Augustana College

Augustana Digital Commons

Building Speech and Quantifying Complexity Communication Sciences and Disorders

5-2022

Building Speech and Quantifying Complexity: The Manual

Kathy J. Jakielski
Augustana College, Rock Island Illinois, kathyjakielski@augustana.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.augustana.edu/csdbuildingspeech

Part of the Early Childhood Education Commons, Linguistics Commons, and the Speech and Hearing
Science Commons

Recommended Citation
Jakielski, Kathy J.. "Building Speech and Quantifying Complexity: The Manual" (2022). Building Speech
and Quantifying Complexity.
https://digitalcommons.augustana.edu/csdbuildingspeech/1

This Manual is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication Sciences and Disorders at
Augustana Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Building Speech and Quantifying Complexity by
an authorized administrator of Augustana Digital Commons. For more information, please contact
digitalcommons@augustana.edu.
 Building Speech &
Quantifying Complexity ™
THE MANUAL

KATH Y J . J AKIE L SKI , PH . D . , C C C - S L P, A S HA F E L L OW

 Table of Contents

Preface 4
Introduction 6
A Brief Review of Terminology Used
in Building Speech and Quantifying Complexity 7
Building Speech™: Eight Steps for
Increasing Articulatory Complexity 9
The Eight Building Speech Patterns 10
Getting Started 13
Frequently Asked Questions 15
Quantifying Complexity™: Eight Steps
for Calculating Articulatory Complexity 20
The IPC Scoring System 20
IPC Terminology 22
Calculating Articulatory Complexity Using the IPC 24
Practice Computing IPC Values 26
Appendix A: Terminology 28
Appendix B: Pattern 1 Stimuli 29
Appendix C: Pattern 2 Stimuli 30
Appendix D: Pattern 3 Stimuli 31
Appendix E: Pattern 4 Stimuli 33
Appendix F: Pattern 5 Stimuli 35
Appendix G: Pattern 6 Stimuli 38
Appendix H: Pattern 7 Stimuli 40
Appendix I: Pattern 8 Stimuli 42
Appendix J: Target-IPC Data Form 44
Appendix K: Production-IPC Data Form 46
References 48
 Preface
Treating disorders of speech, well, it isn’t as easy as some people think it
is. I first started practicing as a clinical speech-language pathologist almost
40 years ago, and I immediately gravitated toward working with children and
adolescents with speech sound disorders because of my firm background in
and passion for phonetics. The challenge of applying phonetic science to
clinical cases has motivated me throughout my career. I do not believe that
we can work effectively with individuals with a speech sound disorder without
having a strong background in phonetic science, yet I repeatedly encounter
speech-language pathologists who were taught that phonetics begins and
ends with phonetic transcription.

These speech-language pathologists find themselves ill-equipped to work

with children with challenging speech sound disorders, such as children with
childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) and children with few expressive words.
Learning how to phonetically transcribe is fundamental to being able to work
with children with speech sound disorders, but it is a single skill in a pool of
many that are needed. Possessing knowledge of phonetic science is equally
as important as possessing transcription skills, yet phonetics too often
continues to be taught only as the skill of transcribing.

If you are reading this manual as a speech-language pathologist who feels

ill-equipped to work with children with a challenging speech sound disorder,
especially a motor speech disorder, then you’ve come to the right place. In the
pages that follow, I provide phonetic science information that you may not have
been taught or that you don’t remember. Possessing this knowledge can help
to increase your clinical effectiveness. Then, by providing you with an approach
for how to develop incremental, articulatory-based goals and stimuli, you will be
able to systematically increase the demands you place on a child’s developing
speech system to attain your goals.

Speech is realized by the acquisition of motor skills, and the cognitive-

motor learning literature informs us that complex motor skills, which applies
to articulation, are developed in an incremental fashion, progressing from
more basic to more difficult movements. Building Speech and Quantifying
Complexity (BSQC) is an approach you can employ that aligns with what we
currently understand about skill acquisition. BSQC provides a framework for
selecting stimuli in treatment, as well as a tool you can use to assess progress
on an ongoing basis to document when and how articulatory change occurs.

My deepest appreciation is extended to everyone who has helped in

the development and refinement of the BSQC components over the past
30 years.
4
The people who contributed most directly include my mentors, Drs. Barbara
Davis, Leo Engler, Peter MacNeilage, and Julie Ries; past students I have
had the privilege of working with in related research, especially Emily Doyle,
Valerie Duncan, Shannon English, Daniel Fogerty, Tania (Egan) Giorgis, Julie
Luchessi, Rachel (Matyasse) Wells, Kelly Miller, Kristen Ranta, and Pamela
(Ward) Resendiz; clinical colleagues Drs. Dena Granof and Stephanie Jasuta;
doctoral students Lisa Mitchell and Anne Van Zelst; and research collaborators
Drs. Keven Eldridge, Joan Furey, Shelley Velleman, and Amy Weiss. I also
express appreciation to the original publishers of BSQC, Apraxia Kids,
previously known as the Childhood Apraxia of Speech Association of North
America (CASANA), and Jen Delmonaco at CPI Creative.

The people who contributed most indirectly have included the countless
number of children and teens with speech sound disorders with whom I have
spent a lifetime working; with their challenges always in mind, I am propelled
to ask questions and seek answers every day.

Forever the teacher, I hope that the BSQC approach helps to teach
speech-language pathologists how to think as a phonetic scientist when
assessing and treating children with speech sound disorders. Forever
the student, I hope to learn how we might improve this approach to
increase the effectiveness of the clinical services we provide.

Kathy J. Jakielski, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, ASHA Fellow

Professor of Communication Sciences & Disorders
Florence C. and Dr. John E. Wertz Chair in Liberal Arts and Sciences
Augustana College
Rock Island, Illinois

5
 Introduction
Building Speech & Quantifying Complexity (BSQC) is a dual approach to
treating and evaluating articulatory complexity in child speech. It has two
components: the first is Building Speech and the second is Quantifying
Complexity.

These two components can be used independently or together. When

used together, the speech-language pathologist has a method for selecting
goals and targets of varying levels of articulatory difficulty, plus a means for
measuring changes in a child’s words, targeted and produced, at one point
in time or over time.

The Building Speech component is an approach for increasing a child’s

ability to produce incrementally more motorically difficult words. Building
Speech is appropriate for children with a challenging speech sound disorder
and/or a limited number of expressive words, and especially for children
diagnosed with the motor speech disorder childhood apraxia of speech.
The Quantifying Complexity component is a metric, the Index of Phonetic
Complexity (IPC), for calculating the articulatory complexity of an individual’s
word targets and productions.

Building Speech & Quantifying Complexity provides speech-language

pathologists with foundational information, so that they can individualize
their assessments and interventions to meet the needs of the children on
their caseloads with challenging speech sound disorders. It is not intended
to be a lock-step program, but rather, an approach to be used creatively
and flexibly by speech-language pathologists to address the needs of the
individual children on their caseloads.

Building Speech & Quantifying Complexity is designed to assess and treat

speakers of American English, although the components can be adapted to
fit the phonetics and phonology of other languages.

6
 A Brief Review of Terminology
Used in Building Speech &
Quantifying Complexity

The goal of BSQC is to encourage speech-language pathologists to think

like a phonetician when planning assessment and treatment. To that end, it
is necessary that speech-language pathologists have a working knowledge
of the International Phonetic Alphabet, phonetics, and typical speech
acquisition. Below is a review of the concepts and terminology that underlie
the BSQC approach. A summary of this information can also be found in
Appendix A.

Consonant Place Class

Labials: Consonants produced
using one or both of the lips
p, b, m, w, f, v

Coronals: Consonants produced with the

tongue tip on or near the alveolar ridge
t, d, n, j, θ, ð, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ͡ tʃ, d͡ʒ, l, ɹ

Dorsals: Consonants produced with

the tongue body at the velum
k, g, ŋ

Glottals: Consonants produced at the level of the

vocal folds, without supralaryngeal articulation
ʔ, h

Consonant Manner Vowel Manner Class

Class Monophthongs
Stops: p, b, t, d, k, g, ʔ i, ɪ, e, ɛ, æ, ʌ/ə, u, ʊ, o, ɔ, ɑ
Nasals: m, n, ŋ
Diphthongs
Glides: w, j Phonemic: aɪ͡, aʊ͡, ɔɪ͡
Fricatives: f, v, θ, ð, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, h Non-phonemic: eɪ͡, oʊ͡
Affricates: ͡ tʃ, d͡ʒ Rhotics
Liquids: l, ɹ ɚ, ɪɚ͡, ɛɚ͡, uɚ͡, ɔɚ͡, ɑɚ͡, aɪɚ͡, aʊɚ͡
7
 Consonant and Vowel Places of Articulation
Homorganic: Speech sounds produced
in the same place of articulation.

Homorganic Consonants
labial - labial: p-m, b-w, etc.

coronal - coronal: t-n, ʃ-l, etc.

dorsal - dorsal: k-ɡ, ɡ-ŋ, etc.

Homorganic Clusters
labial + labial: pw, bw, etc.

coronal + coronal: st, sn, etc.

dorsal + dorsal: ŋk, ŋɡ

Homorganic C + V
coronal consonants + front vowels
t, d, n, j, s, z, ʃ, ͡ tʃ, d͡ʒ, l + i, ɪ, e, ɛ, æ

dorsal consonants + back vowels

k, ɡ, ŋ + u, ʊ, o, ɔ, ɑ

Heterorganic: Speech sounds produced

in different articulatory places

Phonotactic Structure
Open Word Shapes: Words ending with a vowel,
such as V, CV, CVCV, CCV, CVCVCV, etc.

Closed Word Shapes: Words ending with a consonant,

such as VC, CVC, CVCVC, CCVC, CVCC, etc.

Reduplications
C1V1C1V1, C1V1C1V1C1V1, etc.

Variegations
C1V1C2V1, C1V1C1V2, C1V1C2V2, etc.

8
 Building Speech™:
Eight Steps for Increasing Articulatory
Complexity

Building Speech is an approach for selecting goals and constructing targets

in speech intervention based on articulatory movements and movement
sequences that progress from basic to more complex. Building Speech is
based on the premise that children with challenging speech disorders benefit
from intervention that begins by teaching the child how to articulate words
and phrases constructed of speech movement patterns that follow the early
acquisition exhibited by typically-developing children. Those basic speech
movement patterns serve as “frames” for the child’s later productions of more
complex articulations.

Building Speech consists of eight speech frames that progress from basic to
more complex, as well as suggestions for the early “content” (i.e., the speech
sounds) to insert into each frame. Consider the speech sounds recommended
for each speech frame as a potential starting point. Once those frames and
the suggested sounds are acquired, later-developing sounds can be inserted
into the frames to increase articulatory difficulty, thereby increasing their
functionality.

The eight speech movement patterns in Building Speech broadly follow

patterns typical in babbling and early speech development. These general
early patterns include child mastery of:
• Stops, nasals, and glides prior to fricatives, affricates, and liquids
• Monophthongs prior to diphthongs and diphthongs prior to rhotics
• Open word shapes prior to closed word shapes
• Reduplicated syllables prior to variegated syllables
• Homorganic consonant + vowel sequences and homorganic consonant +
consonant sequences prior to heterorganic construction
• Voiced consonants in word-initial position prior to voiced consonants in
word-final position
• Voiceless consonants in word-final position prior to voiceless consonants
in word-initial position

9
 The Eight Building Speech Patterns
A list of words and phrases for each of the eight frames can be found in
Appendices B-I.

Pattern 1: CV
Consonants are voiced stops and nasals. Vowels are monophthongs
and diphthongs.

Stimuli in Pattern 1 are selected by constructing words that have a

consonant + vowel shape. The consonants to be targeted include the
voiced stops /b, d, ɡ/ and the monophthong and diphthong vowels / i, ɪ,
e, ɛ, æ, ʌ/ə, u, ʊ, o, ɔ, ɑ, aɪ͡, aʊ͡, ɔɪ͡/. The consonant + vowel combinations
can be either homorganic or heterorganic.

Examples include bee, bye, day, go, moo, and no.

Pattern 2: C1V1 + C1V1

Disyllabic words containing reduplicated syllables or words from Pattern 1
repeated.

Stimuli in Pattern 2 are selected from words with reduplicated syllables

containing voiced stops and nasals or by having the child sequentially repeat
the words in Pattern 1 two times each.

Examples include bee-bee, bye-bye, dada, day-day, go-go, mama,

moo-moo, and no-no.

Pattern 3: ChomVChomV
Consonants are homorganic and the word shape is open.

Stimuli in Pattern 3 are selected by constructing disyllabic words and

phrases that have a shape of CVCV and contain homorganic consonants; any
consonant can be paired with any vowel. Consonants can be grouped into
four broad places of articulation: labial, coronal, dorsal, and glottal. Labial
consonants include bilabials and labiodentals (/p, b, m, w, f, v/). Coronal
consonants include interdentals, alveolars, post-alveolars, alveopalatals, and
palatals (/θ, ð, t, d, n, s, z, l, ʃ, ʒ, ͡ tʃ, d͡ʒ, j, ɹ/. Dorsal consonants include velars
(/k, ɡ, ŋ/). Glottal consonants include stop /ʔ/ and fricative /h/.

Examples include maybe, my boy, go cow, ha-ha, and uh-oh.

10
Pattern 4: ChomVChomVChom
Consonants are homorganic and the word shape is closed.

Like Pattern 3, stimuli in Pattern 4 are selected by constructing disyllabic

words and phrases with homorganic consonants; however, in Pattern 4,
stimuli have a closed word shape CVCVC.

Examples include my pup, new doll, and kicking.

Pattern 5: ChetVChetV
Consonants are heterorganic and the word shape is open.

Stimuli in Pattern 5 are selected by constructing disyllabic words and

phrases that have a shape of CVCV and contain heterorganic consonants.
Any consonant can be paired with any vowel, preferably begin using
consonants and vowels already in the child’s phonetic inventory. As with
Patterns 3 and 4, continue to think broadly about consonant place of
articulation, categorizing sounds by only four places of articulation: labial,
coronal, dorsal, and glottal.

The possible heterorganic consonant combinations include labial-coronal,

labial-dorsal, labial-glottal, coronal-labial, coronal-dorsal, coronal-glottal,
dorsal-labial, dorsal-coronal, dorsal-glottal, glottal-labial, glottal-coronal, and
glottal-dorsal. Note that the production of word-medial /ʔ/ is dialectal and
usage ranges from rare to frequent.

Examples include gimme, my toe, and hey boy.

Pattern 6: CvdVCnas
Initial consonants are voiced stops, nasals, glides, or fricatives. Final
consonants are nasals.

Stimuli in Pattern 6 are selected by constructing monosyllabic words that

begin with a voiced stop, nasal, glide, or fricative (/b, d, ɡ, m, n, w, j, v, ð, z,
ʒ/) and end with a nasal (/m, n, ŋ/).

Examples include boom, done, game, gum, gone, and mom.

11
 Pattern 7: CvdVCvl
Initial consonants are voiced stops, nasals, glides, or fricatives. Final
consonants are voiceless stops or fricatives.

Stimuli in Pattern 7 are selected by constructing monosyllabic words that

begin with a voiced stop, nasal, glide, or fricative (/b, d, ɡ, m, n, w, j, v, ð, z,
ʒ/) and end with a voiceless stop or fricative (/p, t, k, f, θ, s, ʃ/).

Examples include bat, mop, moose, nap, and wish.

Pattern 8: CV + CV(C)
The first syllable varies. The second syllable remains the same.

Stimuli in Pattern 8 are selected by constructing CVCV(C) disyllabic words

in which the second syllable remains the same phonetically; therefore, all the
words in one set will have the same final syllable.

Examples include “knee words,” such as, bunny and shiny; “bull words,” such
as, table and gobble; and “D (dee) words,” such as, teddy and daddy.

12
Getting Started
To begin using the Building Speech approach, speech-language pathologists
need to have an understanding and a working knowledge of the terms and
concepts that are foundational to the BSQC approach. A review of this
information can be found in Appendix A.

Speech-language pathologists begin intervention only after analyzing a

representative speech sample from a child suspected of having a speech
sound disorder. After gathering a conversation speech sample, speech-
language pathologists want to phonetically transcribe each word in the
sample and analyze the speech movement patterns in the child’s productions
to not only determine the sounds and sound sequences that are misarticulated,
but to also determine the sounds and sound sequences that the child
produces correctly. The latter information is critical, as it provides speech-
language pathologists with the articulatory starting place for intervention.

Building Speech is an approach for selecting the words to target in

intervention; it does not prescribe how to teach the production of the
words. Speech-language pathologists can use a variety of methods to
elicit correction productions; however, as a phonetic-based approach itself,
Building Speech is most compatible with motor-based approaches such as
Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing (DTTC; Strand, 2020); PROMPT
(Dale & Hayden, 2013); visual biofeedback, such as ultrasound (e.g.,
Preston, Maas, Whittle, Leece, & McCabe, 2016); and other articulation-
based therapies. Those methods are used to elicit correct articulations,
while Building Speech is used to determine the words to target in
intervention.

The focus should be on targeting the speech frame itself as the goal.
Building Speech provides eight frames, specific speech sounds for each
frame, and subsequent word and phrase stimuli for each frame. The eight
frames serve as speech intervention goals, replacing or supplementing
more traditional goals targeting specific speech sounds.

In other words, the actual speech goal can be mastery of a particular

speech movement pattern, as opposed to a specific sound. For example,
one goal could be for the child to correctly produce functional CV words
containing word-initial voiced stops and nasals combined with monophthong
vowels, and another goal could be for the child to correctly produce
functional CVCV words containing homorganic consonants.

13
 Begin to incorporate Building Speech stimuli into your intervention by
targeting the earliest speech sequences that are difficult for the child to
produce. For example, if the child already correctly articulates a variety of
words using Patterns 1, 2, and 3, then begin intervention by targeting words
in Pattern 4. Or, if the child does not show mastery of any of the patterns,
then begin by targeting Pattern 1 words.

Refer to the eight patterns in Building Speech to help you think about
movement patterns in a hierarchical manner, but be aware that not all
children, especially those with childhood apraxia of speech, follow the
typical acquisition sequence. Be prepared to rearrange the sequence of
speech frames to fit each child’s phonetic and phonological repertoires.

The approach of Building Speech is to incrementally build motor speech

capability from the bottom up, while engaging the child in functional
communication tasks using real words.

14
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why is Building Speech referred to as an intervention approach,
as opposed to an intervention program?
Building Speech is not intended to be used as a single-step-by-single-step
program. Instead, it is a method for developing speech targets of increasing
articulatory complexity. It is designed to be flexible and adapted as necessary
for individual children. Speech-language pathologists are encouraged to use
their own knowledge of phonetics and phonology to modify the patterns and/
or stimuli as needed.

2. Who can benefit from the Building Speech approach?

Building Speech was originally developed for children with CAS; however,
children with other types of articulation disorders and very limited expressive
vocabulary may benefit from an incremental increase in articulatory
complexity. Speech is, in part, a motor skill, and Building Speech was
developed using motor learning principles; therefore, it is also appropriate
to use with other children with challenging speech sound disorders.

3. How do I analyze a child’s speech to maximize success

using the Building Speech intervention approach?
In addition to determining the sound errors exhibited by a child, you will
also need to derive a phonetic inventory. A phonetic inventory is a list of
all the consonants, vowels, and word shapes the child produced—even if
a production was not the target. For example, if a child said /dət/ for /tɹək/,
then the child’s phonetic inventory would contain word-initial /d/, word-final
/t/, vowel /ə/, and word shape CVC. These consonants, vowels, and word
shapes are the raw speech skills the child already possesses, and you will
use those structures to gradually build more complex phonological
structures. This idea is fundamental to the Building Speech approach—
begin intervention from a base of articulatory skill, and then incrementally
increase the difficulty. A speech-language pathologist knows a child’s base
of articulatory skill by deriving a phonetic inventory.

4. How do I use a child’s phonetic inventory in the

Building Speech approach?
After you have selected the Building Speech patterns you want to target in
intervention, use as many of the consonants and vowels that are already in
the child’s phonetic inventory that you can to build target words that fit the
patterns you selected—even if the sounds the child produces are different
than the sounds suggested for the pattern.
15
 In this way, you are targeting new speech frames using sounds the child
already produces correctly (at least some of the time) (e.g., see Leonard,
Schwartz, Morris, & Chapman, 1981; Schwartz & Leonard, 1982). Therefore,
you are targeting the frame only, as opposed to the frame and the speech
sound content.

Targeting both simultaneously can be exceptionally difficult for a child with a

challenging speech sound disorder, so you want to minimize the articulatory
difficulty as much as possible. In the same way, when you select a new
sound to target, use a pattern that is already in the child’s phonetic inventory,
so that you are not targeting both a new speech frame and the new speech
sound.

5. Do I always start with Pattern 1?

No, not necessarily. Children with a limited expressive vocabulary will most
likely benefit most significantly from Patterns 1-4, because those patterns are
based on the earliest vocal and verbal acquisition data. It is suggested that
the early patterns be targeted first in children with the most severe speech
sound disorders, or in children who have very few expressive words. In such
cases, even these early patterns may need modifications. For example,
even though Patterns 1-4 do not specify constructing homorganic consonant
+ vowel sequences, keeping consonant and vowel place of articulation the
same may increase a child’s ability to imitate targets.

6. Do I have to follow the eight patterns in sequence?

While the Building Speech patterns are proposed to be in a general order
of increasing difficulty, the order of the patterns is not fixed, so experiment to
find the pattern(s) that can be used to address a child’s particular needs
most successfully and efficiently.

7. What if a child gets “stuck” on one pattern?

When a child exhibits difficulty on a particular pattern, be certain to
evaluate the consonant and vowel sequences in your target words, and
then experiment with changing the sounds in the words as necessary to
obtain at least entry-level success. In addition, be willing to create new
frames that serve as a bridge to the next movement sequence. For example,
some master clinicians have reported that they have had children with CAS
who experienced significant difficulty moving from Pattern 2 (C1V1 + C1V1)
to Pattern 3 (ChomVChomV), so they developed an intermediate
VC frame.
16
Many functional words fit the VC frame, including eat, ate, eight, in, on,
off, up, etc., and these speech-language pathologists have reported success
moving to Pattern 3 words only after teaching their children how to master
this intermediate “Pattern 2.5” speech frame. It is this type of thinking and
problem solving that is encouraged when using the Building Speech
approach!

8. Why is there so much flexibility in using the

Building Speech approach?
There are so many factors to keep in mind when selecting words to target
in intervention that it would be mistaken to think that any approach or
program could cover all of them. For example, not all within-class sounds
are mastered at the same time; the velar stops /k, ɡ/ are typically mastered
after the bilabial and alveolar stops are mastered. Developing a treatment
approach that addresses every nuance would result in a very cumbersome
approach. Speech-language pathologists need to use their knowledge and
judgment when selecting the consonants and vowels to develop target words
and phrases. In addition, children with challenging speech sound disorders
are a heterogeneous group that requires flexibility and individualized
decision-making.

Remember also that speech acquisition in children with challenging speech

sound disorders might not always mirror typical acquisition patterns, so
speech-language pathologists need to be willing to re-sequence the patterns
as necessary. For example, a child may exhibit the later-mastered sound /l/
in words, but not have mastered /p/. In such cases, target words with /l/
before targeting words with /p/. Always base intervention decisions on a
child’s individual phonetic and error repertoires.

9. There are a lot of words suggested for each pattern,

how do I decide which ones to target?
Focus intervention using words and phrases that are meaningful to the
child in front of you. Keep in mind that the goal is to increase the child’s
communicative power. To increase communicative power, speech-language
pathologists will need to select and develop words and phrases that are
functional for each child.

17
 10. How can I determine which words are functional
for a particular child?
To determine functional words to target, speech-language pathologists will
need to select child-specific vocabulary. A valuable resource for obtaining
a comprehensive list of functional, child-specific vocabulary for English and
Spanish learners is the Functional Communication Parent Questionnaire
(FCPQ; https://sites.google.com/pdx.edu/mabslab/resources). The FCPQ is
a survey of words important to a particular child that is completed typically by
a child’s caregiver. Teachers also are an excellent source for vocabulary that
is important in the classroom and school settings.

There will be many times, however, when a speech frame itself is important
to articulatory complexity, but the target words for that frame are limited in
number or are not particularly functional for a particular child. In these cases,
be creative and imbue those target words with meaning. Construct activities
and games that create meaningful contexts in which to target those words in
authentic communicative interactions. Similarly, if there are words or phrases
in the stimuli sets that do not hold meaning for a particular child, then omit
those examples.

11. Can I make up my own words to fit the patterns?

Speech-language pathologists are encouraged to do so! The stimuli included
in Building Speech are examples, and far from an exhaustive list of target
possibilities. For example, many proper names fit the Building Speech
patterns; however, only a few names are included as examples. Select and
create speech targets that can be taught in intervention.

Overall, do not be limited by the words and phrases provided in the Building
Speech stimuli sets. Whenever possible, build additional words and phrases
that have meaning for a child using any of the patterns, and then create your
own stimuli and activities to provide authentic practice opportunities.

12. What about developing nonsense words

to practice in intervention?
Speech-language pathologists may consider developing nonsense strings
of consonants and vowels to fit a particular pattern when there is a limited
number of words and phrases that fit a pattern or when it’s deemed important
to work on particular consonants and vowels within a particular pattern. In
these cases, be cognizant that teaching these movement sequences are not
communicatively functional, so use this strategy thoughtfully.

18
13. I have a child on my caseload whose CAS is severe; can I target
sound approximations in Building Speech?
Children with motor speech disorders such as CAS may imprecisely produce
a target consonant or vowel sound. Speech-language pathologists will need
to consider whether approximations or compensations for those sounds for
either a temporary or permanent period will be acceptable or not. While a
fully accurate production is desirable, it may not always be a practical goal
for a child with a severe speech sound disorder. If, however, you believe that
the child will eventually be able to produce the sound, then target the actual
sound and not an approximation.

14. Given that English has different types of diphthong vowels and
given that some children with CAS have difficulty acquiring diphthong
vowels, how should we target diphthongs?
Two monophthong vowels can be classified as non-phonemic diphthongs
in American English: /eɪ͡/ and /oʊ͡ ͜ /. Speech-language pathologists can teach
these productions as either monophthongs or diphthongs, because changing
the production will not change the meaning of the word. However, teaching
these vowels as monophthongs may lead to faster success, given that
diphthong vowels require rapid movement of the tongue from one place
to another.

15. Why do some of the target words in Pattern 5 end in a consonant

when the speech frame is an open syllable?
Some of the stimuli provided in Building Speech are words containing a
post-vocalic /l/ (written in parentheses), even though the particular pattern
does not target a consonant in word-final position. Because these stimuli
can be produced with a dark /l/ sound, the child does not need to produce
an idealized /l/ (i.e., with the tongue tip at the alveolar ridge) for the word
to be intelligible; therefore, they are included as possible word targets.
Other examples are included to expand the number of words you can
target, although the final consonant will be modeled, but not produced by
the child.

19
 Quantifying Complexity™:
Eight Steps for Calculating Articulatory
Complexity in Children

The Index of Phonetic Complexity (IPC) is a metric developed to assess the

production difficulty of different speech sounds, syllables, and words. The
IPC is designed to quantify the articulatory complexity of the words children
target and produce. The IPC is a modification of the Index of Cluster Complexity
(Jakielski, 1998) that was derived from the early work of MacNeilage and
Davis (1990) and their subsequent research (e.g., Davis & MacNeilage,
1995), as well as others’ research on early speech acquisition (e.g.,
Schwartz, Leonard, Loeb, & Swanson, 1987; Stoel-Gammon & Cooper,
1984; Stoel-Gammon, 1987; Vihman, Ferguson, & Elbert, 1986).

The IPC Scoring System

The IPC contains eight indices that are based on the concept of ease of
articulation, as displayed in the following table. The eight indices include: 1)
consonant place class, 2) consonant manner class, 3) vowel manner class,
4) word shape, 5) word length in number of syllables, 6) place variegation of
singleton consonants, 7) contiguous consonants, and 8) place variegation
of contiguous consonants.

An IPC value can be calculated for any target or produced word. To derive
an IPC value, a word is assigned complexity points (0 or 1) indicating its
articulatory difficulty across the eight indices. The complexity points for
each word then are summed to derive the word’s IPC value. The higher the
IPC value, the higher the word’s articulatory complexity is purported to be.
A child’s mean IPC value can be derived by dividing the sum of all the IPC
values by the total number of words analyzed.

20
Index of Phonetic Complexity: Scoring System
Indices Points Assigned for: No Points for a: One Point for Each:

consonants labial
1 by coronal dorsal
place class glottal

consonants stop fricative

2 by
manner class
nasal
glide
affricate
liquid

3
vowels monophthong
rhotic
by class diphthong

word word that ends word that ends

4 shape with a vowel with a consonant

5
word length monosyllabic or three- (or more)
in syllables disyllabic word syllable word

singleton word with place time consecutive

6 consonants by reduplicated singleton consonants
place variegation singletons vary by place

7
contiguous word without consonant
consonants a cluster cluster

homorganic
8
heterorganic
cluster by type
cluster cluster

21
 Characteristics in the IPC that receive a complexity point of zero (0)
generally are earlier-mastered sounds, sound combinations, and word
shapes. Characteristics that receive no complexity points include labials,
coronals, and glottals; stops, nasals, and glides; monophthongs and
diphthongs; open word shapes; mono- and di-syllabic words; homorganic
singleton consonants; words with no consonant clusters; and
homorganic consonant clusters.

Characteristics that each receive one complexity point generally

are later-mastered sounds, sound combinations, and word shapes.
Characteristics that receive 1 point each include dorsals; fricatives,
affricates, and liquids; rhotics; a closed word shape; a tri+-syllabic
word; heterorganic singleton consonants; consonant clusters; and
heterorganic consonant clusters.

IPC Terminology
It is important to define the terms used in the IPC because terminology
varies across geographical regions and practitioners. Again, a review of
terminology can be found in Appendix A. Approximately seven place
classifications typically are used to describe where in the vocal tract speech
sounds in English are produced (e.g., bilabial, labiodental, interdental, etc.);
however, these narrow classifications also can be collapsed into four larger
divisions of the vocal tract, including labial (i.e., sounds produced using one
or both lips), coronal (i.e., sounds produced near or on the alveolar ridge),
dorsal (i.e., sounds produced in the back of the mouth), and glottal
(i.e., sounds produced by the vocal folds only).

Likewise, there are different consonant manner classifications that can

used to describe how speech sounds are produced. In the IPC, six manner
classes are used to capture typical acquisition data, including stops, nasals,
glides, fricatives, affricates, and liquids. The IPC uses three primary vowel
categories, including monophthongs (i.e., vowels produced using a single
tongue gesture), diphthongs (i.e., vowels produced using two rapidly-
articulated tongue gestures in a single sound), and rhotics (i.e., vowels
preceding /ɹ/ in a single syllable, creating a vowel with r-coloring).

In the IPC, word shapes are described as open or closed, depending

on whether the word ends with a vowel or a consonant, respectively. For
example, the word “okay,” produced /o.ke/, has a vowel-consonant-vowel
(VCV) word shape that is called open because the word ends with a
vowel sound.
22
Alternately, the word “cat,” produced /kæt/, has a consonant-vowel-
consonant (CVC) word shape that is called closed because “cat” ends
in a consonant sound.

Word length in the IPC is measured by counting the number of syllables in

a word. The number of syllables can be determined by counting the number
of vowels and syllabic consonants in a word, with each vowel or syllabic
consonant designating one syllable. For example, the word “cat,” produced
/kæt/, has only one vowel, /æ/, so it is a one-syllable word. The word
“kittycat,” produced /kɪ.ɾi.kæt/, has three vowels, /ɪ/, /i/, and /æ/, so it is a
three-syllable word.

Place variegation can be computed only when a word contains two or

more successive singleton consonants. For example, place variegation can
be counted in the word “tulip” (/tu.lɪp/) because there are three successive
singleton consonants: /t/ (a coronal) → /l/ (a coronal) → /p/ (a labial). The
word “tulip” has the potential for up to two points as consonant articulations
move from /t/ to /l/ and then /l/ to /p/. In the first movement, from coronal /t/
to coronal /l/, no point is awarded because place of consonant articulation
does not vary. In the second movement, from coronal /l/ to labial /p/, 1 point
is awarded for heterorganicity because place of articulation varies. Therefore,
only 1 point is awarded to tulip for singleton consonant variegation.

Alternately, place variegation cannot be computed in the word “monkey”

(/məŋ.ki/), because it contains only one singleton consonant, /m/ (along
with one word-medial cluster, /ŋk/). Similarly, place variegation cannot be
computed in the word “chimp” because there is only one singleton
consonant, /t͡ ʃ/, along with one word-final cluster /mp/.

In the IPC, all contiguous consonants produced in a word are consonant

clusters; therefore, clusters can occur in word-initial, -medial, and -final
positions. For example, in the word “skip” there is a word-initial /sk/ cluster, in
the word “basket” there is a word-medial /sk/ cluster, and in the word “mask”
there is a word-final /sk/ cluster. Consonant clusters are homorganic if all the
segments in the cluster are produced in the same place of articulation, as
designated by labial, coronal, dorsal, and glottal. For example, the /st/ cluster
contains two coronal consonants, so /st/ is designated as a homorganic
cluster. Clusters are heterorganic if the place of articulation varies among
cluster segments. The /sk/ cluster in the word “skip,” for example, contains
the coronal consonant /s/ followed by the dorsal consonant /k/, which results
in a heterorganic cluster.

23
 Calculating Articulatory
Complexity Using the IPC
Once utterances are phonetically transcribed, you can start computing the
complexity of each word. You can compute values for target forms (T-IPC) or
actual productions (P-IPC). You may enter the data right into a spreadsheet.
Appendix J displays an example of a T-IPC Data Form and Appendix K
displays an example of a P-IPC Data Form.

When computing complexity points, you may find it easiest to focus on

computing one indicator at a time across all of the words in your sample,
as opposed to calculating all eight indices in one word before moving to
the next word.

We will use the word “ladybugs” /le.di.bəɡz/ for our example of how to count.

1. Place: Each dorsal (abbreviated as D on the Data Forms) gets 1 point.

There is one dorsal in our example, /ɡ/, so “place” gets 1 point.

2. Manner: Each fricative, affricate, and liquid (FAL) gets 1 point.

There is one fricative, /z/, and one liquid, /l/, so we score 2 points for
consonant manner.

3. Vowels: Each rhotic vowel (R) gets one point. There are no rhotic
vowels in our example, so 0 points.

4. Word Shape: If the word ends with a consonant (FC), then it gets
1 point, so our example gets 1 point for being a closed word shape.

5. Word Length in Syllables: Words with three or more syllables

(3+) get 1 point. Our example has three syllables, so it gets 1 point for
this indicator.

6. Singleton Place Variegation: If a word has singleton consonants

that are place variegated (SPV), then the word gets 1 point each time place
is varied from singleton consonant to singleton consonant. (Note, do not
count variegation if one of the consonants is included in a cluster; cluster
place variegation is accounted for later.) In the word “ladybugs” (/le.di.bəɡz/),
we have three singleton consonants. We move from coronal /l/ to coronal
/d/ (0 points) to labial /b/ (1 point). The place variegation of coronal to labial
scores 1 point for the word.

24
7. Contiguous Consonants: Each cluster (CC) gets 1 point, no
matter how many consonants comprise the cluster (e.g., /st/ would get 1
point; likewise, /str/ also would get 1 point). Clusters are any consonants
produced consecutively, even if they cross syllable boundaries. (So in the
IPC, “pizza” /pit.sə/, for example, would get 1 cluster point, even though
/t/ and /s/ are in different syllables.) Our example “ladybugs” contains the
word-final cluster /ɡz/, so we score 1 point.

8. Cluster Type: If the consonants comprising a cluster vary in place

(CCV), then it is heterorganic. The /ɡz/ cluster in our example moves from
the dorsal /ɡ / to the coronal /z/; therefore, we score 1 point for “cluster
type.”

9. A Word’s Total IPC Value: Now add the number of points that
you scored for each of the IPC indices. Computing our example, we find
that /le.di.bəɡz/ has an IPC value of 8 points.

10. Additional Analyses: Once you’ve computed IPC values for all the
words in your speech sample, you then can calculate mean and standard
deviation, as well as complete a factor analysis to determine specific
information regarding the eight complexity indices. You can graph the IPC
values over time to visually see changes in a child’s articulatory skills, as
well as compare how T-IPC and P-IPC values compare over time.

25
 Practice Computing IPC Values
Word: /mɑ.mi/
The target word “mommy” contains no later-mastered: place class
consonants (i.e., velars), manner class consonants (i.e., fricatives, affricates,
liquids), rhotic vowels, final consonant, three or more syllables, heterorganic
singleton consonants, or clusters. Therefore, the word “mommy” has an
IPC value of 0.

Word: /dɔɡ/
The target word “dog” contains one velar consonant and one final
consonant, and requires one singleton consonant place variegation;
therefore, this word receives an IPC value of 3.

Word: /dɔ.ɡi/
The target word “doggy” contains one velar and requires one singleton
consonant place variegation; therefore, this word receives an IPC value
of 2, while the indicators contributing to the IPC value are different than
for the word “dog.”

Word: /bɑ.ɾʊl/
The target word “bottle” (/bɑ.ɾʊl/) contains no velars, so it receives 0
for consonant place class. It does not contain any fricatives or liquids;
however, it does contain one liquid (i.e., /l/), so it receives 1 point for
consonant manner class. There are no rhotics, so no point for vowel
manner class. There is a final consonant, so it receives 1 point for a
closed word shape. No point is awarded for word length because it doesn’t
have three or more syllables. There are three singleton consonants, /b/,
which is a labial; tap /ɾ/, which is a coronal; and /l/, which also is a coronal.

Therefore, the articulators vary in place when moving from /b/ to /ɾ/,
earning 1 point, but moving from /ɾ/ to /l/ is not place varied, so a total of
1 point for singleton variegation. There are no clusters in this word, so no
points for the last two indices. Adding all the complexity points (1 for
manner class, 1 for closed word shape, 1 for singleton place variegation),
we find that the target word “bottle” has an IPC value of 3.

26
Word: /spə.ɡɛ.ɾi/
The target word “spaghetti” (/spə.ɡɛ.ɾi/) contains one velar, so it receives
1 for consonant place class. It contains one fricative /s/, but no affricates
or liquids, so it receives 1 point for consonant manner class. There are no
rhotics, so no points for vowel manner class. It ends in a vowel sound, so
it receives no points because it has an open word shape. It has three
vowels, /ə/, /ɛ/, and /i/, so it is three syllables long; therefore, 1 point is
awarded for word length. There are two singleton consonants, /ɡ/, which is
a dorsal, and tap /ɾ/, which is a coronal; therefore, the articulators vary from
dorsal to coronal places, earning 1 point for singleton variegation.

There is one cluster in this word, /sp/, so 1 point for contiguous consonants.
The /sp/ cluster is heterorganic because the articulators move from a coronal
position for /s/ to a labial position for /p/. Adding all the complexity points (1
for place class, 1 for manner class, 1 for word length, 1 for singleton place
variegation, 1 for cluster, and 1 for heterorganic cluster), we find that the
target word “spaghetti” has an IPC value of 6.

Additional Practice
Try to score the following words without looking at the scores provided,
and then compare your point allocations and totals to those listed.

Target Phonetic Number of Complexity Points: IPC

Word Transcription Indicator # (Associated # of Points) Value

daddy dæ.di 0

bib bɪb 4 (1) 1

pizza pit.sə 2 (1), 7 (1) 2

coat kot 1 (1), 4 (1), 6 (1) 3

tomato tə.me.ɾo 5 (1), 6 (2) 3

pjs pi.d͡ ʒez 2 (2), 4 (1), 5 (1) 4

dandelion dæn.də.laɪ͡.ən 2 (1), 4 (1), 5 (1), 7 (1) 4

umbrella əm.brɛ.lə 2 (2), 5 (1), 7 (1), 8 (1) 5

alligator æ.lɪ.ɡe.ɾɚ 1 (1), 2 (1), 3 (1), 5 (1), 6 (2) 6

pajamas pə.d͡ʒɑ.məz 2 (2), 4 (1), 5 (1), 6 (3) 7

27
 Appendix A
Terminology

Consonants: Place Classifications

labials: p b m w f v
coronals: θ ð t d ɾ n s z j ʃ ʒ ͡ tʃ d͡ʒ l ɹ
dorsals: k g ŋ
glottals: ʔ h

Consonants: Manner Classifications

stops: p b t d ɾ k g ʔ
nasals: m n ŋ
glides: w j
fricatives: f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ h
affricates: ͡ tʃ d͡ʒ
liquids: l ɹ

Vowels: Manner Classifications

monophthongs: i ɪ e ɛ æ ə u ʊ o ɔ ɑ
(phonemic) diphthongs: aɪ͡ aʊ͡ ɔɪ͡
rhotics: ɚ ɪɚ͡ ɛɚ͡ uɚ͡ ɔɚ͡ ɑɚ͡ aɪɚ͡ aʊɚ͡

Phonotactic Structure
• A word ending with a consonant = closed
• A word ending with a vowel = open

Syllable Structure
• Every vowel denotes a separate syllable
• A vowel = a syllable (consonants are optional)

Singleton Consonant Variegation

If place varies when moving from one single consonant to the next
singleton, then considered “variegated;” each variegation = 1 point

Contiguous Consonants Variegation

• Contiguous consonants = “a consonant cluster”
• A cluster is “heterorganic” when place differs among its segments
28
 Appendix B
Stimuli for Pattern 1: CV
Voiced Stops & Nasals

Consonants are voiced stops and nasals. Vowels are monophthongs and
diphthongs.

Stimuli in Pattern 1 are selected by constructing words that have a consonant

+ vowel shape. The consonants to be targeted include the voiced stops /b,
d, ɡ/ and the monophthong and diphthong vowels /i, ɪ, e, ɛ, æ, ə, u, ʊ, o, ɔ, ɑ,
aɪ͡, aʊ͡, ɔɪ͡/. The consonant + vowel combinations can be either homorganic or
heterorganic.

stops
bee bough do/dew
bay boy dough
boo D dye
bow day goo
bye duh go
bow guy

nasals
me mow neigh
may my new
ma knee no
moo now

29
 Appendix C
Stimuli for Pattern 2: C1V1 + C1V1
Reduplicated Words

Disyllabic words containing reduplicated syllables or words from Pattern 1

repeated.

Stimuli in Pattern 2 are selected from words with reduplicated syllables

containing voiced stops and nasals or by having the child sequentially repeat
the words in Pattern 1 two times each.

stops
bee-bee bough-bough do-do
bay-bay boy-boy dough-dough
boo-boo D-D dye-dye
bow-bow dada goo-goo
bye-bye day-day go-go
bow-bow duh-duh guy-guy

nasals
me-me mow-mow neigh-neigh
may-may my-my new-new
mama knee-knee no-no
moo-moo now-now

30
 Appendix D
Stimuli for Pattern 3: ChomVChomV
Homorganic Consonants in an Open
Word Shape (Including CV words repeated twice)

Consonants are homorganic and the word shape is open.

Stimuli in Pattern 3 are selected by constructing disyllabic words and

phrases that have a shape of CVCV and contain homorganic consonants;
any consonant can be paired with any vowel. Consonants can be grouped
into four broad places of articulation: labial, coronal, dorsal, and glottal.
Labial consonants include bilabials (/p, b, m, w/). Coronal consonants include
interdentals, alveolars, palatals, and alveopalatals (/θ, ð, t, d, n, s, z, l, ɹ, j,
ʃ, ʒ, ͡ tʃ, d͡ʒ/). Dorsal consonants include velars (/k, ɡ, ŋ/). Glottal consonants
include stop /ʔ/ and fricative /h/.

labials
words
p peepee, papa, pawpaw, people, PB, peewee, puma, pow-wow
b BB, BP, baby, beeper, Bobby, bobber, bye-bye
m mama, maybe, Moby
w whee-whee, weepy

phrases
bye + __________ pea, pay, pa, paw, pie, purr
boy + __________ bye, boo, bow, bow, bough, boy, ball, burr
my + __________ me, may, ma, moo, mow, my
whoa + __________ we, wee, whee, way, whoa, wall
whee + __________

31
 coronals
words
t T-T, Toto, tutu, today, teddy, teeny, tiny, Tony
d dada, dodo, ditty, daddy, Danny, Donny
n no-no, needy, nutty, naughty, nightie

phrases
do + __________ tea, T, tee, two, toe, tall
new + __________ day, do, dough, doll, dye
now + __________ knee, neigh, new, no, now
no + __________

dorsals
words
k cookie, cougar
g goo-goo, gaga, gecko

phrases
go + __________ key, K, cow, car
goo, go, guy

glottals
words
h hee-hee, ha-ha, hee-haw, ho-ho, hey-hey, hi-hi
ʔ uh-uh (no), uh-oh, uh-huh

32
 Appendix E
Stimuli for Pattern 4: ChomVChomVChom
Homorganic Consonants in a
Closed Word Shape

Consonants are homorganic and the word shape is closed.

Like Pattern 3, stimuli in Pattern 4 are selected by constructing disyllabic

words and phrases with homorganic consonants; however, in Pattern 4,
stimuli have a closed word shape CVCVC.

labials
words
p peep-peep, pop-pop
b beep-beep, bebop
w whoop-whoop

phrases
bye + __________ peep, pop, poop, pup, pipe, Pam, palm
boy + __________ babe, Bob, beep, bop, beam, bam, bomb, boom, burp
me + __________ ma’am, mum, mom, mime, map, mop, mope, mob
my + __________ weep, whip, wipe, whim, wham, worm
we + __________
whoa + __________
+ up pep, pop, pup, puma, palm, paper

coronals
words
t tattle, Tarzan, tennis, toilet, tonight, tunnel, turtle
d donate, (Mc)Donald, doughnut, downtown
n Nanette, needle, knotted, nineteen, noodle

33
 phrases
do + __________ toot, tote, taught, tight, Ted, Todd, toad, tide, tin
new + __________ ten, tan, ton, tune, tone, town, turn
now + __________ deed, did, dead, dad, dude, Dan, den, dawn, dirt
no + __________ date, dot, done
tow + __________ Nan, none, noon, known, nine, noun, neat, knit, Nate, net
+ too gnat, nut, knot, newt, note, naught, night, need, Ned, nod
+ did gnawed, Nerd(s)

dorsals
words
k cooking, kicking, King Kong
g ganging (up)

phrases
go + __________ kick, cake, cook, coke, cork, Kirk, king
gag, geek, gang, gong
+ ick! cake, cookie, coke

34
 Appendix F
Stimuli for Pattern 5: ChetVChetV
Heterorganic Consonants in
an Open Word Shape

Consonants are heterorganic and the word shape is open.

Stimuli in Pattern 5 are selected by constructing disyllabic words and

phrases that have a shape of CVCV and contain heterorganic consonants.
Any consonant can be paired with any vowel. As with Patterns 3 and 4,
continue to think broadly about consonant place of articulation, categorizing
sounds by only four places of articulation: labial, coronal, dorsal, and glottal.
The heterorganic consonant combinations include labial-coronal, labial-dorsal,
labial-glottal, coronal-labial, coronal-dorsal, coronal-glottal, dorsal-labial,
dorsal-coronal, dorsal-glottal, glottal-labial, glottal-coronal, and glottal-dorsal.
Note that the production of word-medial /ʔ/ is dialectal and usage ranges
from rare to frequent.

labial-coronal
words: potty, body, bunny, mighty, Minnie, muddy, money, messy,
whiny, funny, fussy, fishy

phrases
me too!
bye _____: toe, tie, tea, knee, shoe
my _____: toe, tie, tea, knee, shoe
whoa _____: toe, tie, tea, knee, shoe
wow _____: toe, tie, tea, knee, shoe

labial-dorsal
words: picky, pokey, Mickey

phrases
me go, moo cow
bye _____: key, cow, goo, guy
my _____: key, cow, goo, guy
whoa _____: key, cow, goo, guy
wow _____: key, cow, goo, guy
35
 coronal-labial
words: teepee, table, tummy, tv, diaper, dipper, Debbie, dauber,
dummy, nippy

phrases
near me, no way, now me, dare me, do we?
no _____: bee, pea, bow, ma, moo

coronal-dorsal
words: tangy, tiki, turkey, knuck(le), nicke(l), doggie, yucky, ziggy-zaggy

phrases
you _____: go, ‘kay?
no _____: go, key, cow
two _____: car(s), cow(s), key(s)

dorsal-labial
words: kiwi, cab(le), came(l), café, coffee, copy, cowboy, cubby, gimme,
gobble, goopy, gummy (bear), guppy, keeper

phrases
ca(ll) me
go _____: pea, pa, bee, ba(ll), ma
go _____: pee, pay, purr, boo, bye, moo, mow, whee, whoa

dorsal-coronal
words: catt(le), Coty, caddie, canoe, Casey, cast(le), collie, cozy, giddy,
goalie

phrases
go _____: tie, toe, tea, knee, shoe

glottal-labial
words: happy, hobby, hummer

phrases
hey _____: pa, bee, boy, doe, ma
hi _____: pa, bee, boy, ma
36
glottal-coronal
words: Heidi, honey, horsey, eenie, Uno

phrases
how do?
how to…?
how say…?
he _____: see(s), say(s), sigh(s), sew(s)
hi _____: T, tea, 2, D, day, doe, knee, Sue, sow

glottal-dorsal
words: hockey, hokey, huggy, hoagie

phrases
he go(es)
how go?
hey _____: key, K, koi, goo, guy
hi _____: key, K, koi, goo, guy

37
 Appendix G
Stimuli for Pattern 6: CvdVCnas
Initial Voiced & Final
Nasal Consonants

Initial consonants are voiced stops, nasals, glides, or fricatives. Final

consonants are nasals.

Stimuli in Pattern 6 are selected by constructing monosyllabic words that begin

with a voiced stop, nasal, glide, or fricative (/b, d, ɡ, m, n, w, j, v, ð, z, ʒ/) and
end with a nasal (/m, n, ŋ/).

stops
b_m beam, bam, bum, bomb, boom
b_n bean, bin, Ben, ban, bun, bone, burn
b_ŋ bing, bang, boing

d_m dim, dam, dum-dum, dome, dime

d_n Dean, den, Dan, done, dune, dawn, dine, down
d_ŋ ding-dong, dang, dung

g_m game, gum

g_n gain, ‘gain (again), gun, goon, gone, gown
g_ŋ gang, gong

nasals
m_m ma’am, mum, mom, mime
m_n mean, mane, men, man, moon, moan, mine
m_ŋ mung

n_m name, numb, gnome

n_n none, noon, known, nine, noun
n_ŋ

38
glides
w_m whim, wham, worm
w_n wean, win, wane, when, won, one, whine
w_ŋ wing

j_m yam, yum

j_n yawn, yearn
j_ŋ young

fricatives
v_m voom
v_n vane, van, vine
v_ŋ
z_m zoom
z_n
z_ŋ zing

39
 Appendix H
Pattern 7: CvdVCvl
Initial Voiced & Final Voiceless
Consonants

Initial consonants are voiced stops, nasals, glides, or fricatives. Final

consonants are voiceless stops or fricatives.

Stimuli in Pattern 7 are selected by constructing monosyllabic words that

begin with a voiced stop, nasal, glide, or fricative (/b, d, ɡ, m, n, w, j, v, ð, z, ʒ/)
and end with a voiceless stop or fricative (/p, t, k, f, θ, s, ʃ/).

stops
b___p beep, bop, boop, burp
b___t beet, beat, but, bet, bat, boot, boat, bought, bite, ‘bout (about), Burt
b___k beak, bake, back, buck, book, bike
b___f beef, buff
b___s base, bass, bus, boss

d___p deep, dip, dope

d___t date, dot, dote, doubt, dirt
d___k Dick, deck, duck, dock, duke, dike
d___f deaf
d___s dis, dice

g___p gap, goop

g___t gate, get, got, goat
g___k geek, (gecko)
g___f goof, golf
g___s geese, guess, Gus, goose

nasals
m___p map, mop, mope
m___t meat, mitt, mate, met, mat, mutt, moat, might
m___k meek, Mick, make, Mack, muck, mike
m___f muff
m___s miss, mess, mass, moose, moss

40
n___p nip, nap, nope
n___t neat, knit, Nate, gnat, nut, not, newt, note, naught, night
n___k nick, neck, knick-knack, knock, Nuk
n___f ‘nuff (enough), knife, Nerf
n___s niece, noose, nice

glides
w___p weep, whip, whoop
w___t wheat, wait, wet, what, white
w___k weak, wick, wake, whack, wok, woke, walk
w___f whiff, wife
w___s Wes, worse

j___p yap, yup

j___t yet, yacht
j___k yack, yuck, yike
j___f
j___s yes, use

fricatives
v___p
v___t vet, vat, vote, vault
v___k
v___f
v___s vase, vice

z___p zip, zap

z___t
z___k Zach
z___f
z___s

41
 Appendix I
Pattern 8: CV + CV(C)
Fixed Syllable

green = least phonetically complex

orange = more phonetically complex
black = personal names

PEE / P BULL DEE / D KING ME

puppy pebble buddy peeking tummy
teepee bubble body picking mommy
nippy bumble teddy packing yummy
weepy table tidy poking gimme
happy tumble daddy baking gummy
guppy double kiddy biking foamy
soapy wobble muddy ticking Amy
cable Woody taking Timmy
PULL gobble hoodie kicking Tommy
people fable goodie cooking Jimmy
maple label lady quacking Jamie
steeple fumble shady making
ripple thimble ready knocking KNEE
waking penny
BEE / B TEA / T KEY seeking pony
pb potty pokey bunny
sacking
baby mighty cookie bony
shaking
ha-ha nightie turkey teeny
choking
maybe nutty monkey tiny
joking
hobby kitty hockey money
leaking
lobby footie Mickey Winnie
licking
ruby (Mouse) (the Pooh)
locking
Scooby (Doo) hokey pokey honey
liking
Bobby jockey funny
raking
leaky sunny
rocking
lucky shiny
rocky rainy

42
WAY Z LEE LOW
away easy alley aloe
one-way pansy belly pillow
highway busy bully polo
hallway dizzy tally mellow
seaway daisy deli willow
raceway noisy dolly yellow
hazy hilly halo
SEE / SEA cozy holly hello
icy fuzzy holey/ hollow
posse lazy holy fellow
messy rosy collie silo
fussy goalie shallow
lacy filly jello
valley
SING silly
icing
chili/
pacing
chilly
tossing
jelly
kissing
jolly
hissing
lolli(pop)
guessing
really
facing
rally
fussing
Allie
chasing
Billy
lacing
racing

43
 Appendix J
Target - Index of Phonetic
Complexity (T-IPC) Data Form

Identifying Information

Participant:

Age:

Sex:

Date:

Examiner:

Notes:

Results

Total # Targets:

T-IPC Value Range:

Mean T-IPC Value:

Standard Deviation:

Notes:

44
 Targets Indices Total
Phonetically 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 T-IPC
Transcribed D FAL R FC 3+ SPV CC CCV Values

45
 Appendix K
Production - Index of Phonetic
Complexity (P-IPC) Data Form

Identifying Information

Participant:

Age:

Sex:

Date:

Examiner:

Notes:

Results

Total # Productions:

P-IPC Value Range:

Mean P-IPC Value:

Standard Deviation:

Notes:

46
Productions Indices Total
Phonetically 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 P-IPC
Transcribed D FAL R FC 3+ SPV CC CCV Values

47
 References

Amayreh, M. M., & Dyson, A. T. (2000). Phonetic inventories of young Arabic-speaking children.
Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 14, 193-215.

Davis, B., & MacNeilage, P. (1995). The articulatory basis of babbling. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 38, 1199-1211.

Davis, B., & Velleman, S. L. (2000). Differential diagnosis and treatment of developmental apraxia
of speech in infants and toddlers. Infant-toddler Intervention, 10, 177-192.

Dale, P. S., & Hayden, D. A. (2013). Treating speech subsystems in childhood apraxia of speech
with tactual input: The PROMPT approach. American Journal of Speech- Language Pathology,
22, 644-661. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2013/12-0055)

Eldridge, K. A. (2006). Phonological complexity and speech disfluency in young children

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UMI Press. (3255714)

Gayraud, F., Barkat-Defradas, M., Lahrouchi, M., & Ben Hamed, M. (20xx). Development of
phonetic complexity in Arabic, Berber, English, and French. Canadian Journal of Linguistics,
63, 527-555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2018.9

Howell, P., & Au-Yeung, J. (2007). Phonetic difficulty and stuttering in Spanish. Clinical Linguistics
and Phonetics, 21, 111-127. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F02699200600709511

Howell, P., Au-Yeung, J., Yaruss, J. S., & Eldridge, K. (2006). Phonetic difficulty and stuttering in
English. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 20, 703-716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699200500
390990

Jakielski, K. J. (1998). Motor organization in the acquisition of consonant clusters (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from UMI Press. (9838002)

Jakielski, K. J. (1998, April). Early acquisition of consonant clusters: A phonetic perspective.

Paper presented at the Annual Child Phonology Conference, Charlottesville, VA.

Jakielski, K. J. (2000, June). Quantifying phonetic complexity in words: An experimental

index. Paper presented at the annual Child Phonology Conference, Cedar Falls, IA.

Jakielski, K. J. (2002, May). The Index of Phonetic Complexity: Preliminary findings.

Paper presented at the Annual Child Phonology Conference, Wichita, KS.

Jakielski, K. J., & Doyle, E. (2006, April). Acquisition of phonetic complexity in two-year-old children.
Presentation at the Annual Convention of the Missouri Speech-Language-Hearing Association,
Lake of the Ozarks.

Jakielski, K. J., & Egan, T. L. (1999, November). Motor constraints affecting speech output in
developmental apraxia of speech. Poster session presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, San Francisco, CA.
48
Jakielski, K. J., English, S. M., & Miller, K. J. (2000, January). Phonetic effects on lexical
selectivity: Current research. Seminar presented at the Winter Meeting of the Quad Cities
Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Moline, IL.

Jakielski, K. J., & Matyasse, R. (2005, April). Analyzing the acquisition of phonetic complexity in
one-year-old children. Presentation at the Annual Convention of the Missouri Speech-
Language-Hearing Association, Lake of the Ozarks.

Jakielski, K. J., Matyasse, R. L., & Doyle, E. N. (2006, November). Acquisition of phonetic
complexity in children 12-36 months of age. Poster presented at the Annual Convention of
the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Miami, FL.

Jakielski, K. J., Ward, P., & Duncan, V. (2002, November). A new method for measuring
articulatory complexity. Poster presented at the Annual Convention of the American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Atlanta, GA.

Lee, H., Gambette, P., & Barkat-Defradas, M. (2014). iPhocomp: Calcul automatique de l’indice
de complexité phonétique de Jakielski. Journées d’Etudes sur la Parole, XXXè, 622-630.
https://hal-upec-upem.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01277047/document

Leonard, L. B., Schwartz, R. G., Morris, B., & Chapman, K. (1981). Factors influencing early lexical
acquisition: Lexical orientation and phonological composition. Child Development, 52, 882–887.

Maas, E., Gildersleeve-Neumann, C. E., Jakielski, K. J., & Stoeckel, R. (2014). Motor-based
intervention protocols in treatment of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Current
Developmental Disorders Reports, 1, 197-206.

Maas, E., Robin, D. A., Austermann Hula, S. N., Freedman, S. E., Wulf, G., Ballard, K. J., &
Schmidt, R. A. (2008). Principles of motor learning in treatment of motor speech disorders.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 277-298.

MacNeilage, P. F., & Davis, B. L. (1990). Acquisition of speech production: Frames, then content.
In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and performance XIII: Motor representation and control
(pp. 453-475). Hillsdale: Laurence Erlbaum.

Morris, S. R. (2009). Test-retest reliability of independent measures of phonology in the

assessment of toddlers’ speech. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
40, 46-52.

Paul, M., & De Serres, S. (2018, May). Can an articulatory complexity index be used to predict
children’s performance? Paper presented at the SAC-OAC Conference, Edmonton, Canada.

Preston, J. L., Maas, E., Whittle, J., Leece, M. C., & McCabe, P. (2016). Limited acquisition and
generalization of rhotics with ultrasound visual feedback in childhood apraxia. Clinical Linguistics
& Phonetics, 30, 363-381. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2015.1052563

Ranta, K. A., & Jakielski, K. J. (1999, November). Phonetic effects on lexical selectivity:
A pilot study. Poster session presented at the Annual Convention of the American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association, San Francisco, CA.

Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2011). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis
(5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
49
 Schmidt, R. A., & Wrisberg, C. A. (2007). Motor learning and performance: A situation-based
learning approach (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Schwartz, R. G., & Leonard, L. B. (1982). Do children pick and choose? An examination of
phonological selection and avoidance in early lexical acquisition. Journal of Child Language,
9, 319–336.

Schwarz, R. G., Leonard, L. B., Loeb, D. M., & Swanson, L. A. (1987). Attempted sounds
are sometimes not: An expanded view of phonological selection and avoidance.
Journal of Child Language, 14, 46-51.

Shriberg, L. D., Austin, D., Lewis, B. A., McSweeny, J. L., & Wilson, D. L. (1997). The Speech
Disorders Classification System (SDCS): Extensions and lifespan reference data. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 723-740.

Stoel-Gammon, C. (1987). Phonological skills of 2 year olds. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 18, 323-329.

Stoel-Gammon, C., & Cooper, J. (1984). Patterns of early lexical and phonological
development. Journal of Child Language, 11, 247-271.

Strand, E. A. (2020). Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing: A treatment strategy for childhood
apraxia of speech. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 29, 30-48.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_AJSLP-19-0005

Weiss, A.L., & Jakielski, K. J. (2001, June). Phonetic complexity measurement and prediction
of children’s disfluencies: A preliminary study. Proceedings from the 4th International Speech
Motor Conference, (pp. 278-281). Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Weiss, A. L., & Jakielski, K. J. (2003, July). Phonetic complexity and disfluencies: A closer look.
Poster presented at the Annual Child Phonology Conference, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Yorkston, K. M., Beukelman, D. R., Strand, E. A., & Hakel, M. (2010). Management of motor
speech disorders in children and adults (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Online freeware program to calculate IPC scores at

https://igm.univ-mlv.fr/~gambette/iPhocomp/EN/index.php

50
51
Kathy J. Jakielski, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, ASHA Fellow
Professor of Communication Sciences & Disorders
Florence C. and Dr. John E. Wertz Chair in Liberal Arts and Sciences
Augustana College
Rock Island, Illinois

© 2022 Kathy Jakielski