, including fellowship status by ASHA and their highest award, the Honors of the Association, for which the recipient’s achievements must be “of such excellence that they have enhanced or altered the course of our profession,” according to ASHA bylaws.

Dr. Goldman has been retired for seven years, but his schedule shows no sign of slowing down. He is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Alabama-Birmingham and has recently completed the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation, Second Edition (GFTA-2), with Dr. Macalyne Fristoe. Dr. Goldman describes the new edition of the popular test as “a refinement of a highly successful, frequently used test.”

He notes, “It was a challenge to select appropriate art to prompt spontaneous responses. We needed to provide stimulus items using interesting pictures that would elicit pertinent responses. The standardization was challenging, too. We worked hard to make sure it is all-inclusive.”

Dr. Goldman will be on hand at the ASHA convention in Washington, D.C., in November to discuss the development of both the original Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation and the new edition. Along with Dr. Macalyne Fristoe and Dr. Kathleen Williams, Dr. Goldman will discuss the supplementary developmental norms gathered from the GFTA-2 standardization data. Many research studies have attempted to set developmental markers by age for the correct production of each consonant sound. No study has included as large or as well-stratified and well-controlled a sample as the GFTA-2 standardization sample.

Now, Dr. Goldman has another revision in the works. A new edition of the Sounds & Symbols Early Reading Program (previously published as the Goldman-Lynch Sounds and Symbols Development Kit and High Hat) will be completed by August 2001. A renewed emphasis on phonics and a corresponding demand for the early reading program have prompted this new edition. (Ed. note: See SLP e-news article “High Hat is Back” for more details.)

“Personally, I think this project is one of the most productive intervention programs I’ve worked on,” noted Dr. Goldman. “There’s been a phenomenal response from its users.”

The new version will feature all new art and updated stories and lessons, with content revised for gender and ethnic balance and cultural appropriateness. Dr. Goldman stresses, however, that “the heart of the Goldman-Lynch will be maintained.” “I think,” he continues, “that it will be widely used.” Based on the popularity of Dr. Goldman’s other tests and programs, and on customer response to the Sounds & Symbols project so far, success seems assured!

Plan to attend the joint ASHA presentation by Dr. Ron Goldman, Dr. Macalyne Fristoe, and Dr. Kathleen Williams: “GFTA-2 Developmental Norms by Gender and Consonant Sound” (Session 614), Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:00-9:30 a.m.