By: Jill Vogt
Eastern Illinois University
Faculty Chairs: Rebecca Throneburg,
PhD., CCC-SLP and Beth Bergstrom,
M.S., CCC-SLP

Auditory Discrimination/Image for /r/
◦ Poor auditory discrimination skills between /r/, /w/, and
/l/ (Aungst & Frick, 1964).
◦ Poor auditory image for how a correct /r/ should sound
(Aungst & Frick, 1964; Shuster, 1998; Hoffman, Stager,
& Daniloff, 1983).

Sub-Types of Errors
◦ Possible subtypes based on the nature of speech sound
errors – Shriberg Type 1 or Type 2 (Shriberg, 1980).
◦ Clinical implications from Marshalla (2007) suggested
some children misarticulate /r/ due to incorrect
articulator placement of the tongue, lips, and/or jaw.
 Foundational motor skills require stabilization/isolation.

McNutt (1977) investigated oral-sensory motor
skills of children who misarticulate /r/
compared to children with normal articulation.
◦ The investigator reported that children who
misarticulated /r/ had:
 fewer syllables produced per second on syllable repetition
tasks revealing deficient oral alternate motion rates
 sensory discrimination deficits that resulted in sensory
motor difficulties
 McNutt suggested that /r/ articulation disorders may not
simply be a functional articulation disorder.

1) Is there a difference in oral-motor skills
and discrimination skills between children
with typical articulation, children with /r/
errors who are stimulable for correct /r/, and
children with /r/ errors who are not
stimulable for /r/?
2) Is a difference in the number and type of other
speech errors between children who are and are not
stimulable for /r/ production?
Typical (T)
N=9
R-Errors but
Stimulable (RS)
N=8
R-ErrorsNonstimulable
(RNS) N=13
Significant
Difference
Age
9.51 yrs
7.92-12.00
9.69 yrs
7.00-11.50
8.59 yrs
7.33-12.33
NS
Past Speech Therapy
None
4.75 yrs
1-6 yrs
3.08 yrs
1-7 yrs
Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test
117.50
94-135
113.38
96-130
102.67
93-135
NS
Goldman-Fristoe
Test of Articulation
105.33
101-108
85.89
65-103
78.54
52-87
p<.001
T>RS & RNS
R-Accuracy on World
of R Word Level
Screening
All 100%
44%
3-100%
3%
0-7%
p<.001
T>RS & RNS
RS>RNS
R-Accuracy in
Conversational
All 100%
35%
0-76%
2%
0-7%

Speech Sound
Discrimination and
Awareness for /r/
◦ An informal discrimination
task was administered to
evaluate the participants
ability to discriminate
 /r/ presence in words
 Word placement of /r/ (I,M,F)
 Correctness of /r/ from
recordings of investigator

Shriberg’s (1980) liquids,
glides, vowel assessment
◦ (Type 1/Type 2 Errors)Number and type of additional
speech sound errors
(Shriberg’s 1980 speech tasks)

Structure and Function of
the Oral Mechanism
◦ The Marshalla Oral
Sensorimotor Test (MOST)
was administered, along with
informal supplementary tasks
developed by the current
investigator.




Tongue Tasks
Jaw Tasks
Lip Tasks
Oscillation Tasks

A protocol for obtaining
Maximum Performance Tasks
developed by Thoonen et al.
(1999) was administered to
evaluate maximum duration
tasks and rate of syllable
repetition tasks.




Maximum Duration (ah, mama)
Maximum Fricative Duration (f,s,z)
Monosyllable Repetition Rate
(papapapa, tatatata, kakaka)
Trisyllable Repetition Rate and
Accuracy (pataka- at least 5 with
accurate place)
Accurate /pataka/
Inaccurate /pataka/
100
95
Typical
90
R-Stimulable
85
R-Nonstimulable
80
75
70
Total
/r/
/r/ Word
/r/
Discrim
Presence
Place Task
Accuracy
Test
Task
Task
100
/r/ Stimulable
95
/r/ Nonstimulable
90
85
80
75
70
Shriberg
Shriberg
Shriberg
Shriberg
/l/
/w/
/j/
Vowel
accruacy
accuracy
accuracy
accuracy
• Children in the
Stimulable Group
produced 0-3 (M=
1.00) additional
phonemes in error
on the GFTA
• Children in the
Nonstimulable
Group produced 07 (M= 1.67)
additional
phonemes in error
on the GFTA
Typical
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
Total MOST
plus
Supplemental
Accuracy
/r/ Stimulable
Tongue Tasks
Jaw Tasks
/r/ Nonstimulable
Lip Tasks
Oscillation
Tasks
5
Typical
/r/ Stimulable
Seconds
4
2
1
/r/ Nonstimulable
0
5
Monosyllable Trisyllable
4
Rep Rate
3
2
1
0
Maximum
Maximum
Phonation
Fricative
Duration
Duration
Percent Accuracy
Seconds
3
Rep Rate
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PaTaKa Accuracy
80
Typical
70
Stimulable/r/
60
Nonstimulable/r/
50
40
30
20
10
0
No Oral Motor
Difficulty
1 Indication
More than 1
O-M Difficulty Indication O-M
Difficulty

The data supports previous research.
◦ Shriberg (1980) & Marshalla (2007) suggested some
children with /r/ errors used exaggerated jaw
movements and had trouble holding the jaw stable.
◦ McNutt (1977) & Marshalla (2007) suggested that
children with /r/ articulation difficulties were
different based on their oral-motor skills.
 (Slower syllable repetition rate)
◦ Shriberg (1980) suggested children are either Type
1 or Type 2 based on type of speech sound errors.

The data suggest

The main suggestion is that a thorough assessment should
be administered to a child with /r/ difficulties.
◦ Some children with /r/ errors have subtle oral-motor deficits
(planning/accuracy ptk, stabilization, tongue movements)
◦ There may be subgroups of children with /r/ errors who have
different patterns of strengths and weaknesses.
◦ The assessor should be aware of those foundational skills
(stabilization, isolation, and disassociation).
◦ The assessor should look for patterns of strengths and
weaknesses for each individual /r/ client.
 Also, make sure the assessor is aware of the child’s oral-motor skills.
 For example does the child have difficulties with discrimination of /r/,
planning control for articulators, tongue and jaw disassociation.

Further research on the impact of oral-motor skills on
children’s abilities to produce a correct /r/ is needed.







Aungst, L. F. & Frick, J. V. (1964). Auditory discrimination ability
and consistency of articulation of /r/. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Disorders, 29, 76-84.
Dunn., L, & Dunn., D. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test,
Fourth Edition (PPVT-4). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson, Inc.
Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M. (2000). Goldman-Fristoe Test of
Articulation, Second Edition (GFTA-2). Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service, Inc.
Hoffman, P. R., Stager, S., & Daniloff, R. G. (1983). Perception
and production of misarticulated /r/. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Disorders, 48, 210-215.
Marshalla, P. (2004). Oral-motor techniques in articulation &
phonological therapy. Kirkland, WA: Marshalla Speech and
Language.
Marshalla, P. (2007). Successful /r/ therapy. Kirkland, WA:
Marshalla Speech and Language.
Marshalla, P. (2007). Marshalla Oral Sensorimotor Test.
Greenville, SC: Super Duper Publications.






McNutt, J. C. (1977). Oral sensory of motor behaviors of children
with /s/ or /r/ misarticulations. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 20, 694-703.
Ristuccia, C. (2006). The Entire World of R Advanced Screening.
Tybee Island, GA: Say It Right.
Secord, W., & Shine, R. (1997). Secord Contextual Articulation
Test (S-CAT) Storytelling Probes of Articulation Competence.
Sedona, AZ: Red Rock Educational Publications.
Shriberg, L. D. (1980). An intervention procedure for children
with persistent /r/ errors. Language Speech Hearing Services in
Schools, 11, 102-110.
Shuster, L. I. (1998). The perception of correctly and incorrectly
produced /r/. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 41, 941-950.
Thoonen, G., Maassen, B., Gabreels, F., Schreuder, R. (1999).
Validity of maximum performance tasks to diagnose motor
speech disorders in children. Journal of Clinical Linguistics and
Phonetics, 13, 1-23.