PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 7, 2026American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology0 citations

Lexical Properties of Stimuli in Standardized Articulation and Phonology Tests: A Short Report

View Full Paper
KFKelly FarquharsonTMToby Macrae

Key Points

  • This research aims to analyze phonological neighborhood density, phonotactic probability, and word frequency of test stimuli.
  • Extracted stimuli from 12 articulation and/or phonological tests, totaling 667 items.
  • Calculated phonological neighborhood density and phonotactic probability for stimuli.
  • Determined word frequency using a historical database.
  • Most stimuli were from sparse phonological neighborhoods.
  • Stimuli included common sound sequences, with few high-frequency words.

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to report the phonological neighborhood density, phonotactic probability, and word frequency of the stimuli in 12 commonly used articulation and/or phonological tests. We extend the work of Macrae (2017), who identified variability in stimulus items across consonant singletons, consonant clusters, vowels, phoneme complexity, and bound morpheme. This study sought to augment that work with a deeper analysis of lexical and sublexical features of these stimuli. METHOD: The stimuli from 12 articulation and/or phonological tests were extracted, resulting in 667 stimuli. All stimuli were run through a phonological neighborhood density and phonotactic probability calculator. Word frequency was determined using Moe et al.'s (1982) database. RESULTS: Means and ranges for all lexical characteristics were computed across each of the 12 tests. Most stimuli were from sparse phonological neighborhoods, and included common sound sequences. Although the average word frequency value was in the high range, overall, very few test stimuli were high-frequency words. DISCUSSION: There was not one articulation and/or phonological test that considered or balanced these three lexical properties. We discuss the linguistic constraints surrounding developing such a test. We also discuss future research opportunities to examine if these lexical properties may result in over- and underidentification of children with speech sound disorders.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Farquharson et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fbf004164b5133a91a4471https://doi.org/10.1044/2026_ajslp-25-00129
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Methods for Minimizing the Confounding Effects of Word Length in the Analysis of Phonotactic Probability and Neighborhood Density2004 · 103 citations
  2. 2Statistical Learning: How it Relates to Speech-Language Pathology2018 · 7 citations
  3. 3Use of Language Sample Analysis by School-Based SLPs: Results of a Nationwide Survey2016 · 173 citations
  4. 4What Factors Place Children With Speech Sound Disorders at Risk for Reading Problems?2011 · 136 citations
  5. 5Young children’s age-of-acquisition estimates for spoken words1992 · 58 citations