中国P站

Early childhood providers; Early identification; Speech sound screening; Articulation screening; Parent, teacher screening assessment.

Introduction

The use of speech to communicate is fundamentally important for all children who can hear and who do not have neurologic, cognitive, or motoric problems that interfere with sound production. Speech sound or articulation development usually evolves as children grow-that is, for most children there is a predictable order in which they learn to produce intelligible speech sounds that occur in their linguistic culture (Bernthal et al., 2020; Crowe & McLeod, 2020). However, a significant number of children are slow to develop speech sounds, do not produce certain sounds, produce sounds incorrectly and/or produce sounds that are atypical; for example, distort the /s/ sound (Hoffman et al., 2014; McLeod, 2020; Quick Statistics About Voice, Speech, Language NIDCD, 2025; Stress, 2018) [1].

For children whose speech sound development is delayed, or disordered, early detection is important for two reasons. First, early detection permits intervention before speech sound production errors become ingrained or habitual. The sooner the delayed or faulty production is detected, the easier and more rapidly the problem can be remedied. “Neural circuits, which create the foundation for learning, behavior and health, are most flexible or “plastic” during the first three years of life. Over time, they become increasingly difficult to change” (Stress, 2018).

Second, speech sound production errors may interfere with children’s ability to communicate which can, in turn, impact their social and cognitive development. Overtime it has become increasingly clear that a normal sound system is important to acquiring literacy skills (Tambyraja & Schmitt, 2020). Strategies that lead to the early identification of children with potential speech sound production delays or errors could be of value to children, their families, and the greater community. Further, early detection could potentially save the finite resources of this nation that are directed to teaching and intervention by remedying problems in their initial stages (Heckman, 2013; Johnson et al., 2015) [2].

Screening for health, and general developmental problems including language is well established in the United States (Bricker et al., 2013), however, with some exceptions, few screening options with acceptable psychometric support currently exist for examining speech sound development in young children (Bernthal et al., 2022; Bricker & Bricker, 2025).

Since early detection is paramount and most childhood screeners and assessments do not address speech sound production, we believe a significant need exists for a low-cost speech screening measure designed for use by non-communication specialists such as early childhood teachers, early learning providers and parents. The BAsic Speech Screener-Research Edition (BASS-R) was developed to address this need by accurately identify young children whose speech sound or articulation development may be delayed or disordered.

The remainder of this paper first describes the BASS-R. Next it presents information on three questions: 1) Are parents willing to complete an online version of the BASS-R; 2) Can early childhood personnel complete the BASS-R and their evaluation of the measure; 3) Do speech/language specialists see a need for a screening measure that can be completed by non-communication specialist. For each question the subject population is described, data collection procedures outlined, analyses conducted, and results presented. The final section discusses potential implications of the findings and next steps.

Methods and Materials - BAsic Speech Screener (BASS-R)

Description

Initial work on the BASS-R began in 2018 by reviewing relevant literature, talking with speech/language pathologists, preschool teachers and early learning providers to formulate a pilot measure. The BASS-R was designed to be used with young children who speak English at home or at school. Data from previous empirical investigations on speech sound development were used to assign individual speech sounds to the appropriate age level. Interestingly, studies examining speech sound development differ on when some sounds occur developmentally. Consequently, the BASS-R research team relied primarily on the meta-analysis findings that examined time of speech sound development across several recent studies (McLeod & Crowe, 2018).

The BASS-R has 5 age specific intervals for 2, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-yearold children and each age interval is contained on a single page. Appendix A contains 3-year BASS-R interval. The BASS-R is composed of parts A, B and C; however, the 2-year interval contains only Part A and B. Part A is the same for all age intervals and asks how well a child’ speech can be understood by familiar and unfamiliar listeners. Part B asks if the child can produce target sounds appropriate for their age. The sounds listed in Part B largely differ across age intervals and are appropriate for the specified age interval (McLeod, 2020). The 2-year BASS-R interval has target sounds in the initial word position (e.g., book, mouse). The 3-4-5- and 6-year age intervals include sounds that occur in initial, medial and final word positions (e.g., book, baby, crab). Part C is included in the 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-year-old age intervals, and asks questions about phonological processes. Phonological processes are sound error patterns used to simplify speech production as children are learning to speak (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Special Education Resource 3, 2024). Weak syllable deletion is a phonological process in which a child omits a syllable from a multisyllabic word (e.g., nana for banana). Final consonant deletion is another example of a phonological process, in which a child omits the final consonant of a word as in ma for mom. Such error patterns are expected to be resolved between 3 and 4 years. Phonological processes become disorders when they persist past the expected age of elimination [3].

Questions and Methods

As noted, this investigation examined parental and early educator responses to the BASS-R, as well as communication specialists’ reported need for a speech screener that can be completed by noncommunication specialists.

Question One: What are the demographic parameters of online parent participants who completed the BASS-R and completers’ response analyses?

Subjects

The subject population for this question was parents of young children who ranged in age from 2 through 6 years, who speak English at home, school or both and who reside in the United States.

Materials and Data Collection Procedures

To gauge the need for a low cost, easy to use screening tool, the BASS-R research team developed, then posted the research version of the BASS-R articulation screener on a developmental screening research website. In addition, a short feedback form was posted asking parent BASS-R completers to rate its clarity and ease of use. To attract responders to this website we used search engine optimization (SEO) to strategically incorporate keywords and phrases likely to be used by parents interested in their child’s development. We also used links embedded in established websites to attract online users to participate by completing the BASS-R screener and a brief feedback form. Our primary target audience were parents, though there was no monitoring or gatekeeping that constrained participation by any user (e.g., grandparents, teachers). Participants were informed that their contribution was voluntary, and no fiscal rewards, or educational recommendations would be provided. The data were stored on the “server-side” which participants or outside parties could not see or access. The survey asked for voluntary submission of specific demographic data, though no direct identifiers, such as name, were collected. Data collected over 5 years was downloaded from the website in the form of CSV files. converted to an excel (.xlxs) format for use in analytic programs like Excel or R-studio [4].

Initial descriptive statistics were generated to obtain information about the subjects and their responses to questionnaire items. In addition, measures of central tendency, measures of dispersion, shape of the distribution, analysis for covariance, item analysis, auto covariance and autocorrelation were also performed. Analyses examined:

a) demographic features of parents completing the BASS-R including geographic location, ethnicity, education level, and income level

b) analyses of parental responses to BASS-R Part A, B, and C

c) parental feedback on the BASS-R

Question Two: Can early childhood providers complete the BASS-R and how do they evaluate the quality of the measure?

Subjects

The subject population for this question was early childhood professionals who provided services to young children ranging in age from 2 through 6 years. Subjects were recruited into the study by BASS-R project staff who contacted early childhood programs in several states. All procedures were governed by IRB regulations and participants signed letters of informed consent. All data were nonidentifiable. Completers were given gift certificates.

For this question, 387 early childhood providers completed a BASS-R on one or more children. In addition, they completed a brief feedback form on the BASS-R [5].

Materials and Data Collection Procedures

All early childhood personnel completed an appropriate BASS-R age interval on selected children. In addition, they were asked to complete a brief feedback form that asked about BASS-R clarity, ease of use and suggested changes.

Question Three: Do speech and language professional (SLP) survey participants see a need for a psychometrically sound speech sound screening measure that can be completed by non-communication specialists?

Subjects

All 91 subjects were licensed SLPs working in educational settings. Subjects were recruited by project staff contacting educational programs and at the 2025 American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA) Conference.

Materials and Data Collection Procedures

A brief survey was developed for completion by SLPs to ascertain their perceived need for a speech sound screening measure designed for completion by non-communication specialists such as early childhood educators. Participating SLPs were given a brief survey to complete. The survey was divided into three sections that asked about the: completers work situation (location, age of children served), need for a speech sound screening measure for program serving young children, and BASS-R content. The final section was only completed by SLPs who were familiar with the BASS-R.

Results

Question One

Results for this question include demographic information on online BASS-R completers and analyses of their responses to BASS-R items.

Parent/Child Demographics.

A total of 10,639 subjects was included in the following demographic analyses. Age distribution of the children, as reported by the adult respondents, is shown in Table 1. Eighty-seven percent of the respondents had children between the ages of 2 to 4 years’ old which is a period of significant speech development (Bernthal et al., 2022). Our sample population was 57.2% male, which is statistically disproportionate (X2 {1, N = 10,639} = 219.2, p < 0.001); however, this percentage is consistent with National Institutes of Health (NIH) data suggesting that a larger percentage of males in the United States have articulation problems (Black et al., 2015). The arithmetic mean age of parent respondents was 28.7 years (SD=5.72; n = 9,577). The median was 29, and mode 30. Missing or clearly incorrect responses (i.e. age = 210 years) were excluded (Table 1).

Table 1.  On-line BASS-R child sample by age interval. BASS-R total score by age interval, standard deviation, cut point and percentage of children below the cut point. To get robust age group arithmetic means, we discounted participants straddling age-groups.

Parent respondents indicated place of residence by zip code. Although the sample contains a few over-represented states, Figure 1 shows the distribution was generally consistent with population patterns across the United States (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2023) (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Reported geographic location of online BASS-R respondents (n=10,639). Darker shading indicates states with highest response frequencies.

Respondents self-report on ethnicity (N = 10,639). indicated that 61% identified as White, 13% Black or African American, 11% Hispanic, 10% two or more races, 3% Asian, 1% American Indian or Native Alaskan, with the remaining 1% being other or not answered. These findings largely conform to US Census data on ethnicity in the United States (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2021). Self-report on income level (N = 10,639) indicated that 28% of the sample earned above $60,000 per year, 27% between $45,500 and $59,999, 18% between $24,000 and $44,999, 9% between $16,000 and $23,999, 11% below $16,000, and 7% that did not indicate. Comparison to U.S. Census data indicate this population income level appears lower than U.S. norms (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2025). Self-report on educational level (N = 10,639) indicated that 40% the sample population had a bachelor’s degree or higher, 16% had 2-years of college, 39% had a high school degree, 3% did not graduate high school, and 2% that did not respond. The reported parental education level of our sample and reflects an overrepresentation of high school and college graduates in online BASS-R completers compared to U.S. norms (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2023) [6].

Parental Responses to online BASS-R

The BASS-R is composed of three parts. Part A is comprised of three questions evaluating the respondent’s perception of the child’s general speech intelligibility. Part B assesses the child’s ability to correctly produce specific English consonants. These target sounds were assigned to each age interval based on established developmental norms (McLeod & Crowe, 2018; McLeod, 2020). Finally, Part C evaluated the child’s production of sounds within various combinations and word positions, such as initial and final phonemes. For the on-line sample, findings are presented for BASS-R total scores, and separate scores for Parts A, B, and C. Not all parents answered all questions which accounts for the variation in numbers across analyses.

Total Scores

Total scores were obtained by summing parental responses to Parts A, B, and C. The total arithmetic mean score, standard deviation and theoretical “cut score” derived by using a standard deviation of 1.5 are shown in Table 1. The percent of children by age interval who were below the cut scores is also contained in Table 1. Using 1.5 standard deviation criteria, approximately 11% of children in age intervals 2, 3, and 4 were identified, while a smaller proportion (approximately 6%) was identified in age intervals 5 and 6 as children who should be referred for a more comprehensive speech evaluation.

BASS-R Part A

This section of the BASS-R consisted of three questions. Questions 1 and 2 were trinomial (0, 1, 2) while Question 3 was binomial (0,1). The sum of the three question was used to create a total score for Part A, with scores ranging from 0 through 5. Arithmetic means and standard deviations for Part A questions (N = 10,639) were 1.69 (SD = 0.56) for Question 1, 1.47 (SD = 0.68) for Question 2, and 0.51 (SD = 0.49) for Question 3. The arithmetic mean for the total score was 3.67 (SD = 1.48). The dispersion patterns of the Part A total score were examined to determine if meaningful “cut scores” could be established. As shown in Figure 2, the distribution was a top heavy, one-sided distribution with kurtosis = -0.22, and skewness = -0.91. The BASS-R is not designed, or meant to identify children exceeding developmental norms, therefore the one-tailed distribution is acceptable (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Histogram of BASS-R Part A total-score distribution. Sample N = 10,639.

BASS-R Part B

Part B questions asked respondents about their child’s ability to produce specific sounds. Parents who did not answer all questions in Part B were excluded from this analysis leaving an n = 7585. The sounds listed per age group ranged from 7 for the 2-year interval to 27 for the 5-year interval. Table 2 contains arithmetic mean total score, standard deviation, projected cut score, and percentage of children that would have been identified as being at risk for each age interval. The projected cut scores were set at 1.5 standard deviations below the arithmetic mean. The percentage of children whose scores suggest they may be at risk—that is, below the projected cut score is consistent with NIH data on percentage of children with speech articulation problems (Black et al., 2015) (Table 2).

Table 2. Part B arithmetic mean (M) total scores, standard deviations, projected cut scores, and percentage of children potentially at risk by age interval. n=7585.

As previously noted, the target sounds and the total number of items in Part B varied across age intervals. For each listed sound, parents provided a binary response indicating whether the child could produce the sound (“Yes”) or had not yet mastered it (“Not yet”). Table 3 presents the specific sequence of sounds presented to respondents, the age interval in which each sound appeared, and the arithmetic mean percentage of children who produced each sound correctly. Total number for this analysis was 7585. The arithmetic mean percentage data suggest that the assignment of sounds to specific age intervals was appropriate in most cases. Specifically, the sounds designated for each interval in Part B were accurately produced by most children within that age group, providing support for, and future motivation to test the developmental validity of the instrument (Table 3).

Table 3. Arithmetic mean (M) scores for Part B sound production by age interval. For each sound, a score of 1 indicated that the child produced the sound, and 0 indicated that child did not produce the sound. NA* identifies sounds that were not included in this age-interval. Note, this analysis excluded participants who did not record a score of 1 or 0.

BASS-R Part C

Part C of the BASS-R included questions relating to phonological processes contained on the 3, 4, 5, 6-year age intervals. As noted, phonological processes refer to error patterns children use as they learn to speak. Examples include omitting final consonant sounds (“do” for “dog”) or omitting a consonant sound from a cluster (“dar” for “star”). These error patterns have different ages in which they are expected to resolve, and if they persist past that age, they are considering an articulation disorder (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Special Education Resource 3, 2024). The number of Part C questions by age interval ranged from 5 to 7. Given the few items, results were collapsed across items to obtain an arithmetic mean score for Part C. The arithmetic mean score for 3-year Part C was 1.15 (SD = 0.46, n = 2611), 4-year-old arithmetic mean was 2.81 (SD = 0.82, n = 654), 5-year arithmetic mean was 2.80 (SD = 0.79, n = 238), and 6-year-old arithmetic mean was 2.80 (SD = 0.74, n = 144). The total response for Part C was n = 3647 which was much lower than responders who completed Part B. The low response number suggest that the phonological processes targeted in Part C may be more difficult for parents to evaluate [7].

BASS-R feedback from parent

Upon completion of the BASS-R age interval, a feedback form was provided for parents to complete. The form asked about the completer’s understanding of the content and time to complete. Ninety-five of the respondents indicated that they understood the purpose of the BASS-R and 85% reported items to be understandable. Ninety-eight of the respondents reported completion time for the BASS-R was under 5 minutes.

Summary of parent feedback

The results from analyses of online BASS-R data found a broad range of parents of young children living in the United States were willing to complete the BASS-R. As noted, numbers varied across analyses because not all parents answered all questions. Parental response analyses for Parts A, and B suggest that most parents were able to understand and complete the items thus offering useful information on their child’s speech sound production. Responses to Part C suggested children were less able to produce the sound targeted in this section or more difficult for parents to evaluate or both.

Question Two

Early education provider’s completion of the BASS-R on a sample of young children and their feedback on the BASS-R provided the data for this question. Early education providers (EEPs) currently working in early childhood setting in several states were recruited to complete a BASS-R on one or more children in their program. A total of 387 EEPs participated; however, many of the EEPs completed BASS-R forms on more than one child and consequently, the total number of completed BASS-R was 723. The BASS-R forms were essentially the same as the online version completed by parents as were the analyses conducted for BASS-R Parts A, B and C. The respondents reported an arithmetic mean of 3.31 years of experience (SD 0.84). Most of the respondents reported being from Oregon (82%), with next most frequent being from Illinois (7%), Alaska (4%), and Missouri (3%). The remaining 4% reported being from California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Michigan [8].

BASS-R Part A

Analyses of EEP responses for Part A had similar distributions to previously reported online parental responses. Question 1 had an arithmetic mean of 1.74 (SD = 0.66), question 2 had an arithmetic mean of 1.65 (SD = 0.59), question 3 had an arithmetic mean of 1.61 (SD = 0.71). When the scores for EEP’s were totaled, the arithmetic mean was 4.98 (SD = 1.70) When we analyzed the arithmetic means and standard deviations at 1.5 SD below the arithmetic mean, we found that the EEPs would have identified 12.5% of the children needing referral for a comprehensive speech evaluation. This figure is consistent with the NIH data on percentage of children with speech articulation problems in the United States (Black, et. al., 2015).

BASS–R Part B

EEP Part B scores by age interval are contained in Table 4 and include arithmetic mean total scores, standard deviations, cut scores and using those cut scores the calculated percent of children whose speech production is below expectations for their age. The percent of children identified at each age interval is generally consistent with US National Institute of Health numbers for children within the United States with speech/language problems (Quick Statistics About Voice, Speech, Language | NIDCD, 2025) (Table 4).

Table 4. EEP Part B arithmetic mean (M) total scores, standard deviations, projected cut scores, and percentage of children potentially at risk for speech problems.  n=723.

Table 5 contains EEP arithmetic mean scores for Part B sounds by age interval. For each sound, a score of 1 indicated that the child could produce the sound, and 0 indicated that child did not produce the sound. These results suggest the speech production for most of the sample was within expectations for their age (Table 5).

Table 5. EEP group arithmetic mean (M)scores for Part B sounds by age interval. NA indicates the sound did not appear on an interval. n=723.

BASS-R Part C

The EEP’s results for Part C questions were combined to produce a summary figure rather than provide an analysis for individual items because the number of items in Part C is small ranging from 5 to 7. The arithmetic mean for this section should represent an adequate picture of a child’s ability to produce combined sounds or sounds in different word positions. The 2-year-old interval has no Part C items. For respondents in the 3-year-old interval the arithmetic mean was 1.92 (SD = 0.87, n = 187), for the 4-year-old interval the arithmetic mean was 2.61 (SD = 1.13, n = 243), 5-year-old interval arithmetic mean was 2.82 (SD = 1.26, n = 106), and the 6-year-old arithmetic mean was 3.98 (SD = 0.24, n = 31). These means suggest that most children in this sample were able to correctly produce sounds appropriate for their age [9-11].

Parent and EEP Comparison of BASS-R

A Chi-Square statistical comparison between parental online completion of the BASS-R and the EEP completion of a print version of the BASS-R was conducted. A resulting Chi-Square of X2 = 0.990 found no statistically significant difference between the parental scores and the EEP scores. Because the EEP expected values align so closely with the observed parental data, the two groups can be considered statistically similar across Parts A, B, and C. Consequently, these findings suggest that the parental assessments are a reliable reflection of the established EEP group statistics, particularly in identifying the percentage of children at risk.

BASS-R Feedback

Once the EEP returned a completed BASS-R on a selected child or children, they were asked to complete a feedback form composed of four items. Table 6 contains the items and EEP’s responses (Table 6).

Table 6.  EEPS feedback responses by question (n=387).

BASS-R EEP Summary

EEPs from a variety of early education programs in the United States completed the BASS-R on one or more children in their program; followed by completing a brief feedback form. EEP response analyses for Parts A, B, and C suggest that subjects were able to understand and complete the items. Interestingly a comparison for Part A and B scores generally show congruence between parents and EEPs in that arithmetic mean scores, standard deviations and percent of children identified as potentially at risk were similar.

Question Three

A short survey of nine questions was developed to better understand speech/language pathologists (SLPs) perceived need for a brief, easy-to-use speech sound production screening tool that could be completed by non-communication specialists. SLPs from 13 states (Arizona, California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington) completed the survey. Survey completers reported work settings to be EI/ECSE setting (54%), K-12 School (35%), private practice (5%), hospital (3%), other (3%).

The survey was divided into 5 general questions that all participants could answer and 4 remaining questions that could only be answered by an SLP familiar with the BASS-R. Table 7 presents the percent of agreement, disagreement and no response for first 5 questions which all participants answered. The agreement for questions one and five was very high indicating all participants worked on speech sound production and they agreed that few psychometrically sound speech screeners were available. Responses to questions 2, 3, and 4 addressing the measure used by their program suggest considerable variability in programs’ use of screeners and the type of screener used (Table 7).

Table 7. Percent agreement, disagreement, and no response to SLP BASS-R survey questions 1-5. n = 9l.

Table 8 contains the responses to the remaining 3 survey items that asked about features of the BASS-R. Participant responses indicate the BASS-R can be completed by non-communication specialists, and BASS-R questions provide useful information. Less agreement was seen on sound selection for age intervals which may not be surprising given lack of speech sound development agreement in the field (McLoed, 2020). Finally, a variety of responses were made about suggested changes to the BASS-R. Several responders mentioned the idea of availability in other languages, Spanish in particular. Currently the BASS-R is developed for English language speakers. All comments are listed in Appendix B (Table 8).

Table 8. SLP responses to BASS-R survey questions 6-8 (n = 57)

Discussion

Early screening of developmental problems in young children is the first step in providing appropriate services to identified young children and is a prerequisite for achieving optimal outcomes. Research findings consistently indicate that early identification is a cornerstone of effective intervention strategies during early childhood (Bricker et al., 2013; Heckman, 2013). This reality is particularly salient in the context of speech sound production; once articulation patterns are acquired, they rapidly become habituated, making subsequent correction challenging, time consuming and often expensive (Bernthal, et.al., 2020). Consequently, the early detection of articulation disorders is essential for facilitating timely interventions that maximize clinical efficacy while minimizing long-term costs (Al Otaiba et al., 2009; Helix, 2025) [12-14].

The BASS-R was developed to identify young children with potential speech production problems by using a low-cost strategy that asks non-communication specialists such as early childhood personnel and parents to complete a simple screening measure focused on speech sound production. The BASS-R has five age intervals that pose general questions about a child’s speech and specific questions about sound productions that are appropriate for the designated age interval.

As noted, to effectively address early detection of speech sound production problems in young children, a low-cost screening measures are needed. The survey data reported in this paper support this position. Low-cost entails brief but accurate assessments that can be successfully used by non-speech specialists such as early childhood providers and parents. This paper provides evidence that the newly developed BASS-R has the potential to be a low-cost measure that may accurately identify many children in need of a comprehensive evaluation by a communication specialist [15, 16].

The presented results address important preliminary questions associated with the BASS-R: a) parental willingness and ability to accurately answer questions about their children’s speech production, b) early educators’ ability to accurately answer questions about young children’s speech sound production and c) SLPs agreement that a speech sound screening measure that can be used by non-communication specialists is needed.

The first question addresses parental willingness to complete an online BASS-R age interval appropriate for their child’s age. Without incentives over 10,000 parents completed, at least part of the BASS-R on their child. Participants provided demographic information, and answered the general questions about a child’s speech intelligibility posed in Part A. Over 7000 of these parents also completed Part B; however, many of the sample did not complete Part C which contains fewer items but perhaps more difficult to answer questions. There are several possible reasons many parents did not complete Part C including: response fatigue, interruptions, content hard to understand, and likely others. Even given the reduction in Part C responses, the response rates for Parts A and B were substantial and encouraging. In addition, most parents reported the BASS-R purpose was clear and items were understandable. Most parents reported that it took 5 minutes to complete the BASS-R form. These findings provide a strong incentive for gathering additional data from parents on their accuracy in evaluating their child’s speech production when compared to a speech specialist [17].

A second question addressed was early childhood provider’s ability to complete the BASS-R on children. Our results strongly suggest that study participants were quickly able to complete the BASS-R without problems with the possible exception of Part C by online parent completers. The preliminary data analyses of early childhood professionals completed BASS-R results find normal distributions and match national figures for incidences of speech problems in young children. Again, these preliminary outcomes provide a platform for future investigation of non-communication specialists’ accuracy in evaluating young children’s speech production [18-20].

An interesting finding is the similarity between parental and early education providers group statistics for Parts A, B, and C arithmetic means, standard deviations, and importantly the percent of children identified as at risk. Examining these similarities using the EEP as the expected values, we found that Chi Square analysis of parents scores revealed no statistically significant differences (X2=0.990; df = 2).

The third question sought information from a sample of SLPs about their perceived need for a psychometrically sound speech screening tool that could be used by non-communication specialists. All survey participants agreed that screeners like the BASS-R are needed.

We believe these findings provide support for the continued study of the BASS-R. The positive information generated from the three questions described in this paper provides a platform for launching the next investigations that will be designed to gather important psychometric information on the BASS-R.

References

1. Al Otaiba S, Puranik CS, Ziolkowski RA, Montgomery TM (2009). . The J Spec Edu 43: 107-128.

   , ,

2. Bernthal J, Bankson N, Flipsen Jr P (2020) Articulation and phonological disorders: Speech sound disorders in children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

   ,

3. Bernthal J, Bankson N, Flipsen P (2022) .

4. Black L I, Vahratian A, Hoffman HJ (2015)

   ,

5. Bricker D, Bricker E (2025)

6. Bricker D, Macy M, Squires J, Marks K (2013)

   Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Crowe K, McLeod S (2020) . Ame J Speech Lang Path 29: 2155-2169.

   , ,

8. Heckman JJ (2013) . MIT Press.

9. Helix M (2025) Speech in Progress: How Early Intervention Helps with Articulation Disorders. JSPT 10: 1-2.

   ,

10. Hoffman H, Li CM, Losonczy K, Chiu M, Lucas J et.al. (2014)

    ,

11. Johnson J (JJ), Rahn NL, Bricker D (2015)

12. McLeod S (2020) Brookes Publishing.

    , ,

13. McLeod S, Crowe K (2018) Am J Speech Lang Pathol 27: 1546-1571.

    , ,

14. .

    , ,

15. Stress T (2018) .

16. Tambyraja SR, Schmitt MB (2020) Topics in Language Disorders, 40: 341.

    , ,

17. S. Bureau of the Census (2021). .
18. S. Bureau of the Census. (2023).
19. S. Bureau of the Census. (2025).
20. .