Perceptual and acoustic reliability estimates for the Speech Disorders Classification System (SDCS)

Abstract

A companion paper describes three extensions to a classification system for pediatric speech sound disorders termed the Speech Disorders Classification System (SDCS). The SDCS uses perceptual and acoustic data reduction methods to obtain information on a speaker's speech, prosody, and voice. The present paper provides reliability estimates for the two perceptual methods (narrow phonetic transcription; prosody-voice coding) and the acoustic analysis methods the SDCS uses to describe and classify a speaker's speech competence, precision, and stability. Speech samples from 10 speakers, 5 with significant motor speech disorder and 5 with typical speech, were remeasured to estimate intrajudge and interjudge agreement for the perceptual and acoustic methods. Each of the speakers completed five speech tasks (total = 50 datasets), ranging in articulatory difficulty for the speakers, with consequences for the difficulty level of data reduction. Point-to-point percentage of agreement findings for the two perceptual methods were as high or higher than reported in literature reviews and from previous studies conducted within our laboratory. Percentage of agreement findings for the acoustics tasks of segmenting phonemes, editing fundamental frequency tracks, and estimating formants ranged from values in the mid 70% to 100%, with most estimates in the mid 80% to mid 90% range. Findings are interpreted as support for the perceptual and acoustic methods used in the SDCS to describe and classify speakers with speech sound disorders.

An evaluation of the effectiveness of PROMPT therapy in improving speech production accuracy in six children with cerebral palsy

“…An inter-rater agreement of 87% and 91% for accuracy of speech production and motor-speechmovement-parameters respectively, was achieved. These agreement values are within the range deemed " acceptable " for research needs (Shriberg, Fourakis, Hall, Karlsson, Lohmeier, McSweeney, et al, 2010).…”

A Diagnostic Marker to Discriminate Childhood Apraxia of Speech From Speech Delay: I. Development and Description of the Pause Marker

“…The absolute magnitudes of these intrajudge and interjudge reliability estimates are not high, but they are consistent with point-by-point agreement percentages reported for other perceptually based independent and dependent variables in speech development and SSD research (e.g., Shriberg & Lof, 1991;Shriberg et al, 2010b). Tilkens et al (2017) included a summary of findings from a study series to identify acoustic correlates of abrupt inappropriate pauses.…”

“…All data reduction and analyses are completed in the PEPPER (Programs to Examine Phonetic and Phonologic Evaluation Records; Shriberg et al, 2010a) environment. Shriberg et al (2010b) reported findings from a series of reliability estimates for each of the transcription, prosody-voice coding, and acoustic data reduction methods. As described in Part II, PM scores and scores for two of the three SPMS signs (slow articulatory rate, inappropriate sentential stress) are obtained from eligible utterances from the MSAP's continuous speech sample.…”

“…The Finalized Version of the SDCS As described previously, the SDCS uses standardized measures and indices to profile a speaker's competence, precision, and stability of speech, prosody, and voice (Shriberg et al, 2010a(Shriberg et al, , 2010b. Perceptual and acoustic data analyses in the present study used the methods in these articles and additional reference databases of speakers with typical speech and SD to study genetic and neurodevelopmental substrates of pediatric speech and MSD (e.g., Laffin et al, 2012;Peter et al, 2016;Raca et al, 2013;Rice et al;Shriberg, Paul, Black, & van Santen, 2011;Shriberg, Potter, & Strand, 2011;Worthey et al, 2013).…”

A Diagnostic Marker to Discriminate Childhood Apraxia of Speech From Speech Delay: III. Theoretical Coherence of the Pause Marker with Speech Processing Deficits in Childhood Apraxia of Speech

“…Table 5 includes findings for four measures of the precision and stability of participants' articulation during continuous speech that are presumed to quantify transcoding deficits. The first variable in Table 5, termed the PSI, includes 32 signs of precision and stability assessed using a system of narrow phonetic diacritics (Shriberg & Kent, 2013) and procedures for acoustic analyses (Shriberg et al, 2010a(Shriberg et al, , 2010b. As described briefly in PM I and in more detail elsewhere , the PSI was developed as a measure to identify and quantify the MSD in Figure 1 termed MSD-Not Otherwise Specified.…”