According to Baker (2010), the minimal pair approach is one of the most popular and oldest phonological interventions. As an SLP, you are likely familiar with the minimal pairs approach for a way to treat phonological processes (e.g. fronting, backing, stopping etc.). However, what exactly is it? How does one implement it? and what is the evidence backing it?

What is a minimal pair?

Pairs of words that differ by one phoneme (e.g. bat – bad, go – dough) which alters the meaning of the word is referred to as a “minimal pair” (Barlow & Gierut, 2002).

How do you carry-out this approach?

Firstly, there are two ways the approach can be implemented: the first is called “meaningful minimal pair intervention” and the second is called “perception-production minimal pair approach.” In this post I am discussing the “meaningful minimal pair intervention” (Blache, Parsons, and Humphreys, 1981; Weiner, 1981).

This intervention approach has three steps. The first two steps are completed in the first session and the third step begins in the first session and continues on into subsequent sessions (McLeod & Baker, 2017).

Familiarization. Familiarization involves familiarizing the child with the 10 pictures that will be used during the sessions. For example, as per McLeod and Baker (2010), word pairings could include cape-tape, key-tea, call-tall, corn-torn, and kick-tick. The child is then shown each picture, told the picture’s label (e.g. “This is tape.”), told the initial sound of each picture, and told details about the picture (e.g. “Teachers use tape.”).
Listen and pick up. The next step is “listen and pick up,” which involves the clinician spreading out the pictures on the table. The child is then asked to pick them up one at a time (e.g. “Pick up tea.”) until they have accurately picked up all 10 pictures.
Production. The final step is “production of minimal pair words” where the child takes a turn being the “teacher.” The child then instructs the clinician or parent on which word to pick up. The word should be picked up, regardless if they meant to produce that word or not. For example, if they say “tape” the clinician or parent is to pick up the tape. If the child responds with, “No the tape!” then both are to be picked up and the clinician can ask, “Do you mean tape or cape”? The activity continues on with instructions and additional cues (e.g. visual, phonetic cues) as required (McLeod & Baker, 2017).

What is the evidence like for this approach?

There is a large body of evidence for the minimal pair approach as it has been present since the 1980s (McLeod & Baker, 2017). McLeod and Baker (2011) present a review of 134 studies on phonological interventions with 43 of them being studies on the minimal pair approach (McLeod & Baker, 2017). The review ultimately shows the minimal pair approach to be quite effective.

Therapy example: Fronting

A common phonological process children with a phonological disorder may exhibit is called “fronting" which is when sounds that should be produced in the back of their mouth (e.g. k, g) are fronted and produced at the front of their mouth (e.g. t, d). For example, a child who fronts may say “tat” for “cat” or “do” for “go.” Print pictures of the words below and use them as explained above.
Examples of words for this process are:
- g becomes d:
  - go-dough, gate-date, gear-deer, gown-down, gave-Dave
- k becomes t:
  - cape-tape, key-tea, call-tall, corn-torn, and cake-take

-S

References

Baker, E. (2010). Minimal pair intervention. In A.L. Williams, S. McLeod & R.J. McCauley (Eds.), Interventions for speech sound disorders in children (pp. 41-72). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Barlow, J.A., & Gierut, J.A. (2002). Minimal pair approaches to phonological remediation. Seminars in Speech and Language, 23(1), 57-67.

Blache, S.E., Parsons, C.L., & Humphreys, J.M. (1981). A minimal-word-pair model for teaching the linguistic significant difference of distinctive feature properties. Journdal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 291-296.

McLeod, S., & Baker, E. (2016). Children's speech: An evidence-based approach to assessment and intervention. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Weiner, F.F. (1981). Treatment of phonological disability using the method of meaningful minimal contrast: Two case studies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 97-103.