Age Range: 2:0 - 21:11
RTI Tiers: RTI Levels 1, 2 and 3
5 to 15 minutes for Sounds-in-Words Section, varied for other two sections
Telepractice: Tips on using this test in your telepractice
Norms: Restandardized norms have been expanded to include ages 2-21 with separate normative tables for males and females.
Still the most popular articulation test available.
The second edition of the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation gives you updated norms and expanded features, and it remains accurate and easy to administer.
The test provides information about a child’s articulation ability by sampling both spontaneous and imitative sound production. Examinees respond to picture plates and verbal cues from the examiner with single-word answers that demonstrate common speech sounds. Additional sections provide further measures of speech production.
Use this test to measure articulation of consonant sounds, determine types of misarticulation, and compare individual performance to national, gender-differentiated norms.
New items, new artwork, new age range, new norms
- New items have been added to sample more speech sounds—39 consonant sounds and clusters can now be tested with the Goldman-Fristoe 2. Some objectionable or culturally inappropriate items (e.g., gun, Christmas tree) have been removed.
- All artwork has been redrawn and reviewed for cultural bias and fairness.
- The age range for the Goldman-Fristoe 2 has been expanded to include ages 2 through 21. Age-based standard scores include separate normative information for females and males.
- Normative tables are based on a national sample of 2,350 examinees stratified to match the most recent U.S. Census data on gender, race/ethnicity, region, and SES as determined by mother’s education level.
Goldman-Fristoe 2 retains the best features of the original test
The second edition keeps the features that made the original Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation efficient and easy to use.
- Test 3 - User-friendly color-coding for recording initial-medial-final sounds
- Multiple testing of speech sounds within a word or plate for efficient test administration
- Broad sampling of the consonant sounds and clusters used in Standard American English
- Opportunity to sample both spontaneous and imitated production of speech sounds
Supplemental Developmental Norms Booklet
Organizations find the Supplemental Developmental Norms Booklet included in the kit advantageous. With it they can use the norms—based on developmental data—to set their own cutoff criteria for intervention services qualification.
Easy to administer
Sounds-in-Words uses colorful, entertaining pictures to prompt responses that sample the major speech sounds in the initial, medial, and final positions. Suggested cues have been added for the examiner to help elicit spontaneous responses by the examinee.
Additional sections provide a fuller sampling of the examinee’s ability to produce speech sounds and to reproduce sounds when modeled by the examiner.
With streamlined test administration, the Goldman-Fristoe 2 is an efficient way to obtain a representative sample of an examinee’s articulation ability.
Three sections sample a wide range of articulation skills
- Sounds-in-Words Section uses pictures to elicit articulation of the major speech sounds when the examinee is prompted by a visual and/or verbal cue.
- Sounds-in-Sentences Section assesses spontaneous sound production used in connected speech. The examinee is asked to retell a short story based on a picture cue. Target speech sounds are sampled within the context of simple sentences.
- Stimulability Section measures the examinee’s ability to correctly produce a previously misarticulated sound when asked to watch and listen to the examiner’s production of the sound. The examinee repeats the word or phrase modeled by the examiner.
Increase your assessment clarity
The KLPA-2 (Khan-Lewis Phonological Analysis) works with the Goldman-Fristoe 2 to give you a more comprehensive diagnosis of both articulation and use of phonological processes. Save when you purchase the two kits together.
Visit SpeechandLanguage.com for more information
Visit the www.SpeechandLanguage.com web site for additional information and the SLP Forum discussion center.
Increase efficiency with computer scoring and reporting
The ASSIST software program is available to help score, calculate, and compare normative data for both Goldman-Fristoe 2 and KLPA-2 tests. At the touch of a button you can print out separate score summaries for the Goldman-Fristoe 2 and KLPA-2. Or print out a combined report for detailed diagnostic information. Reports are easy to customize by test section and diagnostic topic; a Recommendations section even has summary text. You also can set a local criterion to obtain developmental norms comparisons from the biggest and best standardization sample to date!
Frequently asked questions follow. Click on a question to see the response.
Why are words such as duck, yellow, and flowers which have phonetic contexts easily influencing assimilation errors still used?
Reducing the number of phonetically “loaded” contexts and/or systematically evaluating the child’s performance in more complex contexts will be addressed in the next revision.
Why is there no inclusion of vowel production as in the Arizona Test of Articulation?
We feel that consonants contribute more important related to intelligibility but recognize that we should be cognizant of child’s vowel errors. We are considering an qualitative procedure for noting vowel errors (taking into account dialectal variations) for the next revision.
Has a study been done that looks at which format is "better" pictures vs. photographs?
I am not aware of any recent research. In research conducted with other tests at Pearson, there is no difference in performance when typically developing children are tested using photographs as stimuli rather than drawn pictures.
Are there plans to update the GFTA-KLPA-2 normative data?
We are starting a revision of the test stimuli and response forms in 2012. When completed, we will conduct a new standardization. Until then, you can be assured that the current norms provide accurate data to assist you in making diagnostic decisions for the children you are testing.
When you anticipate production of a new edition?
In a few years—currently planned for 2015
It would be great if the test tested for post vocalic "r."
We will consider with the future revision.
Will there ever be a normed intelligibility section?
Not at this time.
Do you anticipate a Spanish version in the near future?
Yes, we are planning to develop a Spanish edition.
Will there be an iPad application?
We are investigating that option.
If a student has met all of his goals and objectives and is ready to exit speech therapy...is it necessary to give him the full assessment of the Goldman-Fristoe-2?
It probably be a good way to document the changes and reason for exiting therapy, especially since the assessment is so brief to administer.
If a child's production of a sound is perceptually accurate, but the placement is incorrect (i.e. interdentalization of /t, d, n/, how would that be scored?
As correct. I would certainly note placement in comments.
If a child does not have an /s/ in his or her repertoire, marking all the /s/ blends as incorrect seems to skew the score somewhat. Have I been scoring this correctly?
This is a good point, but the norms do account for this. Also the /s/ and its blends are important for intelligibility.
The target sound in the picture balloons is the medial /l/. However, if the child has difficulty producing the /s/ sound, do you count that error when finding the raw score or only the target sound for each picture?
We only count the errors on target sounds. I would however note the inconsistency which can be useful in intervention.
The raw score is determined from the Sounds in Words section of the test. If a child scored 0 for their raw score but had 6 errors on Sounds in Sentences--could those errors be counted for a 'raw score'?
There are no norms for Sounds-in-Sentences so you cannot count those errors when calculating scores using the norm tables. It is certainly an important observation and should be noted.
How do recommend interpreting scores for a child around age 2 ½ who is administered the test but responds to very few pictures, even in imitation. His non-responses are not counted as errors, so his score is inflated.
In this case I would probably stop the test administration after a few non-responses and reschedule so child might be more comfortable and familiar with the examiner and the test environment. The score you currently obtained would be meaningless. You may also evaluate vocal development based on the child’s vocalizations in play activities, noting the child’s phoneme repertoire and syllable shapes in spontaneous productions rather than administering a standardized assessment.
I’m still not sure how to use the Supplemental Developmental Norms to interpret child's performance.
Basically, you can look at a child’s error sounds and positions in which errors occur and use the Tables to determine what percent of normal children correctly use these at the different age levels. If you want to know at what age 85% of children have the sound you would follow the chart across until you reach .85 or better.
In reference to the normative table for sound development, what is the exact chronological age for which the sample correctly produced the sounds? For example /b/ in initial position words, is it delayed at two years, zero months?
You are correct. 98% of 2 year olds produce /b/ correctly in the initial position of words; 99% of typically developing 2 ½ year olds do (see Table 1, page 7 of the Supplemental Developmental Norms booklet.)
Table 2.1 states age at which 85% participants accurately produced by age. You indicated that there was a chart available for medial and final. Can you give the table and/or reference for that?
Look at Table 6.6 on page 56 of the Manual.