Response to Ingram Letter We welcome the opportunity to address attemative perspectives on assessment in child phonology. The continuing differences on validity and efficiency perspectives raised in David Ingram’s letter are the very ones that motivated our study. In the following four sections we address issues he raises and present our reasons for disagreeing ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   August 01, 1994
Response to Ingram Letter
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Judith A. Morrison
    University of Redlands Redlands, CA
  • Lawrence D. Shriberg
    University of Wisconsin-Madison
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Language Disorders / Language / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   August 01, 1994
Response to Ingram Letter
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, August 1994, Vol. 37, 936-937. doi:10.1044/jshr.3704.936
History: Received March 21, 1994 , Accepted April 6, 1994
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, August 1994, Vol. 37, 936-937. doi:10.1044/jshr.3704.936
History: Received March 21, 1994; Accepted April 6, 1994
We welcome the opportunity to address attemative perspectives on assessment in child phonology. The continuing differences on validity and efficiency perspectives raised in David Ingram’s letter are the very ones that motivated our study. In the following four sections we address issues he raises and present our reasons for disagreeing with each of his perspectives.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access