1

CSD 623 Test Reviewer Checklist

Adapted from: Nelson, N. (2010). Language and Literacy Disorders. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Reviewers: Brooke Morris, Becky Reid, Emily Vayo, Stefanie Jacobson
Test Name (& acronym if relevant): Publisher & web address: Super Duper Publications
Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology https://www.superduperinc.com/products/view.aspx?pid=CAAP1
2nd Edition (CAAP-2) 2#.W7PrBGhKg2w
Author(s): Wayne Secord and JoAnn S. Donohue Date of Latest Publication: 2014

Cost: $288.95

Description Reviewer Comments

Test primarily of: ✓ Phonology ✓ Articulation □ Phonological Awareness or Processing

(check all that apply) □ Nonverbal Oral/Speech Motor Performance □ Other: _______________________
Purpose:
Norming Sample:
FACTS:
(p. 61-65)
Age: total of 1,486 children between ages 2;6 and 11;11
Gender: 49% were male, 51% were female
Race & Ethnicity: includes White (1005), African
American (159), Hispanic (245), and Other (Asian
American, Native American, Alaska Native, Native
Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander) (77)
Geographic location: includes children from South
(564), Northeast (256), Midwest (315), and West (351)
Dialect: Discussed how dialect difference could impact
scoring. Recommend examiners be aware (p. 4).
SES level: relative to mother’s educational level;
includes no high school (125), high school (261), < 3
years college (341), and 4 years college + (759)
Field Testing: included 81 children with no history of
articulation or other communication impairments and 54
children with diagnosed disorders of articulation and
phonology (p. 15).
List Sounds Tested:
FACTS:
See Attached Chart (p. 7)
The purpose of this test is to assess English articulation and
phonology in preschool and school-age children (2;6-11;11).
It is a screening of the child’s phonetic inventory and
observed phonological processes.
COMMENTS:
-Certain subgroups do not meet the McCauley and Swisher
criteria for 100+ persons.
-Age group 3;0-3;5 has 96 children
-Age group 10;0-10;11 has 93 children
-Age group 11;-0-11;11 has 68 children
-Gender differences were not discussed in the results.
-Extremely low rep. of “Other” category (77)
-Highest rep. is White (1005)
-Limited amount of kids from Midwest & Northeast
-Most are from South
-Extremely low rep. of no high school group
-Highest rep. is 4 years college +
-Examiner’s Manual sites McCauley and Swisher article and
quotes it’s criterion saying the standardization sample is
“more than adequate” but does not meet the 100 per subgroup
criteria
COMMENTS:
-Consonant Singletons are tested in initial & final position (no
medial sounds are scored)
- /r, w, j, h/ are not tested in final position
- /5/and /a/ are not tested in initial position
-Consonant Clusters are given in initial position only

Phonological Patterns: -Syllable Structure Processes:

-Final Consonant Deletion (FCD) - 10 opp.
(Secord & Donahue, 9-14) -Cluster Reduction (CR) - 9 opp.
-Syllable Reduction (SR) - 9 opp.
-Substitution Processes:
-Gliding (GL) - 7 opp.
-Vocalization (VO) - 8 opp.
-Fronting (FR) - 10 opp.
-Deaffrication (DF) - 5 opp.
-Stopping (ST) - 10 opp.
-Assimilation Processes:
 2

-Prevocalic Voicing (PVV) - 8 opp.

-Postvocalic Devoicing (PVD) - 8 opp.
Types of Scores COMMENTS:
FACTS: -For ages, 3;0-6;6 a cut score of -1 SD indicates concern. The
-Includes standard scores, percentile ranks, and age- test manual did not provide data for the other age groups.
equivalents derived from raw scores -Examiner Manual strongly cautions against using age
-Confidence Intervals for Severity: Above Average- 116 equivalent scores because the normative ranges overlap and
and above, High Average: 111-115, Average- 90-110, lead the clinician to draw unfounded conclusions about the
Low Average- 85-89, Mild- 78-84, Moderate- 70-77, child (p. 43).
Severe 69 and below (p. 44).
Test Validity COMMENTS:
FACTS: 1. Test validity is sufficient at -1 SD cutoff, but data is only
1. Sensitivity & Specificity for kids aged 3;0-6;6. This excludes a lot of children from the
Table 5.12, page 71 normative sample.
2. Item Response Theory (IRT) techniques:
CAAP-2 Specificity Sensitivit Total
For the CAAP, a field test was given before the test was
y Correct
published, but cultural and linguistic biases were not
discussed in the manual (Secord & Donahue, 15-16). Only
Ages 3;0- n = 30 n = 30 n = 60
one picture stimulus was changed in the second edition (p.
6;6
17).
-1 SD 93% 87% 90%
Cutoff

-1.5 SD 97% 63% 80%

Cutoff
Test Reliability Page 72
1. Report evidence of test-retest reliability. 1. Test-Retest Reliability = Did not meet McCauley &
Swisher criteria of .9 or better
2. Report evidence of interscorer reliability. COMMENTS:
a. Consonant Inventory: 0.88 (percentile rank)
b. School-Age Sentences: 0.653 (percentile
rank)
2. Interscorer Reliability = did meet McCauley &
Swisher criteria of .9 or better
COMMENTS:
a. Articulation Inventory: 1.00
b. Phonological Process Checklist: above 0.99

Child/Clinician Friendliness
1. Are children likely to be willing to take this
test? Why or why not?
2. Is this test interesting to give? Why or why
not?
3. Is this test easy to score (you will want to give
it to each other)? Why or why not?
4. Does this test provide useful information? Why
or why not?
5. List any cautions about using this test (e.g.,
norming sample, unclear/less known items,
etc.)
6. Would you use this test? Why or why not? If
group opinion differs, discuss differences.
1. Yes, children would likely be willing to take this test
because it includes a story with manipulatives in the
form of story characters. The task is straightforward
and does not take long to complete.
2. Yes, this test is interesting to give. There are
characters that can be used to tell a story to the child.
3. The articulation response form was straightforward
and easy to follow. The phonological process
evaluation sheet is confusing because there are
multiple checklists and it is not fully clear when to
score certain parts of the test.
4. Yes, the test provides information about the child’s
consonant inventory, ability to imitate, and any
errors made through phonological processes.
5. Toys could be a distraction for the child. It could be
difficult to get the child to re-join/focus in therapy
once the manipulatives are introduced.
6. We would use this test in specific instances
considering the child’s age, dialect, and multicultural
 3

status. This test was normed on mostly white,

Southern children who come from a higher SES
background. Additionally, the diagnostic accuracy is
only sufficient for ages 3;0-6;6 so we would have to
take that into consideration as well when deciding
whether or not to include this assessment in our
comprehensive assessment. However, the score sheet
was slightly confusing and there is a potential for the
toys to be distracting. Clinicians should also be
aware that the CAAP-2 does not meet the criteria for
specific phonological processes and the
psychometric levels don’t meet the criteria for
certain age groups.
Literature Review:
A Psychometric Review of Norm-Referenced Tests Used to Assess Phonological Error Patterns (Kirk & Vigeland,
2014)
- The authors found that the test only met two of the criteria they had; recency and evidence of developmental
trends (p. 371).
- One of the criteria was not mentioned in the test at all, which was internal consistency (371).
- The test did not meet their criteria for sample size, demographics, inclusion of children with SSD, test-retest
reliability, interscorer reliability, content validity, internal structure validity evidence, concurrent validity, and
diagnostic accuracy (p. 371).
Content Coverage of Single-Word Tests Used to Assess Common Phonological Error Patterns (Kirk & Vigeland,
2015)
- They found that the test did not meet their criteria for measuring a given set of eleven error patterns at least four
times (p. 25).
- The test did not meet this criterion for cluster reduction in the final position, velar fronting in the initial position,
gliding /r/ and /l/, derhoticization, and deaffrication (p. 23).
- Twenty-two definitions of phonological processes were found to have been rejected by the test manual (p. 24).
- One process was not mentioned at all in the test manual, which was a fricative or affricate being replaced by a
glottal stop (p. 24).
- The test did meet the criteria for final consonant deletion, weak syllable deletion, initial cluster reduction,
prevocalic voicing, postvocalic voicing, velar fronting in the final position, palatal fronting, and stopping of
fricatives in both positions (p. 23).
Psychometric Characteristics of Single-Word Tests of Children’s Speech Sound Production (Flipsen & Ogiela,
2015)
- For test-retest reliability, the authors found that the some of the reliability coefficients met the criteria of 0.90
and above but some did not (p. 173)
- The authors found the test met the criteria for inter-examiner reliability (p. 173)
- They stated the test had clear instructions, examiner qualifications, and SEM data, but failed to provide SES data
on the norms or discuss gender differences (p. 173)
- Authors found that the test met criteria for performing a formal item analysis as well as having concurrent
validity data, diagnostic accuracy data, discussing dialect differences and having an analysis of phonological
processes. The test did not meet criteria for having predictive validity data or a formal vowel analysis (p. 172).
- The CAAP-2 met seven of the ten criteria laid out by McCauley and Swisher (p. 174).
- For concurrent validity, CAAP-2 and four other tests compared to the GFTA-2 (p. 174).
Stimulus Characteristics of Single-Word Tests of Children’s Speech Sound Production (McCrae, 2017)
- Found that most of the tests, including the CAAP-2 only included one opportunity, scored or unscored, to
produce a majority of the consonants in each word position (p. 229).
- The author recommends the CAAP-2 to test a child who has difficulties with multisyllabic words because it has
9 multisyllabic items, the second highest amount out of 12 tests compared (p. 231).
- The CAAP-2 was the only test reviewed that did not include any items with bound morphemes (p. 231).
 4

Table 2.1 Assessment Levels of the Articulation Inventory (p. 7)

 5

References

Flipsen Jr., P., & Ogiela, D. A. (2015). Psychometric characteristics of single-word tests of children’s speech
sound production. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 46(2), 166–178.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2015pass:[_]LSHSS-14-0055

Kirk, C., & Vigeland, L. (2015). Content coverage of single-word tests used to assess common phonological
error patterns. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 46(1), 14–29.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2014pass:[_]LSHSS-13-0054

Kirk, C., & Vigeland, L. (2014). A psychometric review of norm-referenced tests used to assess phonological
error patterns. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 45(4), 365–377.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2014pass:[_]LSHSS-13-0053

Macrae, T. (2017). Stimulus characteristics of single-word tests of children’s speech sound production.
Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 48(4), 219–233.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2017pass:[_]LSHSS-16-0050

Secord, W., & Donohue, J. S. (2014). CAAP -2 : Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology -2. Greenville, S.C. :
Super
Duper Publications, c2014. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid,athens,shib&custid=s8863137&db=cat
00024a&AN=vmc.b28500775&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s8863137