Which scenario is most likely to require ongoing monitoring of literacy achievement?

Which scenario is most likely to require ongoing monitoring of literacy achievement?

• A. A child with phonological processes scores at the 25th percentile on a test of phonological skills.
• B. A child with an articulation disorder scores at the 12th percentile on a test of articulation accuracy.
• C. A child with a lateral lisp also has participation restrictions and is occasionally bullied at school.
• D. A child who was previously treated for a phonological disorder scores at the 17th percentile on a test of phonological skills.

Answer: (D)

Ongoing literacy monitoring is most strongly indicated when there is a history of a phonological disorder that required intervention. Past treatment for phonological disorder signals persistent vulnerability in phonological processing, which underlies decoding and reading skills. Even if current scores show only moderate-low performance (like the 17th percentile), the prior need for therapy suggests a higher risk that reading and phonological awareness weaknesses could re-emerge or affect literacy as the child encounters more advanced tasks. In contrast, a 25th percentile on a phonological skills test is closer to average and doesn’t carry the same level of risk, an articulation-only issue isn’t a strong predictor of literacy problems, and social/participation issues, while important for overall school functioning, don’t directly indicate a need for ongoing literacy monitoring. Therefore, the scenario with prior treatment for a phonological disorder best warrants continued literacy progress checks and targeted support.

Ongoing literacy monitoring is most strongly indicated when there is a history of a phonological disorder that required intervention. Past treatment for phonological disorder signals persistent vulnerability in phonological processing, which underlies decoding and reading skills. Even if current scores show only moderate-low performance (like the 17th percentile), the prior need for therapy suggests a higher risk that reading and phonological awareness weaknesses could re-emerge or affect literacy as the child encounters more advanced tasks. In contrast, a 25th percentile on a phonological skills test is closer to average and doesn’t carry the same level of risk, an articulation-only issue isn’t a strong predictor of literacy problems, and social/participation issues, while important for overall school functioning, don’t directly indicate a need for ongoing literacy monitoring. Therefore, the scenario with prior treatment for a phonological disorder best warrants continued literacy progress checks and targeted support.