FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W796211541> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W796211541 endingPage "19" @default.
• W796211541 startingPage "16" @default.
• W796211541 abstract "You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFeature1 Apr 2011Enhancing Phonological Patterns of Young Children With Highly Unintelligible Speech Barbara Williams HodsonPhD, CCC-SLP Barbara Williams Hodson Google Scholar More articles by this author , PhD, CCC-SLP https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR2.16042011.16 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2011/110405/Enhancing-Phonological-Patterns-of-Young-Children-With-Highly-Unintelligible-Speech.htm Young clients with speech-sound deviations comprise the largest group of children receiving speech-language services (see Table A [PDF] online; ASHA, 2010). Practicing speech-language pathologists often use the term “articulation” to refer to mild or moderate speech-sound disorders and either “phonology” or “apraxia” to refer to severe or profound issues. The umbrella term preferred by ASHA, however, is “speech-sound disorders” (Bernthal, Bankson, & Flipsen, 2009). Major Early Contributions The earliest published comprehensive method for working with children with speech-sound disorders was developed by Charles Van Riper (1939). Although there have been many adaptations (e.g., behaviorism overlay) from his original work more than 70 years ago, it has survived the test of time and is still the foundation for the practice of most SLPs. This phoneme-oriented approach is considered adequate for children with mild speech-sound disorders (e.g., lisp), but has been found to require an incredible amount of time for children with highly unintelligible speech as they “perfect” one sound (or cognate pair) at a time. SLPs have reported that phoneme-oriented methods work well for a child who has two or three sounds in error, but a child who has a dozen or so missing sounds may take five or six years for each sound to reach a criterion (e.g., 90%) in each position of words, in phrases, in sentences, and in conversation. The landmark book, Phonological Disability in Children, by David Ingram (1976), provided a bridge between linguistic phonology and speech-sound disorders. His work helped SLPs look beyond individual phonemes to patterns of deviations, referred to as phonological “processes,” and paved the way for new phonologically based remediation principles and procedures as well as phonological assessment instruments. Intelligibility Considerations Bishop and Adams (1990) posited in their critical age hypothesis that children need to be intelligible by 5½ years of age or they are likely to have difficulty with decoding and spelling. Children with severe/profound speech-sound difficulties frequently demonstrate poorer phonological awareness skills than their typically developing peers, which, in turn, negatively affect literacy acquisition (Gillon, 2004). There is some urgency, therefore, for children to be intelligible before entering school. The method generally recommended for assessing intelligibility is to obtain a connected-speech sample of more than 100 words and have at least one unfamiliar listener write down words that can be understood, placing a dash for words that cannot be identified. The number of words understood is divided by the total number of words in the sample to obtain an intelligibility percentage. A guideline for expected intelligibility (originally proposed by Caplan and Gleason, 1988) can be calculated by dividing the child’s age in years by four and converting that number into a percentage: 2-year-old: 50% 3-year-old: 75% 4-year-old: 100% Thus a 4-year-old who is 50% intelligible is considered to be “delayed” by two years. Intelligibility is a much more meaningful measure for young children than are phoneme acquisition normative data, which vary greatly from study to study (see Smit, 1986, for a review of some of the issues related to phoneme acquisition norms). Because different school districts in the United States use different sets of norms, a child may qualify for speech-language services in one school district but may not qualify in another. Expediting Intelligibility Gains In 1975, we (graduate students and author) began an experimental phonology clinic at the University of Illinois (see Hodson, 2010) that accepted only children with highly unintelligible speech (intelligibility generally between 0% and 15% in spontaneous speech samples at the onset of treatment). In the first three years, as hypotheses were formulated and tested, we made drastic changes. For example, it soon became apparent that targeting word-initial singleton /f/ or /s/ first was a mistake for children who substituted stops for stridents and also reduced /s/ clusters. As we experimented with targeting /s/ clusters before singleton stridents for these children, they achieved major gains in intelligibility. Moreover, most of the children generalized to singleton stridents, eliminating the need to target them. During this period, we explored the concept of focusing on phonological patterns (e.g., final consonants, /s/ clusters), with phonemes serving as a means to an end rather than the end goal (e.g., 90% mastery of phonemes, one at a time). We also found that the emphasis on “counting and charting errors” was counterproductive for these young clients with highly unintelligible speech. Instead, our goal was for the child to produce the specified target pattern 100% correctly in carefully selected production-practice words, incorporating “assists” (e.g., tactile cues, amplification) as needed, and phasing out the assists as the child gained facility in producing the target. Every time children continued making the error in their production-practice words, they were reinforcing the inaccurate kinesthetic image. Thus, it is critical that the child be “stimulable” and capable of producing the target sound (usually with assistance at first) in order to develop the new accurate kinesthetic image. We would, of course, “stimulate” nonstimulable sounds (e.g., /k/) for a few minutes during each session (i.e., teach stimulability) and then target these as soon as the child could actually produce them. We also explored targeting phonological patterns via cycles (time periods varying from five to 16 hours, depending on the number of patterns that needed to be targeted and also stimulability). Typically a phoneme (or consonant cluster) is targeted one hour per week (i.e., one 60-minute session, two 30-minute sessions, or three 20-minute sessions), with each pattern typically being targeted from two to five hours per cycle. We also realized that phonological patterns needed to be divided into primary (those targeted first and then recycled as needed until they began emerging in conversational speech) and secondary patterns (see Tables 1 [PDF] and 2 [PDF]). It is important to note that complexity is increased gradually so that the client is optimally challenged but successful from the beginning of treatment. Most young children in our phonology clinics (Wichita State University, San Diego State University, University of Illinois) were judged to be essentially intelligible within three to four cycles (i.e., approximately 30 to 40 contact hours) and simultaneously demonstrated vastly improved phonological systems. Underlying Concepts, Theoretical Underpinnings The approach that has emerged from this research—the cycles approach to phonological remediation—is based on developmental phonology theories and cognitive psychology principles as well as on ongoing clinical phonology research. The cycles approach most closely aligns with the gestural phonology theory (Browman & Goldstein, 1986). A basic tenet of gestural phonology is that phonological representation is based on speech perception as well as on “speech production physical constraints.” Seven underlying concepts serve as the basis for the cycles approach (Hodson, 2007; Hodson & Paden, 1991). Phonological acquisition is a gradual process (Ingram, 1976). Children typically do not learn each sound to a 90% criterion and then learn the next sound to a criterion. There is considerable vacillation and experimentation on the part of typically developing young children (Dyson, 1988). This principle is the major reason for the cycles approach, which enhances phonological patterns in a sequential manner, and then recycles patterns as needed until the patterns begin carrying over into conversation. Children with normal hearing typically acquire the adult sound system primarily by listening (Van Riper, 1939). Most parents do not tell children where to place their tongues. Children need optimal hearing and adequate perceptual skills during their early speech-learning years (Shiller, Rvachew, & Brosseau-Lapre, 2010). Children associate kinesthetic and auditory sensations as they acquire new phonological patterns, enabling later self-monitoring (Fairbanks, 1954). We incorporate production practice to help children learn new accurate kinesthetic images. When we imitate children’s error productions, they usually tell us that we are wrong—but then repeat their error productions because they rely on inaccurate kinesthetic images and fail to perceive their own errors. We also incorporate slight amplification during a listening activity at the beginning and end of each session to help children learn to perceive differences between errors and desired productions. Phonetic environment can facilitate (or inhibit) correct sound productions (Kent, 1982). Production-practice words must be chosen with extreme care during beginning cycles. Words with phonemes at the same place of articulation as the error should be avoided until later cycles (e.g., “cat” is inappropriate at first for a child who demonstrates velar fronting because of alveolar assimilation effects). Children tend to generalize new speech production skills to other targets (McReynolds & Bennett, 1972). We know that children generalize (and sometimes overgeneralize). The key is to target optimal patterns to facilitate generalization and increase intelligibility and then proceed on to other patterns, with a period of rest for a pattern before recycling it. An optimal match facilitates a child’s learning (Hunt, 1961). Phonological analysis determines the child’s match (e.g., Hodson, 2003, 2004) so that treatment can begin one “step” above the child’s current functioning level, resulting in the child being optimally challenged but also successful from the beginning of treatment. Children are actively involved in their phonological acquisition. This principle is important for children with speech-sound disorders as well as for typically developing children. Young children need to be actively engaged participants rather than passive imitators. Phonological Remediation The structure described below has been used successfully in schools, hospitals, clinics, and private practice. The child reviews production-practice picture cards from the previous session. These cards are then set aside (and may be used again along with new, more complex words during a later cycle, depending on whether the phonological pattern needs to be recycled). The SLP then reads a list of approximately 20 words that contain the new target pattern for the week. The child is to listen attentively, but must not repeat these words. Slight amplification is provided during this 30-second listening activity. The child participates in experiential-play production-practice motivational activities (e.g., bowling, flashlight game), naming pictures and objects of four or five carefully selected target words with the week’s pattern before taking a turn in the activity. The SLP changes activities every eight to 10 minutes. Many of these activities are repeated during ensuing weeks. A metaphonology activity is incorporated (e.g., rhyming, segmentation) to enhance the child’s phonological awareness skills. The SLP probes for the optimal phoneme target for the next week (within the phonological pattern designated from phonological assessment results). For example, if the current pattern is /s/ clusters, the clinician models words with various /s/ clusters (e.g., spot, store, snow). The cluster that the child produces most successfully becomes the target for the ensuing week. The listening list from the beginning of the session is read to the child again with slight amplification. Parents receive the listening list and the production-practice picture cards and are asked to provide two minutes of home practice every day. Adaptations for Toddlers Most of the 2-year-olds referred to our clinic are not willing to participate in regular production-practice activities. Some are nonverbal; others are unwilling to name pictures or imitate words. These children participate in a cycle (typically a semester) of focused auditory input/stimulation for the primary patterns. The SLP fills the room with objects and activities for a primary pattern phoneme. For example, objects and tasks for final /p/ (e.g., mop, top, tape, rope, hop, up, cup, nap, pup, peep) are incorporated to stimulate awareness of final consonants. The child participates in the play activities but is not asked to name words during this cycle. The parents receive a list of words (with the week’s target pattern) to read to the child each night, but they do not ask the child to say words at this time. These adaptations provide a great foundation and the child readily moves to production practice during the next cycle. Evidence Considerations and Research Needs There is consensus among SLPs that treatments for speech-sound disorders are successful. Baker and McLeod (2010) used the levels-of-evidence system selected by ASHA (adapted from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network) to review 134 studies. One of their observations was that comparative studies are generally lacking. A great need exists for a large, well-designed controlled experimental study comparing outcomes of various interventions for children with highly unintelligible speech. The number of participants in each treatment group needs to be large because of the heterogeneity of clients with speech-sound disorders (e.g., Harbers, Paden, & Halle, 1999). Ideally, this study should be conducted by investigators independent of the individuals who created these approaches to minimize actual bias or even the appearance of bias. It is critical, however, that the approach creators be consultants for purposes of fidelity. There also is a need for more advocacy so that treatment protocols that optimize outcomes—rather than top-down factors such as scheduling issues—determine intervention approaches. Reference Almost D., & Rosenbaum P. (1998). Effectiveness of speech intervention for phonological disorders: A randomized controlled trial.Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 40, 319–325. Google Scholar American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010). Schools survey report: SLP caseload characteristics trends 1995-2010. Retrieved Aug. 2, 2010, fromwww.asha.org/uploadedFiles/Schools10CaseloadTrends.pdf [PDF]. Google Scholar Baker E., Carrigg B., & Linich A. (2007). What’s the evidence for...? The cycles approach to phonological intervention.Acquiring Knowledge in Speech, Language, and Hearing, 9, 29–31. Google Scholar Baker E., & McLeod S. (2010). Evidence-based practice for children with speech sound disorders: Part I Narrative review.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools (Papers in Press, published online Sept. 15, 2010). Google Scholar Baker E., & McLeod S. (2010). Evidence-based practice for children with speech sound disorders: Part 2 Application to clinical practice.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools(Papers in Press, published online Sept. 15, 2010). Google Scholar Bernthal J., Bankson N., & Flipsen P. (2009). Articulation and phonological disorders: Speech sound disorders in children (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Google Scholar Bird J., Bishop D., & Freeman N. (1995). Phonological Awareness and literacy development in children with expressive phonological impairment.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 446–462. LinkGoogle Scholar Bishop D., & Adams C. (1990). A prospective study of the relationship between specific language impairment, phonological disorders, and reading retardation.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, 1027–1050. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Bleile K. (2004). Manual of articulation and phonological disorders (2nd ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning. Google Scholar Bleile K. (2006). The late eight. San Diego: Plural. Google Scholar Bowen C. (2009). Children’s speech sound disorders.Chicester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar Browman C., & Goldstein L. (1986). Towards an articulatory phonology.Phonology Yearbook, 3, 219–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Buteau C., & Hodson B. (1989). Phonological remediation targets: Words and primary pictures for highly unintelligible children. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Google Scholar Clarke-Klein S., & Hodson B. (1995). A phonologically based analysis of misspellings by third graders with disordered-phonology histories.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 839–849. LinkGoogle Scholar Dodd B. (2007). Evidence-based practice and speech-language pathology: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 59, 118–129. Google Scholar Dyson A. T. (1988). Phonetic inventories of 2- and 3-year-old children.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 89–93. LinkGoogle Scholar Fairbanks G. (1954). Systematic research in experimental phonetics: A theory of the speech mechanism as a servosystem.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 19, 133–139. LinkGoogle Scholar Fey M. (1992). Clinical forum: Phonological assessment and treatment articulation and phonology: An Addendum.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 277–282. Google Scholar Flipsen P. (2006). Measuring the intelligibility of conversational speech in children.Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 20, 303–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Gillon G. (2004). Phonological awareness: From research to practice. New York: Guilford. Google Scholar Gordon-Brannan M., & Hodson B. (2000). Severity/intelligibility measures of prekindergartners’ speech.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 141–150. LinkGoogle Scholar Gordon-Brannan M., Hodson B., & Wynne M. (1992). Remediating unintelligible utterances of a child with a mild hearing loss.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1, 28–38. LinkGoogle Scholar Harbers H., Paden E., & Halle J. (1999). Phonological awareness and production: Changes during intervention.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 50–60. LinkGoogle Scholar Hodson B. (1992). Applied phonology: Constructs, contributions, and issues.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 247–253. LinkGoogle Scholar Hodson B. (1994). Determining intervention priorities for preschoolers with disordered phonologies: Expediting intelligibility gains.Children’s phonology disorders: Pathways and patterns (pp. 65–87). Rockville, MD: ASHA. Google Scholar Hodson B. (1997). Disordered phonologies: What have we learned about assessment and treatment.Hodson B. & Edwards M. (Eds.). Perspectives in applied phonology (pp. 197–224). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. Google Scholar Hodson B. (2003). Hodson Computerized Analysis of Phonological Patterns. Wichita, KS: PhonoComp Publishers. Google Scholar Hodson B. (2004). Hodson Assessment of Phonological Patterns, 3rd ed., Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Google Scholar Hodson B. (2005). Enhancing phonological and metaphonological skills of children with highly unintelligible speech. Rockville, MD: ASHA Master Clinician Series Video. Google Scholar Hodson B. (2007). Evaluating and enhancing children’s phonological systems: Research and theory to practice. Wichita, KS: Phonocomp Publishers. Google Scholar Hodson B. (2010). The joy of touching lives. TheASHA Leader.www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2010/100921/First-Person-100921.htm. Google Scholar Hodson B., Chin L., Redmond B., & Simpson R. (1983). Phonological evaluation and remediation of speech deviations of a child with a repaired cleft palate.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 48, 93–98. LinkGoogle Scholar Hodson B., & Edwards (Eds.) (1997). Perspectives in applied phonology.Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. Google Scholar Hodson B., & Paden E. (1981). Phonological processes which characterize unintelligible and intelligible speech in early childhood.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 369–373. LinkGoogle Scholar Hodson B., & Paden E. (1983). Targeting intelligible speech: A phonological approach to remediation. San Diego: College-Hill. Google Scholar Hodson B., & Paden E. (1991). Targeting intelligible speech: A phonological approach to remediation. Austin, TX: ProEd. Google Scholar Hodson B., Scherz J., & Strattman K. (2002). Evaluating communicative abilities of a highlyunintelligible preschooler.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 236–242. LinkGoogle Scholar Hodson B., & Strattman K. (2004). Phonological awareness intervention for children with expressive phonological impairments.In Kent R. (Ed.). The MIT Encyclopedia of Communication Disorders, 153–156, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar Ingram D. (1976). Phonological disability in children. London: Edward Arnold. Google Scholar Kent R. (1982). Contextual facilitation of correct sound production.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 13, 66–76. LinkGoogle Scholar Kent R. (2006). Evidence-based practice in communication disorder: progress not perfection.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 268–270. Google Scholar Larivee L., & Catts H. (1999). Early reading achievement in children with expressive phonological disorders.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 137–148. Google Scholar Lof G. (2010). Science-based practice and the speech-language pathologist.International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1–8. Google Scholar Magnus L., Hodson B., Schommer-Aikins M. (2011). Relationships of Speech-Related and Nonspeech Variables to Speech Intelligibility of Children with Palatal and Lip Anomalies.Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 35, 32–39. Google Scholar McCauley R., Strand E., Lof G., Schooling T., & Frymark T. (2009). Evidence-based systematic review: Effects of non-speech oral motor exercises on speech.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18, 343–360. LinkGoogle Scholar McReynolds L.V., & Bennett S. (1972). Distinctive feature generalization in articulation training.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 37, 462–470. LinkGoogle Scholar Nathan L., Stackhouse J., Goulandris N., & Snowling M. (2004). The development of early literacy skills among children with speech difficulties.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 377–391. LinkGoogle Scholar Porter J., & Hodson B. (2001). Collaborating to obtain phonological acquisitiondata for local schools.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 165–171. Google Scholar Preisser D., Hodson B., & Paden E. (1988). Developmental Phonology: 18-29 months.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 125–130. LinkGoogle Scholar Prezas R., & Hodson B. (2007). Diagnostic evaluation of children with speech sound disorders.In Rvachew S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and literacy development [online], pp. 1–7. London, Ontario: Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network [www.literacyencyclopedia.ca]. Google Scholar Rvachew S., & Bernhardt B. (2010). Clinical implications of dynamic systems theory for phonological development.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 34–50. LinkGoogle Scholar Rvachew S., & Brosseau-Lapre F. (in press). Developmental phonological disorders: Foundations of clinical practice. San Diego: Plural. Google Scholar Rvachew S., & Nowak M. (2001). The effect of target–selection strategy on phonological learning.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 610–623. LinkGoogle Scholar Ruscello D. (2008). Treating articulation and phonological disorders in children. St. Louis: Mosby. Google Scholar Secord W., Boyce S., Donahue J., Fox R., & Shine R.Eliciting sounds: Techniques and strategies for clinicians, 2nd ed. Greenville, SC: Super Duper. Google Scholar Stackhouse J., & Wells B. (1997). Children’s speech and literacy difficulties. London: Whurr. Google Scholar Stanovich K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar VanRiper C. (1939). Speech correction: Principles and methods. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar Williams A., McLeod S., & McCauley R. (Eds.) (2010). Interventions for speech sound disorders in children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar Author Notes is a professor in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at Wichita State University. Her research interests include clinical phonology and metaphonology, Spanish phonology, and early literacy. Contact her at [email protected]. Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetailsCited ByJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research64:10 (3769-3785)4 Oct 2021Application of the Challenge Point Framework During Treatment of Speech Sound DisordersTanya Matthews, Alexandra Barbeau-Morrison and Susan RvachewAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology23:2 (176-185)1 May 2014Phonological Assessment and Analysis of Bilingual Preschoolers' Spanish and English Word ProductionsRaúl Francisco Prezas, Barbara Williams Hodson and Marlene Schommer-AikinsPerspectives on Language Learning and Education19:1 (31-35)1 Jan 2012An Input-Focused Intervention for Children With Developmental Phonological DisordersSusan Rvachew and Françoise Brosseau-Lapré Volume 16Issue 4April 2011 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Apr 1, 2011 Metrics Downloaded 16,827 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2011 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ..." @default.
• W796211541 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W796211541 creator A5030772474 @default.
• W796211541 date "2011-04-01" @default.
• W796211541 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W796211541 title "Enhancing Phonological Patterns of Young Children With Highly Unintelligible Speech" @default.
• W796211541 cites W153497194 @default.
• W796211541 cites W1660465792 @default.
• W796211541 cites W1968597813 @default.
• W796211541 cites W1972045892 @default.
• W796211541 cites W1978548353 @default.
• W796211541 cites W1988212471 @default.
• W796211541 cites W1994012546 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2012281070 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2013088851 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2015366056 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2021760129 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2026040019 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2040315727 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2049826494 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2053696084 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2054339239 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2057735592 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2059845705 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2060961244 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2065976967 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2075314701 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2084878082 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2091288983 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2093409785 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2107425573 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2170587460 @default.
• W796211541 cites W2502493513 @default.
• W796211541 doi "https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.ftr2.16042011.16" @default.
• W796211541 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W796211541 type Work @default.
• W796211541 sameAs 796211541 @default.
• W796211541 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W796211541 countsByYear W7962115412012 @default.
• W796211541 countsByYear W7962115412014 @default.
• W796211541 countsByYear W7962115412015 @default.
• W796211541 countsByYear W7962115412021 @default.
• W796211541 countsByYear W7962115412022 @default.
• W796211541 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W796211541 hasAuthorship W796211541A5030772474 @default.
• W796211541 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W796211541 hasConcept C548259974 @default.
• W796211541 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W796211541 hasConceptScore W796211541C15744967 @default.
• W796211541 hasConceptScore W796211541C548259974 @default.
• W796211541 hasConceptScore W796211541C71924100 @default.
• W796211541 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W796211541 hasLocation W7962115411 @default.
• W796211541 hasOpenAccess W796211541 @default.
• W796211541 hasPrimaryLocation W7962115411 @default.
• W796211541 hasRelatedWork W1710126152 @default.
• W796211541 hasRelatedWork W2053487507 @default.
• W796211541 hasRelatedWork W2077865380 @default.
• W796211541 hasRelatedWork W2134894512 @default.
• W796211541 hasRelatedWork W2138503431 @default.
• W796211541 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W796211541 hasRelatedWork W2765597752 @default.
• W796211541 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W796211541 hasRelatedWork W2931662336 @default.
• W796211541 hasRelatedWork W3049356719 @default.
• W796211541 hasVolume "16" @default.
• W796211541 isParatext "false" @default.
• W796211541 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W796211541 magId "796211541" @default.
• W796211541 workType "article" @default.