[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15248-15254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-8135]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION


Social Security Ruling, SSR 98-1p; Title XVI: Determining Medical 
Equivalence in Childhood Disability Claims When a Child Has Marked 
Limitations in Cognition and Speech

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of 
Social Security gives notice of Social Security Ruling, SSR 98-1p. This 
Ruling results from the ``top-to-bottom'' review of the implementation 
of changes to the Supplemental Security Income childhood disability 
program necessitated by the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-193). It provides a 
policy interpretation that children who have a ``marked'' limitation in 
cognitive functioning and a ``marked'' limitation in speech have an 
impairment or combination of impairments that medically equals Listing 
2.09. It also provides guidance for determining when a child has a 
``marked'' or an ``extreme'' limitation in each of these areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 30, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Nibali, Social Security 
Administration,

[[Page 15249]]

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD, 21235, (410) 965-1250.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although we are not required to do so 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are publishing this 
Social Security Ruling in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
    Social Security rulings make available to the public precedential 
decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, 
supplemental security income, and black lung benefits programs. Social 
Security Rulings may be based on case decisions made at all 
administrative levels of adjudication, Federal court decisions, 
Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General 
counsel, and policy interpretations of the law and regulations.
    Although Social Security Rulings do not have the same force and 
effect as the statute or regulations, they are binding on all 
components of the Social Security Administration, in accordance with 20 
CFR 402.35(b)(1), and are to be relied upon as precedents in 
adjudicating cases.
    If this Social Security Ruling is later superseded, modified, or 
rescinded, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register to that 
effect.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Program 96.006 Supplemental 
Security Income)

    Dated: March 19, 1998.
Kenneth S. Apfel,
Commissioner of Social Security.

Policy Interpretation Ruling--Title XVI: Determining Medical 
Equivalence in Childhood Disability Claims When a Child Has Marked 
Limitations in Cognition and Speech

    Purpose: To provide a policy interpretation that children who have 
a ``marked'' limitation in cognitive functioning and a ``marked'' 
limitation in speech have an impairment or combination of impairments 
that medically equals Listing 2.09. Also, to provide guidance for 
determining when a child has a ``marked'' or an ``extreme'' limitation 
in each of these areas.
    Citations (Authority): Section 1614(a) of the Social Security Act, 
as amended; Regulations No. 16, subpart I, sections 416.902, 416.923, 
416.924, 416.925, 416.926; Regulations No. 4, subpart P, appendix 1--
Listing of Impairments.
    Background: On December 17, 1997, the Commissioner of Social 
Security issued the Review of SSA's Implementation of New SSI Childhood 
Disability Legislation (Pub. No. 64-070), a report of a ``top-to-
bottom'' review of the implementation of changes to the Supplemental 
Security Income (SSI) childhood disability program necessitated by the 
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 
(Pub. L. 104-193).
    As a result of the review, the Commissioner directed additional 
instruction on the evaluation of a combination of cognitive and speech 
disorders that separates speech disorders from cognitive disorders. 
Among other things, the Commissioner directed the issuance of a Ruling 
on the evaluation of speech disorders in combination with cognitive 
limitations. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This Ruling addresses evaluation of speech disorders in 
combination with cognitive limitations. It does not address 
evaluation of receptive or expressive language disorders, which can 
also result in disability. In addition, this Ruling does not address 
evaluation of the area of Cognition/Communication under the broad 
areas of functioning of the functional equivalence provision, as 
discussed in 20 CFR 416.926a(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Introduction: The regulations at 20 CFR 416.906 explain that, for 
children claiming SSI benefits under the Social Security Act (the Act), 
an impairment or combination of impairments must cause ``marked and 
severe functional limitations'' in order to be found disabling. The 
regulations at 20 CFR 416.902 provide that ``marked and severe 
functional limitations,'' when used as a phrase, is a level of severity 
that meets, medically equals, or functionally equals the severity of a 
listing in the Listing of Impairments, appendix 1 of subpart P of 20 
CFR part 404 (the listings).
    The regulations at 20 CFR 416.925(b)(2) explain that, in general, a 
child's impairment or combination of impairments is ``of listing-level 
severity'' if it causes marked limitation in two broad areas of 
functioning or extreme limitation in one such area.
    The regulations at 20 CFR 416.926 explain that we will decide that 
a child's impairment or combination of impairments is medically 
equivalent to a listed impairment if the medical findings are at least 
equal in severity and duration to the listed findings. We will compare 
the signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings concerning the child's 
impairment or combination of impairments, as shown in the medical 
evidence we have about the claim, with the corresponding medical 
criteria shown for any listed impairment.
    In particular, the regulations at 20 CFR 416.926(a)(2) provide 
that, if a child has an impairment that is not described in the 
listings, or a combination of impairments, no one of which meets or is 
medically equivalent to a listing, we will compare the child's medical 
findings with those for closely analogous listed impairments. If the 
medical findings related to the child's impairment or combination of 
impairments are at least of equal medical significance to those of a 
listed impairment, we will find that the child's combination of 
impairments is medically equivalent to the analogous listing.

Policy Interpretation

I. Need To Establish a Medically Determinable Impairment

    Section 1614(a)(3)(C)(i) of the Act and 20 CFR 416.906 provide that 
a child's disability must result from a medically determinable physical 
or mental impairment. Section 1614(a)(3)(D) of the Act and 20 CFR 
416.908 further provide that the physical or mental impairment must 
result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities 
which can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory 
diagnostic techniques. A physical or mental impairment must be 
established by medical evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and 
laboratory findings.
    The discussions in this Ruling address the evaluation of the 
severity of impairments affecting speech and cognition. They presume 
that the existence of such medically determinable impairments has 
already been established.

II. Terms and Definitions

    A. Cognition involves the ability to learn, understand, and solve 
problems through intuition, perception, auditory and visual sequencing, 
verbal and nonverbal reasoning, and the application of acquired 
knowledge. It also involves the ability to retain and recall 
information, images, events, and procedures during the process of 
thinking. There are many impairments that can cause limitations in 
cognition, such as genetic disorders or brain injury.
    B. Speech is the production of sounds (phonemes) in a smooth and 
rhythmic fashion for the purposes of oral communication. It includes 
articulation, voice (pitch, volume, quality), and fluency (the flow, or 
rate and rhythm, of speech). Understandable speech results from precise 
neuromuscular functioning of the speech mechanism (e.g., lips, tongue, 
hard palate, vocal folds, respiratory mechanism), and intact structure 
and functioning of the speech centers in the brain.
    There are many impairments that can cause limitations in speech, 
such as brain lesions or cortical injury resulting

[[Page 15250]]

in apraxia; other neurological abnormalities, such as cerebral palsy 
producing dysarthria; or structural abnormalities, such as cleft palate 
producing hypernasality. Speech differs from language (receptive and 
expressive). Speech is the production of sounds for purposes of oral 
communication; language provides the message of the communication, and 
involves the use of semantics (e.g., vocabulary), syntax (e.g., 
grammar), and pragmatics (i.e., use of language in its social context) 
in the understanding and expression of messages.

III. Limitations in Cognition and Speech

    A. Mental Retardation and Speech Impairment. In the childhood 
disability program, children who have a valid diagnosis of mental 
retardation (``significantly subaverage general intellectual 
functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning'') have, by 
definition, at least a ``marked'' cognitive limitation. However, a 
child may have a marked limitation in cognitive functioning without 
being diagnosed with mental retardation. (See B.)
    Listing 112.05 is used to evaluate mental retardation, which is 
demonstrated by significantly subaverage general intellectual 
functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning. A child's impairment 
meets Listing 112.05D or 112.05F when the child has a diagnosis of mild 
mental retardation and a physical or other mental impairment imposing 
``additional and significant limitation of function'' [i.e., more than 
minimal limitation of function]. In these listings, the significantly 
subaverage general intellectual functioning needed to establish that 
component of the diagnosis of mild mental retardation is shown by a 
valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70 (under 
Listing 112.05D) or ``marked'' limitation in the area of cognition/
communication (under Listing 112.05F, by reference to Listing 112.02B1b 
or 112.02B2a). Of course, mild mental retardation may be sufficiently 
severe in itself to meet the criteria of Listing 112.05 A or E. More 
impairing cases of mental retardation (i.e., moderate, severe, or 
profound) will meet the criteria of Listing 112.05 B or C.
    A speech impairment may satisfy the criterion for a physical or 
other mental impairment imposing ``additional and significant 
limitation of function'' under Listings 112.05D and 112.05F when it 
causes more than minimal limitation of function. To satisfy this 
criterion, a child's problems in speech must be separate from his/her 
mild mental retardation.
     A child with mild mental retardation may have speech 
problems resulting from an impairment of known etiology that is clearly 
separate from the mental retardation; e.g., a congenital disorder (as 
with a congenital brain injury, or a cleft palate resulting in 
hypernasality) or an acquired disorder (as in a child who already has 
mental retardation and who suffers a traumatic head injury resulting in 
a neurological or physical problem affecting the ability to produce 
speech sounds).
     A child with mental retardation may also have speech 
problems resulting from an impairment of unknown etiology that 
nevertheless is clearly separate from the mental retardation; e.g., 
poorly intelligible speech of unknown etiology.
    It is possible for a child with mental retardation to have 
limitations in speech that do not constitute an impairment separate 
from the mental retardation. In a child with mental retardation, speech 
development is often commensurate with the level of cognitive 
functioning. Therefore, in the absence of an impairment of speech that 
is separate from the child's mental retardation, a speech pattern that 
has been and continues to be consistent with the child's general 
intellectual functioning is not regarded as separate from the mental 
retardation and will not be found to satisfy the criterion in Listings 
112.05D and 112.05F for a physical or other mental impairment imposing 
additional and significant limitation of function.
    On the other hand, if a child's speech development is not even 
commensurate with his/her general intellectual functioning (i.e., is 
significantly below that which would be expected given the level of 
cognitive functioning), then the limitations in speech would be 
regarded as an impairment separate from the mental retardation that 
would satisfy the criterion in Listings 112.05D and 112.05F for a 
physical or other mental impairment imposing additional and significant 
limitation of function.
    B. ``Marked'' Limitations in Cognition and Speech. A child whose 
impairment does not meet the capsule definition of mental retardation 
in Listing 112.05 may nevertheless have a marked limitation in 
cognitive functioning. When such a child also has an impairment that 
causes a ``marked'' limitation in speech (see Table 1 and Section VI), 
the combination of limitations in cognition and speech will be found 
medically equivalent to Listing 2.09 in part A of the 
listings.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In general, part A of the listings contains medical criteria 
that apply to persons age 18 and over; part B contains medical 
criteria that apply to persons under age 18. However, the medical 
criteria in part A may also be applied in evaluating impairments in 
persons under age 18 if the disease processes have a similar effect 
on adults and younger persons, as in Listing 2.09. See 20 CFR 
416.925(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This policy interpretation regarding the evaluation of a 
combination of cognition and speech impairments is an exception to the 
guidance in listings section 2.00B3. That section explains that 
impairments of speech due to neurologic disorders should be evaluated 
under 11.00-11.19, the neurological listings generally used to evaluate 
impairments in individuals age 18 or older. For the purposes of this 
Ruling only, however, neither the neurological listings in 11.00-11.19, 
nor those in 111.00 for individuals who have not attained age 18 will 
be used; only Listing 2.09 will be employed.
    C. ``Extreme'' Limitations in Cognition and Speech. An 
impairment(s) that causes an ``extreme'' limitation in cognition or in 
speech is always of listing-level severity and, thus, will always meet 
or equal the severity of a listing.
    1. Cognition. The vast majority of children with ``extreme'' 
limitations in cognition will have mental retardation and will have an 
impairment that meets one of the listings in 112.05. Very infrequently, 
however, a child with an IQ in the ``extreme'' range will not have the 
deficits in adaptive functioning needed to establish the diagnosis of 
mental retardation. In these rare instances, the validity of the IQ and 
the assessment of adaptive functioning should be verified. If both 
appear accurate and a diagnosis of mental retardation is not 
supportable, the child's impairment will nevertheless medically equal 
the criteria of a childhood mental disorders listing; e.g., Listing 
112.02.
    2. Speech. Listing 2.09 recognizes disability on the basis of an 
``[o]rganic loss of speech due to any cause with inability to produce 
by any means speech which can be heard, understood, and sustained.'' 
This listing applies to children as well as adults, and describes the 
most extreme limitation of speech. However, children with less serious 
limitations of speech than are described in Listing 2.09 may still have 
an ``extreme'' limitation, as noted in Table 1, and, therefore, may 
also have impairments that meet or equal the requirements of a listing.

IV. Documenting Limitations in Cognition and Speech

    A. Documentation of Severity. 1. Evidence of the severity of 
cognitive

[[Page 15251]]

limitation should generally include the results of psychological 
testing, with subtest scores, and the psychologist's interpretation of 
the results, including his/her conclusion regarding the validity of the 
testing. The psychological test scores must also be sufficiently 
current for accurate assessment.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The interpretation of the psychological testing is primarily 
the responsibility of the psychologist or other professional who 
administered the test. When an appropriate medical professional has 
provided test results that meet the standards in SSA regulations 
(e.g., that are consistent with the other evidence in the case 
record, or that note and resolve discrepancies between the test 
results and the child's customary behavior and daily activities), 
the adjudicator will ordinarily accept the results, unless 
contradictory evidence in the case record establishes that the 
results are incorrect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Evidence of the severity of cognitive limitation should also 
include information about learning achievement (e.g., test scores, 
school performance records) and descriptions (from medical and lay 
sources) of the child's ability to do age-appropriate, cognitively 
related tasks and activities at home and school.
    2. Evidence of the severity of speech limitation should generally 
include the results of a comprehensive examination of the child's 
speech (articulation, voice, fluency), and descriptions of the child's 
speech in daily circumstances (e.g., the sounds a child produces, the 
percentage of intelligibility of the child's speech). These 
descriptions come from persons who have opportunities to listen to the 
child; i.e., both lay and professional sources (see Section VI.C.). The 
evidence must be sufficient and recent enough to permit a judgment 
about the child's current level of functioning. In some instances, it 
may be necessary to obtain a consultative examination in order to 
assure recency of the evidence.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The same principles apply here as for psychological testing. 
When an appropriate medical professional has provided test results 
that would meet SSA standards (e.g., that are consistent with the 
other evidence in the case record, or that note and resolve 
discrepancies between the test results and the child's customary 
behavior and daily activities), the adjudicator will ordinarily 
accept the results, unless contradictory evidence in the case record 
establishes that the results are incorrect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Sources of Evidence. Evidence of a child's cognitive functioning 
and speech may be available from various sources. For example, if a 
child is receiving special education services, the school should be 
able to provide records of testing, clinical observations, and 
classroom performance. Examples of some sources include the following.
    1. Multidisciplinary teams. Children being assessed for possible 
developmental problems are evaluated by a multidisciplinary team that 
may include a psychologist, physician, speech-language pathologist, 
audiologist, special educator, teacher, and other related specialists 
as needed; information concerning the child's cognitive abilities and 
speech should be available from the team's comprehensive report(s). The 
remediation plans for infants and toddlers (birth to age 3) are 
reviewed every 6 months. School-aged children in the public school 
system should be reassessed at least every 3 years.
    2. Comprehensive evaluations. A child with documented problems in 
cognition and speech who is already receiving special education 
services must have had a comprehensive evaluation prior to receiving 
such services. That evaluation should include results of formal testing 
and clinical observations.
    3. Individualized plans. Children who are cognitively limited, 
speech-impaired, or limited in both areas, may receive special 
education services in Early Intervention Programs (infants and 
toddlers, from birth to age 3 years), or in school-based educational 
programs in preschool, kindergarten, elementary, and secondary school. 
Annual goals and objectives for such programs, as well as test results, 
are documented yearly in individualized plans of intervention: for 
infants and toddlers, in the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP); 
for children age 3 and older, in the Individualized Education Program 
(IEP).
    4. Speech-language progress notes. For any child receiving speech-
language special education services, the speech-language pathologist 
should have prepared periodic progress notes that document the child's 
current strengths and weaknesses.
    5. Other sources. Other potential sources of evidence of severity 
include reports from parents, daycare providers, social workers, case 
managers, teachers, treatment sources, or consultative examinations.

V. Rating Limitations in Cognition and Speech

    When the outcome of a disability determination depends on 
conclusions regarding a child's cognitive and speech limitations, 
experts in the fields of cognitive assessment and speech-language 
should participate in the evaluation of the claim whenever possible.
    A. Cognition. Marked cognitive limitation is usually identified 
under any of the following circumstances: 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The basic definitions of ``marked'' and ``extreme'' 
limitation are provided in 20 CFR 416.926a(c)(3). This Ruling 
provides further interpretation of the definitions of ``marked.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. When standardized intelligence tests provide a valid score that 
is 2 Standard Deviations (SDs) or more below the norm for the test (but 
less than 3 SDs), with appropriate consideration of the Standard Error 
of Measurement.
    2. In the absence of valid standardized scores, when a child from 
birth to attainment of age 3 has an impairment or combination of 
impairments that results in cognitive functioning at a level that is 
more than one-half but not more than two-thirds of the child's 
chronological age.
    3. When a child from age 3 to attainment of age 18 has an 
impairment or combination of impairments that causes ``more than 
moderate'' but ``less than extreme'' limitation in cognitive 
functioning; i.e., when the limitation interferes seriously with the 
child's cognitive functioning.
    A finding that a limitation in a child's cognitive abilities is 
``marked'' or ``extreme,'' or that it is less than ``marked,'' must be 
based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record.
    B. Speech. Marked limitation in speech will be evaluated under the 
guidelines in Table 1. Section VI explains how to use the table.

VI. Table 1: Guidelines for Evaluating the Severity of Speech 
Impairments

    A. General. 1. The guidelines for evaluating severity in Table 1 
use age groupings that do not correspond to the age ranges in 20 CFR 
416.926a and the childhood mental disorders listings but, rather, are 
related to the developmental progression of speech; e.g., the aspects 
of speech development that tend to occur between birth and age 2. The 
guidelines refer to errors that are not typical or expected for the 
particular age grouping; e.g., 2 to 3\1/2\ years. This principle of 
evaluation is based on the fact that speech development, like fine and 
gross motor development, is incremental and follows milestones as 
predictable as rolling over, crawling, and standing. The upper age 
category in Table 1 is age 5 and older because, by age 5, almost all 
sounds are mastered; however, the few age-appropriate sound errors 
still occurring after age 5 involve sounds (e.g., ``r,'' ``th'') that 
may not be completely refined until age 8. Thus, by age 8, a child 
should have a repertoire of sounds that is complete and accurate; by 
definition, any misarticulations beginning at age 8 are inappropriate.
    A child's speech patterns and misarticulations, and when these 
occur, can be indicative of whether a child's speech is developing, or 
has developed, appropriately.

[[Page 15252]]

    2. Table 1 is divided into three columns: Chronological Age or 
Cognitive Level, Marked Limitation, and Extreme Limitation. Once the 
appropriate category for chronological age or cognitive level is 
identified (see Section B), use the second and third columns to 
determine whether a child with a speech impairment has a ``marked'' or 
an ``extreme'' limitation in speech. The evaluation of the severity of 
the speech impairment should be based on evidence concerning:
     The sound production and intelligibility of the child's 
speech in relation to the listener and the topic of conversation (see 
Section C); and
     The child's speech patterns (see Section D).
    A finding that a limitation in speech is ``marked'' or ``extreme,'' 
or that it is less than ``marked,'' must be based on all of the 
relevant evidence in the case record.
    3. If the limitation in speech is ``marked'' and the child also has 
a ``marked'' limitation in cognition, or if the limitation is 
``extreme,'' consider the duration of the impairment (see Section E).
    4. Note on use of terms.
    a. The terms used in the Table 1 are typically found in reports of 
comprehensive speech-language evaluations. However, some reports may 
not use these terms or may use the terms differently than intended in 
the table. If the evidence does not use the descriptors employed in the 
table, or it is not clear how the terms are used, it may be necessary 
to contact the source to clarify the information.
    b. Terms such as ``poor,'' ``severe,'' ``mild,'' or ``marked'' may 
be used in the evidence to describe a child's functioning. These terms 
have different meaning to different people. Therefore, when such terms 
are not illustrated or explained by the evidence, it may be necessary 
to contact the source for an explanation of their meaning.
    B. Chronological Age and Cognitive Level. 1. Cognitive level is the 
level of a child's thinking. In many instances, cognitive and speech 
development are highly correlated, so that a child whose cognitive 
level is below chronological age will often have speech development 
that is appropriate to the cognitive level rather than the 
chronological age. Thus, although a child's speech patterns may not be 
appropriate from the perspective of his/her chronological age, they may 
be appropriate to his/her cognitive level. For example, a 4-year-old 
child's cognitive level may be that of a child in the age range 2 to 
3\1/2\ because of an impairment affecting cognitive functioning. Speech 
at the 2\1/2\-to-3-year level would be considered a function of 
(related to) the child's cognitive level.
    2. Use a child's chronological age for evaluation of severity:
    a. When the child is 8 years of age or older; or
    b. When the child is less than 8 years of age and the limitations 
in speech are the result of a congenital or acquired impairment of 
speech, either structural or neurological (e.g., cleft palate, 
dysarthria, apraxia of speech).
    3. Use a child's cognitive level for evaluation of severity in all 
other cases.
    4. Determining the cognitive level.
    a. The cognitive level may be determined from information in the 
case record; e.g., score from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 
Wechsler composite scores (verbal, performance, full scale), or 
Stanford-Binet score. Most children with ``marked'' limitation in 
cognitive functioning will have evidence of testing showing the 
cognitive level, or from which the cognitive level can be determined. 
Particularly in the case of young children, the cognitive level is 
frequently included along with test scores in evaluation reports. See 
Section IV.B. for a list of examples of sources of evidence.
    b. Developmental testing often addresses a child's progress in 
several areas, and developmental levels may be reported for cognition 
and at least one other area; e.g., motor or social functioning. For 
purposes of Table 1, use the level reported for the child's cognitive 
ability.
    c. If the cognitive level is not clearly indicated in the case 
record or cannot be determined from the evidence, it may be necessary 
to recontact a source who has already evaluated and provided evidence 
about the child or to purchase a consultative examination. If a 
language level based on the total language score is included in the 
case record, it may be used as a proxy for the cognitive level for 
children up to age 6. Whether additional information will be needed 
will depend on the facts of the case.
    C. Sound Production and Intelligibility. 1. Evidence of sound 
production and intelligibility.
    a. Ideally, to assess a child's sound production and the 
intelligibility of speech, descriptions are needed from at least two 
listeners, one lay and one professional. If there is a conflict in the 
evidence concerning the child's sound production or intelligibility, it 
may be necessary to obtain a third descriptive statement, preferably 
from an additional professional source who is familiar with the child.
    b. Listeners will either be familiar with the child (i.e., have 
listened to the child daily or frequently) or unfamiliar (i.e., have 
listened to the child infrequently). Familiar lay sources are people 
who know the child well, such as parents, relatives, and neighbors.
    c. A professional source is a person who has training and 
experience in evaluating a child's speech. Examples of professional 
sources may include, but are not limited to, speech-language 
pathologists, special education teachers, pediatric neurologists, 
pediatricians, and occupational therapists. A professional source may 
also be a familiar listener (e.g., a source who provides regular 
treatment) or an unfamiliar listener (e.g., a consulting examiner).
    2. Sound production refers to a young child's vocalizations (e.g., 
``cooing'') that gradually become more complex and develop into 
recognizable speech sounds. For example, beginning around 4 to 5 months 
of age, an infant engages in ``babbling,'' which consists of consonant-
vowel sequences (e.g., ``ba-ba''). Later, around 10 months of age, an 
infant begins ``jargoning,'' which is the production of strings of 
speech sounds having the intonational patterns of adult speech. The 
variety, pitch, and intensity, of a child's sounds at this stage of 
development are important factors in the assessment of a child's very 
early speech development. Eventually, the young child uses his/her 
repertoire of speech sounds to imitate and produce words; this 
repertoire should be complete by 8 years of age.
    3. Intelligibility (clarity) means the degree to which the child 
can be understood by the listener. To rate the intelligibility of a 
child's speech, a listener (regardless of whether a professional or a 
lay source) must be asked to provide information about how well the 
child can be understood, preferably in terms of a percentage (e.g., 50% 
of the time) or fraction (e.g., half the time).
    a. The expected degree of intelligibility increases with a child's 
age, with a typical rate of 50% intelligibility to family members at 2 
years of age, and almost full intelligibility to all listeners by 
attainment of 4 years of age.
    b. Intelligibility is also affected by the extent to which the 
listener is familiar with the child's speech and the topic of 
conversation.
     Ratings of intelligibility should be evaluated with 
respect to the familiarity of the listener with the child and the 
frequency of contact; however, see paragraph c.

[[Page 15253]]

     Consideration must also to be given to the familiarity of 
the listener with the topic (i.e., content) of the speech. When the 
child's speech is difficult to understand and the topic of the 
conversation is unknown or not familiar to the listener, the 
intelligibility of the message is reduced.
    c. Ratings of intelligibility by unfamiliar listeners for whom the 
topic of conversation is unknown assume increasingly greater importance 
as children age. Young children typically talk about what is 
immediately present in their environment, and listeners may be able to 
use external clues to understand such children's speech. As children 
age, however, the topics of their conversation should become less 
embedded in the immediate physical context (e.g., they talk about past 
or future events); the unfamiliar listener, therefore, has fewer clues 
available for understanding the child's speech. The older a child 
becomes, the more intelligible he/she needs to be in school and social 
situations and with infrequent listeners or strangers.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Although reference is made to the child's topic of 
conversation, which necessarily involves language, the issue being 
addressed here is the child's speech and its intelligibility in 
conversation; the topic of conversation is one of many variables 
that can affect the intelligibility of the child's speech for the 
listener.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. Speech Patterns. 1. Speech patterns refers to sounds, omissions, 
distortions, or phonological patterns, and the fluency, or rate and 
rhythm, of speech.
    2. Phonological patterns refers to the selection, sequence, 
combination, and placement of sounds that the rules of sound production 
comprise. A child's ``phonological development'' (the acquisition of 
sounds and understanding of their use) consists of learning these rules 
through instinctual experimentation and practice. For example, a child 
may use ``yedow'' for ``yellow,'' or ``ba-oon'' for ``balloon,'' until 
normal phonological development makes possible his/her use of the ``l'' 
sound in a word. A child's phonological patterns are appropriate if 
they are typical for his/her cognitive level; they are inappropriate if 
they are not typical for his/her cognitive level. Information about 
phonological patterns is included in speech-language evaluations.
    3. Misarticulations are incorrect productions of speech sounds, and 
may include various kinds of ``speech errors''; e.g., distortions (such 
as vowel distortions, lateralized ``s''), substitutions (such as 
lisping), or omissions of sounds. Such errors may occur in the 
beginning, middle, or end of words. As noted previously, certain 
misarticulations are appropriate because they are typical of various 
stages of phonological development. As a child grows older, certain 
misarticulations are not typical of his/her group and are, thus, 
inappropriate. The nature of the misarticulation and its placement in 
the word can affect the seriousness of the ``speech error'' and its 
effect on intelligibility. For example, the omission of consonant 
sounds at the beginning of many words can render much of a child's 
speech unintelligible.
    4. Dysfluent speech is a break in the rhythm and rate of speech. 
Children between ages 2\1/2\ and 4 may go through a period in which 
they produce ``normal dysfluencies.'' The pattern of a child's 
dysfluencies, and whether it is typical or atypical for the child's 
cognitive level, can be indicative of whether a child's speech is 
developing appropriately.
    5. Voice refers to the pitch, quality, and intensity of a child's 
voice. Aberrations in voice are not a function of the child's cognitive 
level and are usually atypical at any age.
    6. Sources of information. Information concerning a child's speech 
in relationship to his/her cognitive level must be provided by persons 
who are knowledgeable about the specific milestones of development of 
speech; e.g., which misarticulations are appropriate or inappropriate 
to the child's cognitive level. If a child is receiving treatment to 
remediate a speech impairment, the most likely source of this kind of 
information will be the speech-language pathologist. However, a 
preschool or special education teacher may also be able to provide the 
needed information, as might another health care specialist; e.g., 
developmental pediatrician, pediatric neurologist, occupational 
therapist, or a person otherwise qualified by training and experience.
    E. Duration. Children who exhibit serious speech difficulties will 
sometimes ``outgrow'' them. Some speech difficulties will respond to 
treatment more readily than others. Therefore, when it is determined 
that a child has a ``marked'' limitation in cognition together with a 
``marked'' limitation in speech that has not yet lasted at this level 
for 12 months, it will be necessary to determine whether the limitation 
in speech is expected to persist at the ``marked'' level for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months. The presence of any of the 
factors in Table 2 makes it less likely that the child will simply 
``outgrow'' the speech impairment, and more likely that a longer period 
of intervention will be required for remediation of the speech 
impairment.
    The presence of one of the factors in Table 2 will strongly suggest 
that an impairment has met or will meet the duration requirement. 
However, the converse is not necessarily true: A child's speech 
impairment may nevertheless still require extensive speech treatment 
for a long period of time even though none of the factors in Table 2 is 
present in the evidence. Whether the impairment has lasted or is 
expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months is 
a judgment that must be made based on the evidence particular to each 
case.

                       Table 1.--Guidelines For Evaluating Severity of Speech Impairments                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Chronological age or cognitive                                                                                
    level (see section VI.B.)                 Marked limitation                      Extreme limitation         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birth to attainment of 2 years...  a. Sound production other than crying   a. A criterion for Marked Limitation 
                                    (e.g., cooing, babbling, jargoning)     is met, and                         
                                    occurs infrequently; child is          b. Consonant-vowel repertoire is not 
                                    unusually quiet; or                     sufficient to support the           
                                   b. Limited or otherwise abnormal         development of expressive language. 
                                    variation in pitch, intensity, and                                          
                                    sound production                                                            
2 to attainment of 3\1/2\ years..  a. Most messages are not readily        a. Criteria for Marked Limitation are
                                    intelligible even in context; and       met, and                            
                                   b. Sounds, omissions, distortions, or   b. Gesturing and pointing are used   
                                    phonological patterns, or fluency       most of the time instead of oral    
                                    (rate, rhythm of speech) not typical    expression, and                     
                                    for this group; or significant         c. Intelligibility does not improve  
                                    aberrations in vocal pitch, quality,    even with repetition or models, or  
                                    or intensity                            ability to imitate words is limited.

[[Page 15254]]

                                                                                                                
3\1/2\ to attainment of 5 years..  a. Sounds, omissions, distortions, or   a. Criteria a. and b. for Marked     
                                    phonological patterns, or fluency       Limitation are met, and             
                                    (rate, rhythm of speech) not typical   b. Conversation continues to be      
                                    for this group; or significant          intelligible no more than 1/2 of the
                                    aberrations in vocal pitch, quality,    time despite repetitions and        
                                    or intensity; and                      c. Stimulability for production of   
                                   b. Conversation is intelligible no       sounds is limited, or, ability to   
                                    more than \1/2\ of the time on first    imitate words is limited.           
                                    attempt; and                                                                
                                   c. Intelligibility improves with                                             
                                    repetitions                                                                 
5 years and older................  a. Sounds, omissions, distortions, or   a. Sounds, omissions, distortions, or
                                    phonological patterns, or fluency       phonological patterns, or fluency   
                                    (rate, rhythm of speech) not typical    (rate, rhythm of speech) not typical
                                    for this group; or significant          for this group; or significant      
                                    aberrations in vocal pitch, quality,    aberrations in vocal pitch, quality,
                                    or intensity; and                       or intensity; and                   
                                   b. Conversation is intelligible no      b. Conversation is intelligible no   
                                    more than \1/2\ to \2/3\ of the time    more than \1/2\ of the time despite 
                                    on first attempt; and                   repetitions.                        
                                   c. Intelligibility improves with                                             
                                    repetitions                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 2.--Factors Suggesting That the Duration Requirement Will Be Met
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Neurologically based abnormalities, including--                      
   Oral-motor problems at the volitional level (e.g., ability to
   imitate oral-motor movements is limited); or                         
   Oral-motor problems at the automatic level (e.g., drools     
   profusely, exhibits feeding disorder); or                            
   Oral hypersensitivity (e.g., limited tolerance of different  
   food textures); or                                                   
   Insufficient breath support for speech.                      
2. Hearing abnormalities, including--                                   
   Conductive hearing loss; or                                  
   Sensorineural hearing loss.                                  
3. Structurally based abnormalities, including--                        
   Defect of the oral mechanism (e.g., vocal fold paralysis); or
   Oral-facial abnormality (e.g., cleft lip/palate).            
4. Speech-related behavioral abnormalities, including--                 
   Communication-related physical behaviors that are negative   
   (e.g., grimaces or has excessive eye-blinking during stuttering      
   episodes; gestures, such as slapping a surface, to end stuttering    
   block); or                                                           
   Avoidance of speaking because of speech difficulties.        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ruling is effective March 30, 1998.

    Cross-references: Program Operations Manual System DI 25201.001-
005, DI 25215.005, DI 34001.000, DI 34005.000.

[FR Doc. 98-8135 Filed 3-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-U