Mary A. Hardin-Jones , Ann E. Dahill , Libby Heimbaugh , Adriane Baylis , Caitlin Cummings , Kathy L. Chapman , On behalf of the Cleft Outcomes Research NETwork (CORNET) Consortium
{"title":"使用改良自然实时倾听(NLRT)获得的辅音清单与家长报告之间的对应关系","authors":"Mary A. Hardin-Jones , Ann E. Dahill , Libby Heimbaugh , Adriane Baylis , Caitlin Cummings , Kathy L. Chapman , On behalf of the Cleft Outcomes Research NETwork (CORNET) Consortium","doi":"10.1016/j.jcomdis.2024.106417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The current study examined the correspondence between consonant inventories obtained using the modified NLRT approach and parent report.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Prospective comparative study.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Multisite institutional.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>Participants included 70 children with repaired CP + L (mean age = 16 months) who were participating in the multicenter study.</p></div><div><h3>Procedures</h3><p>Parents of participants were asked to record approximately two hours of their child's vocalizations/words at home using a Language ENvironmental Analysis (LENA<sup>TM</sup>) recorder. Four ten-minute audio-recorded samples of vocalizations were extracted from the original recording for each participant and analyzed for size of consonant inventory. Parent reported consonant inventory was compared to coder identified consonant inventory. Coders identified an in-inventory consonant using two different criteria: 2+ tokens of each consonant were required in the first analysis and 10+ tokens of each consonant were required in the second analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Coder identified consonant inventory was larger (mean = 7.90) than that reported by parents (mean = 6.06) when a minimum of two tokens per consonant was required for inclusion of a consonant in inventory, while the inventory transcribed by coders was smaller (mean = 4.46) than that reported by parents when inclusion criteria required a minimum of ten tokens per consonant.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Although the mean number of consonants in inventory between coders and parents was slightly closer using the 10+ versus 2+ criterion for consonant inclusion, the difference was not significant enough to recommend one protocol over the other.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49175,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication Disorders","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 106417"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Correspondence between consonant inventories obtained using modified naturalistic listening in real time (NLRT) and parent report\",\"authors\":\"Mary A. Hardin-Jones , Ann E. Dahill , Libby Heimbaugh , Adriane Baylis , Caitlin Cummings , Kathy L. Chapman , On behalf of the Cleft Outcomes Research NETwork (CORNET) Consortium\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcomdis.2024.106417\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The current study examined the correspondence between consonant inventories obtained using the modified NLRT approach and parent report.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Prospective comparative study.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Multisite institutional.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>Participants included 70 children with repaired CP + L (mean age = 16 months) who were participating in the multicenter study.</p></div><div><h3>Procedures</h3><p>Parents of participants were asked to record approximately two hours of their child's vocalizations/words at home using a Language ENvironmental Analysis (LENA<sup>TM</sup>) recorder. Four ten-minute audio-recorded samples of vocalizations were extracted from the original recording for each participant and analyzed for size of consonant inventory. Parent reported consonant inventory was compared to coder identified consonant inventory. Coders identified an in-inventory consonant using two different criteria: 2+ tokens of each consonant were required in the first analysis and 10+ tokens of each consonant were required in the second analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Coder identified consonant inventory was larger (mean = 7.90) than that reported by parents (mean = 6.06) when a minimum of two tokens per consonant was required for inclusion of a consonant in inventory, while the inventory transcribed by coders was smaller (mean = 4.46) than that reported by parents when inclusion criteria required a minimum of ten tokens per consonant.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Although the mean number of consonants in inventory between coders and parents was slightly closer using the 10+ versus 2+ criterion for consonant inclusion, the difference was not significant enough to recommend one protocol over the other.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49175,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Communication Disorders\",\"volume\":\"108 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106417\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Communication Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021992424000133\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021992424000133","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Correspondence between consonant inventories obtained using modified naturalistic listening in real time (NLRT) and parent report
Objective
The current study examined the correspondence between consonant inventories obtained using the modified NLRT approach and parent report.
Design
Prospective comparative study.
Setting
Multisite institutional.
Participants
Participants included 70 children with repaired CP + L (mean age = 16 months) who were participating in the multicenter study.
Procedures
Parents of participants were asked to record approximately two hours of their child's vocalizations/words at home using a Language ENvironmental Analysis (LENATM) recorder. Four ten-minute audio-recorded samples of vocalizations were extracted from the original recording for each participant and analyzed for size of consonant inventory. Parent reported consonant inventory was compared to coder identified consonant inventory. Coders identified an in-inventory consonant using two different criteria: 2+ tokens of each consonant were required in the first analysis and 10+ tokens of each consonant were required in the second analysis.
Results
Coder identified consonant inventory was larger (mean = 7.90) than that reported by parents (mean = 6.06) when a minimum of two tokens per consonant was required for inclusion of a consonant in inventory, while the inventory transcribed by coders was smaller (mean = 4.46) than that reported by parents when inclusion criteria required a minimum of ten tokens per consonant.
Conclusions
Although the mean number of consonants in inventory between coders and parents was slightly closer using the 10+ versus 2+ criterion for consonant inclusion, the difference was not significant enough to recommend one protocol over the other.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Communication Disorders publishes original articles on topics related to disorders of speech, language and hearing. Authors are encouraged to submit reports of experimental or descriptive investigations (research articles), review articles, tutorials or discussion papers, or letters to the editor ("short communications"). Please note that we do not accept case studies unless they conform to the principles of single-subject experimental design. Special issues are published periodically on timely and clinically relevant topics.