Interpretation of speech science measures.

Clinics in communication disorders Pub Date : 1993-01-01
L I Shuster
{"title":"Interpretation of speech science measures.","authors":"L I Shuster","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There are a variety of objective measures that can aid in diagnosis, selection of goals for therapy, and measurement of progress. Much of the instrumentation that is necessary to perform these measures is available for use in microcomputers, so it is within the budgets of most clinics and school systems. Although the measures described above are objective, the clinician must be cautious in their interpretation. A number of these measures are maximum performance tests of speech. Kent, Kent, and Rosenbek (1987) note that the database on these types of measurements is inadequate. In addition, performance is highly variable and dependent on factors such as client motivation, instructions provided, and whether the client is given practice first. For this reason, the clinician must consider standard deviations as well as means when using the normative data. The preceding review is not intended to be exhaustive, nor is it intended to provide enough information for clinicians to be able to perform these measurements. The intent is to describe the potential clinical utility of the measures and to spark the interest of clinicians so they will persue the matter further. It is also not the intent of this article to encourage clinicians to stop using perceptual judgments in the clinic. Pannbacker and Middleton (1990) advocate the use of both perceptual and objective measures in assessing velopharyngeal insufficiency; however, these combined measures should be considered in the diagnosis of any speech disorder. Ultimately, it is the degree to which speech sounds deviant to a naive listener that determines whether an individual's speech is a problem.</p>","PeriodicalId":77075,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in communication disorders","volume":"3 3","pages":"26-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in communication disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are a variety of objective measures that can aid in diagnosis, selection of goals for therapy, and measurement of progress. Much of the instrumentation that is necessary to perform these measures is available for use in microcomputers, so it is within the budgets of most clinics and school systems. Although the measures described above are objective, the clinician must be cautious in their interpretation. A number of these measures are maximum performance tests of speech. Kent, Kent, and Rosenbek (1987) note that the database on these types of measurements is inadequate. In addition, performance is highly variable and dependent on factors such as client motivation, instructions provided, and whether the client is given practice first. For this reason, the clinician must consider standard deviations as well as means when using the normative data. The preceding review is not intended to be exhaustive, nor is it intended to provide enough information for clinicians to be able to perform these measurements. The intent is to describe the potential clinical utility of the measures and to spark the interest of clinicians so they will persue the matter further. It is also not the intent of this article to encourage clinicians to stop using perceptual judgments in the clinic. Pannbacker and Middleton (1990) advocate the use of both perceptual and objective measures in assessing velopharyngeal insufficiency; however, these combined measures should be considered in the diagnosis of any speech disorder. Ultimately, it is the degree to which speech sounds deviant to a naive listener that determines whether an individual's speech is a problem.

语言科学措施的解释。
有各种各样的客观测量可以帮助诊断、选择治疗目标和测量进展。执行这些措施所需的许多仪器都可以在微型计算机中使用,因此在大多数诊所和学校系统的预算范围内。虽然上述措施是客观的,但临床医生在解释时必须谨慎。其中一些测试是对语言的最大表现测试。Kent, Kent和Rosenbek(1987)指出,这些测量类型的数据库是不充分的。此外,绩效是高度可变的,取决于客户动机、提供的指导以及客户是否首先得到练习等因素。因此,临床医生在使用规范数据时,不仅要考虑均值,还要考虑标准差。前面的综述并不打算详尽无遗,也不打算为临床医生提供足够的信息来进行这些测量。目的是描述这些措施的潜在临床效用,并激发临床医生的兴趣,以便他们进一步研究此事。这篇文章的目的也不是鼓励临床医生在临床中停止使用感性判断。Pannbacker和Middleton(1990)主张在评估腭咽功能不全时同时使用感知和客观测量;然而,在任何言语障碍的诊断中都应该考虑这些综合措施。最终,决定一个人的讲话是否有问题的,是他的讲话在天真的听者听起来偏离正常的程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信