4.3 Article

Assessment of intelligibility using children's spontaneous speech: methodological aspects

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1460-6984.12067

关键词

children; PCC; continuous speech; speech disorder; intelligibility; spontaneous speech

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [2010-2131]
  2. Petter Silfverskiold Memorial Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Intelligibility is a speaker's ability to convey a message to a listener. Including an assessment of intelligibility is essential in both research and clinical work relating to individuals with communication disorders due to speech impairment. Assessment of the intelligibility of spontaneous speech can be used as an overall indicator of the severity of a speech disorder. There is a lack of methods for measuring intelligibility on the basis of spontaneous speech. Aims To investigate the validity and reliability of a method where listeners transcribe understandable words and an intelligibility score is calculated on the basis of the percentage of syllables perceived as understood. Methods & Procedures Spontaneous speech from ten children with speech-sound disorders (mean age = 6.0 years) and ten children with typical speech and language development (mean age = 5.9 years) was recorded and presented to 20 listeners. Results were compared between the two groups and correlation with percentage of consonants correct (PCC) was examined. Outcomes & Results The intelligibility scores obtained correlated with PCC in single words and differed significantly between the two groups, indicating high validity. Inter-judge reliability, analysed using intra-class correlation (ICC), was excellent in terms of the average measure for several listeners. Conclusions & Implications The results suggest that this method can be recommended for assessing intelligibility, especially if the mean across several listeners is used. It could also be used in clinical settings when evaluating intelligibility over time, provided that the same listener makes the assessments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据