Comparison of Procedures For Scaling Severity of Stuttering

Cullinan, Walter L.; Prather, Elizabeth M.; Williams, Dean E.

doi:10.1044/jshr.0602.187

Cited by 36 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Results demonstrated, at best, only moderate reliability for use of the LC scale with stuttering clients. This result is surprising when compared with the study by Cullinan et al (1963). When they assessed the easinessto-listen-to of 20-s samples as rated by unsophisticated listeners on a 7-point scale, their interjudge reliability coefficient was relatively high (.72) compared to that obtained in this study (.42).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…An intrajudge reliability coefficient was also calculated for these two groups of listeners using the method described by Cullinan et al (1963). For the Listener Comfort Scale, the intrajudge reliability coefficient was .79 and for the Speech Naturalness Scale .78.…”

Section: Analysis Of Variance (Anova) For the Pretreatment And Posttrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another early study (Cullinan, Prather, & Williams, 1963) assessed the concept of easiness-to-listen-to, however, this was only in relation to pretreatment stuttering severity. The authors' interest was not to develop a tool to measure the social validity of treatment outcomes but to compare different methods of evaluating pretreatment stuttering severity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is Listener Comfort a Viable Construct in Stuttering Research?

O’Brian¹,

Packman²,

Onslow³

et al. 2003

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports the development of a tool for measuring how comfortable a person feels when communicating with someone who has undergone treatment for stuttering. The person rates the speaker on a 9-point Listener Comfort Scale (9 = extremely comfortable, 1 = extremely uncomfortable). In a preliminary investigation of the reliability and validity of the scale, 15 unsophisticated listeners rated video recordings of 10 adults before and after a prolonged-speech treatment for stuttering and of 10 matched controls. The results were compared with those of another 15 listeners who rated the same recordings with the widely used 9-point Speech Naturalness Scale (R. R. Martin, S. K. Haroldson, & K. A. Triden, 1984). Results showed that reliability of the Speech Naturalness Scale was superior to the Listener Comfort Scale, although users of both scales were able to distinguish between pretreatment speech, posttreatment speech, and the speech of controls. The results suggest that the Listener Comfort Scale captures information that is somewhat different than the information captured by the Speech Naturalness Scale. The authors concluded that the concept of listener comfort is a potentially useful additional way of investigating the social validity of behavioral treatments for stuttering.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis Of Variance (Anova) For the Pretreatment And Posttrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is Listener Comfort a Viable Construct in Stuttering Research?

O’Brian¹,

Packman²,

Onslow³

et al. 2003

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There have been suggestions to use the mean of group stuttering severity ratings dating from as early as the 1960s (e.g., Cullinan, Prather, & Williams, 1963;Martin, Haroldson, & Woessner, 1988;Young, 1969aYoung, , 1969bYoung, , 1970. There have been suggestions to use the mean of group stuttering severity ratings dating from as early as the 1960s (e.g., Cullinan, Prather, & Williams, 1963;Martin, Haroldson, & Woessner, 1988;Young, 1969aYoung, , 1969bYoung, , 1970.…”

Section: Post Hoc Interjudge Reliability Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Absolute and Relative Reliability of Percentage of Syllables Stuttered and Severity Rating Scales

Karimi

O’Brian

Onslow

et al. 2014

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research has shown that listeners often disagree with one another in their ratings of voice quality ͑e.g., Cullinan et al, 1963;Ludlow, 1981;Webb et al, 2003; see Kreiman et al, 1993, for review͒, and suggests that these disagreements are the result of the methods used to gather ratings and not of flawed or inconsistent perceptual abilities ͑e.g., Gerratt and Kreiman, 2001; Kreiman and Gerratt, 2005͒. Ideally, measurement protocols for assessing voice quality should control all the known sources of irrelevant or unwanted variability in listeners' responses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When and why listeners disagree in voice quality assessment tasks

Kreiman

Gerratt

Ito

2007

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

149

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modeling sources of listener variability in voice quality assessment is the first step in developing reliable, valid protocols for measuring quality, and provides insight into the reasons that listeners disagree in their quality assessments. This study examined the adequacy of one such model by quantifying the contributions of four factors to interrater variability: instability of listeners' internal standards for different qualities, difficulties isolating individual attributes in voice patterns, scale resolution, and the magnitude of the attribute being measured. One hundred twenty listeners in six experiments assessed vocal quality in tasks that differed in scale resolution, in the presence/absence of comparison stimuli, and in the extent to which the comparison stimuli (if present) matched the target voices. These factors accounted for 84.2% of the variance in the likelihood that listeners would agree exactly in their assessments. Providing listeners with comparison stimuli that matched the target voices doubled the likelihood that they would agree exactly. Listeners also agreed significantly better when assessing quality on continuous versus six-point scales. These results indicate that interrater variability is an issue of task design, not of listener unreliability.

show abstract

Comparison of Procedures For Scaling Severity of Stuttering

Cited by 36 publications

References 0 publications

Is Listener Comfort a Viable Construct in Stuttering Research?

Is Listener Comfort a Viable Construct in Stuttering Research?

Absolute and Relative Reliability of Percentage of Syllables Stuttered and Severity Rating Scales

When and why listeners disagree in voice quality assessment tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About