
Posted by SSRCCCSLP
![]()
on June 20, 2009, 3:54 pm, in reply to "Re: Assessment results of 3 year old"
75.198.139.3
I believe most of the SLPs who provided responses to this parent's question(s) were on the "right track"; however, we as professionals should be very careful with the information we provide to parents regarding evaluations completed by other SLPs without the benefit of knowing everything that may have been included in the report. For example, when mom initially posed her question(s) she made no mention of a mild artic impairment and a moderate phonological processing disorder and this was a very important piece of information she inadvertently omitted. I agree the evaluating SLP would have gathered more information about the child's artic/phonological system if an assessment like the Khan-Lewis had been completed(assuming that mom did not leave this info out too); however, we do not know the particulars regarding this case. When we respond to parent's questions we should make it clear that without the benefit of knowing the case history and viewing the report ourselves we are responding solely based on the information they provided and our responses in no way imply that the examiner was not competent. FYI to the parent, the correct spelling is Khan not Kahn. Also, parents need to know that although their child has a communication disorder each district establishes its own eligibility criteria and what qualifies a child for ST services in one district may not in another. In the district I'm employed we must answer 3 questions with a "yes" to qualify the child. First, "Does the child have a speech and/or language disorder?" Two, "Does the disorder significantly impact the child's ability to communicate his/her needs, wants, thoughts, and ideas?" Three, "Does the communication disorder require specialized instruction that can only be provided by the speech-language pathologist?” Thus, if an answer to any of the 3 questions is "no" the child does not meet our district's criteria and services will be denied.
175
Message Thread:
![]()
« Back to thread