Observer’s Name: Amanda Gagnon Observation Report Number: 9
Clinician’s Name: Julie Wisniewski, MA, CCC-SLP Observation Date: March 14, 2014
Observation Site: Saint Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey Initials of Client: E.A.
E.A. is a three-year-old female who had been referred for a diagnostic speech evaluation by her physician. According to her parents, the speech-language pathologist who originally evaluated E.A. had written goals that were not developmentally or diagnostically appropriate. They decided to schedule a second diagnostic evaluation with the Pediatric Speech and Language Department at Saint Peter’s University Hospital.
At the beginning of the session, ...view middle of the document...
She was not completely intelligible to her parents, which had been causing them to become increasingly concerned. The clinician explained that it is not developmentally typical for children to acquire certain phonemes until they are a bit older, so E.A.’s parents should not be too concerned. While she was administering the assessment, the clinician transcribed the client’s responses on a Goldman Fristoe-2 scoring sheet. She explained that she would interpret that data and incorporate it into an evaluation report after the session had been completed.
The interactions during this diagnostic evaluation session were client-centered. Although the clinician spent a great deal of time conversing with the client’s parents, the purpose of their discourse was to divulge information pertinent to the client, especially regarding her communication and her articulation difficulties. When the clinician was specifically addressing and speaking to the client, she used developmentally and age appropriate communication to ensure that the client understood what was being said. The clinician used tonal variance to keep the client interested and attentive throughout the session. This became especially evident while the client was administering the Goldman Fristoe-2 assessment, which required the client to participate and respond appropriately for an extended period of time. The clinician supplemented her client-centered communication by interacting with E.A. using visual and tactile stimuli. In addition to the images used during the assessment, the clinician used toys and other tactile props, including a rubber duck and her watch to elicit correct responses from the client.
The clinician did not need to prompt E.A. beyond the questions she asked as she was administering the Goldman Fristoe-2 assessment. Although she used the images on the examination and props to elicit responses from the client, these various types of stimuli were not necessary for the successful completion of the assessment. The client responded well to visual, verbal, and tactile input. She did not require additional prompting or cueing by the clinician, as she seemed to have no difficulties with receptive language. When I asked the clinician why she chose to use various tactile props throughout the assessment, she explained that she has found this technique to be effective in maintaining the attention of children, especially in very young or developmentally delayed children. E.A. appeared to be entertained by the use of toys and props during this assessment.
Throughout the entirety of the session, the clinician verbally praised E.A. for exhibiting such mature behavior for a three-year-old child. Her parents reciprocated this praise by commending the client on her good behavior and focus. An intermittent reinforcement schedule with a fixed ratio was used while the Goldman Fristoe-2 assessment was being administered. In addition to positive verbal reinforcement, the client was allowed to play...