Evidence-based management of phonological impairment in children
Open accessAbstract
Evidence-based management of phonological impairment in children is a dynamic process. Speech and language therapists need to evaluate published evidence and use their professional judgement to decide on an intervention plan, evaluate the efficacy of their intervention and re-evaluate decisions. Two case studies are presented to illustrate this process of evidence-based management of phonological impairment in children. Both of the children have a phonological impairment of unknown origin with similar case histories; however, their intervention outcomes were completely different. The two case studies highlight the importance of considering individual differences in the management of phonological impairment in children. They also highlight the importance of integrating up-to-date knowledge with clinical expertise.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
For phonological SSD, intervention typically has a cognitive-linguistic focus, engaging the child in tasks highlighting phonological contrasts they are currently not expressing.
“For phonological SSD, intervention typically has a cognitive‐linguistic focus, engaging the child in tasks highlighting phonological contrasts they are currently not expressing (Baker and McLeod 2004; Wren et al. 2018).”
From Self‐Supervised App‐Based Speech Training for Children With Speech Sound Disorder—A Single‐Case Experimental Design Study (2026) · cites this paper as Baker and McLeod 2004
The available passages contain bibliographic metadata rather than discussion of intervention (the passage labeled Abstract has no substantive abstract text). Searches for cognitive-linguistic intervention, phonological contrasts, and minimal pairs found no passage addressing the claim, so our copy cannot verify it. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 67 · Cited by 61
- Authors
- Baker, E., & McLeod, S.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Charles Sturt University (AU)
- Venue
- Child Language Teaching and Therapy
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-10
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 261-285
- ISSN
- 0265-6590 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0865
- OpenAlex
- W2096082767
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 67
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 3.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Child Language Teaching and Therapy (publishedVersion)
- Charles Sturt University Research Output (CRO) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Speech Pathology Australia
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- phonological disorders, children, evidence-based management, speech therapy, intervention planning, clinical judgment, individual differences, intervention outcomes, clinical expertise
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
